Total posts: 5,754
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is an explanation of airmax's policies and I have no doubt he can achieve this more easily than you, which is why you are trying to ignore this thread
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
So your claim is corporations are not in the business of making money?
Or is your assertion that they are altruistic and would never ever engage in social engineering to increase profits?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your platform is uniform policies so they can be evenly enforced. Is this your response to this post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
They should send 5% of their money to help guys with conversion therapy or conversion therapy alternatives
Created:
Posted in:
People cannot help that they were brainwashed. Fuck off with your victim blaming of homosexuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Read the op again. Who did I blame for the problem.
I mostly blamed corporations. Second as a more minor contributor I blamed Russia and China. Take nootropics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm sure people open this thread and think 'yes, I want to sign up to DART to debate with intellectuals'.
The first set of premises for the gaming of America. Please address the argument, if you are saying it is wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Whether or not I like snorting coke off of a gay hookedr, really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
You actually got me thinking about why americans want to cut their dick off. I figured out the reason. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7188-why-the-gaying-of-society-is-happening
It's a red pill I was not expecting
Created:
-->
@Castin
I haven't in fact stated that. I do think there are members who stay there exclusively and it has a unique culture, independent of the rest of the site. I was listing reasons not justification for your experience being different on DDO, when you described a wild west type atmosphere.
With that said. I don't care how the religion forum is moderated, and I do think it should be how the majority of people in that section want to be moderated
Created:
Posted in:
The gaying of society is the fault of capitalism entirely. We need a more socialist movement for right wing Americans. Some combination of nationalism and socialism to defeat the corporatocracy . Maybe even an a nationalist socialist American workers party. To understand the reason for the gaying of America, you need to understand two things.
1. Corporations want to increase profit as much as possible
2. Women control 85% of household spending https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/
Men are simple. I buy beer, work and pay bills. That's it. My wife spends the rest of my money. What happens if a corporation can gayify me though? I would automatically start spending more money, by buying anal bleach and dressing all gay.
But in reality, gay is a gateway drug to tranny. The real goal is to convince the homosexual to cut his penis off, so he can become a woman and start spending as much as women do.
If you are wondering why corporations are pushing the gayification of America, just look at how much the gay trannies spend.
You'd be wrong in assuming it's just corporations gaying up America. Who else wants America all gay up? The answer is Russia and China. Nobody is scared of an army of guys who cut their penises off. The russian and chinese armies when they face us, want to fight a bunch of effiminate lady boys as opposed to rugged men, such as myself. I can't blame them. I usually fair better against girls in fights as well.
If you do happen to be gay, don't despair. There is help out there for you. Don't let your country down. Don't be gay. https://christianlifemagazine.org/article/benefits-of-conversion-therapy/
Created:
-->
@Castin
"Are Blacks the Worst Debaters?" debate until you started calling your opponent Kunta Kinte and demanding he call you "master."
That was a low IQ move and egregious. It wasn't an insult and took place within a debate which allowed judges the opportunity to punish me. That was near the line that shouldn't be crossed, but not over it.
I am not specifically talking about Mesmer here, though her ban was ridiculous. All of her bans. Check out the thread I posted with the COC that Airmax wrote up. He specifically mentioned in his COC, precisely where the line is and it is a COC that was arrived at through trial and error on another debate site where there was a similar evolution in modding, from overly aggressive to just right.
Granted the religion forum was the wild west and went too far, and you are judging the modding practices entirely on your experience in the religion forum, which generally despised any mod interference, had a different culture than the rest of the site and was generally resistant to moderation. I don't like the religion forum culture and usually avoid that section, but it is the culture they wanted. Serious religious discussion can and should go in the philosophy forum anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
"How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6?" Cruz asked.
Sanborn said in response that she could not discuss "the specifics of sources and methods" of the FBI.
Cruz then broadened his question by asking if any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot.
"Sir, I can’t answer that," she said.
Cruz then asked if any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6. When he received the same answer, he asked if any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6.
"Sir, I can’t answer that."
Cruz then brought up Ray Epps, who was seen on video the day before the riot, telling a crowd, "Tomorrow, we need to get into the Capitol! Into the Capitol!" The crowd responded by shouting, "Fed! Fed! Fed!" at him.
Epps, later claimed that he was not encouraging wrongdoing.
"The only thing that meant is we would go in the doors like everyone else. It was totally, totally wrong the way they went in," he told the Arizona Republic.
"Miss Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?" Cruz asked.
"Sir, I cannot answer that question," Sanborn replied.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I've only ever seen them ban people for violating the CoC. If you think the CoC should be changed, they have an avenue of appeal for that. But this whole idea that the mods are Big Brother controlling your thoughts or exiling people for dissenting opinion is bullshit as far as I can tell.
This set of mods has improved, but yes there are people banned for debating controversial opinions in the forums. Regardless of what you think, it's dumb to ban somebody on a debate site for having a controversial opinion.
The COC should be changed, but it has been intentionally misinterpreted by previous mods as well, to justify their agenda of shutting down free speech
Created:
-->
@Vader
5 letter posts and up in this thread please
Created:
-->
@Castin
They literally banned people here for wrong think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I’ve actually been trying to figure out now for a while what causes people to pick a specific “side” to begin with and I’ve pretty much got nothing, other than some inherent personality differences
Uncle Ted in his manifesto explained this quite well. When liberals protest it is out of a sense of emptiness they need to fulfill. Ted explains it better, but their activism is not because they even believe in their own cause, but as an attempt to feel important and worthy. I don't know his opinion On right wing activists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
And then you got dudes chopping off their dicks
With how liberal European nations are, I just assumed it was a worse problem outside of the United States.
Created:
-->
@Castin
You might be able to get a feel for his moderating approach in this thread, though he is running for president not moderator
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, I guess that's more fun anyway
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
@MarkWebberFan
respond please.
Created:
end
Created:
MERE INSULT
A step below even the Ad Hominem fallacy in
terms of argument: Simple unjustified insult. "Stupidity"
is not something that can be objectively justified. Nor can other
insults with subjective meaning. (A**hole, etc.) Some things which
may be insulting can be justified. "You are saying something
dishonest" can be justified objectively, by demonstrating
dishonesty. If it isn't justified, though, then it becomes a mere
insult. Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is
not.
Slurs against an entire class of people (such as
racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious,
political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults. Disagreement
over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults
are personal attacks. They are not tolerated.
(Ex.:
"You're an a****le", " You f**")
AD
HOMINEM
Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad
hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of.
Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem.
Ad hominem
attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every
statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad
hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny
cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem.
Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a
politician, would be. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks. They
are not tolerated.
(Ex.: "Well, you're a cop, so your
opinion is wrong")
CROSS-THREAD
CONTAMINATION
Another kind of personal attack is where a
member with whom you've had heated exchanges in the past posts
something unrelated, and you feel the need to bring up their actions
there against them. Unrelated discussions are just that. Sometimes
new discussions do directly relate to the old ones. Then, it may be
acceptable to bring up the old ones. Otherwise, if it's not related
to the current discussion, it's just you attacking them to attack.
That doesn't help the current discussion/debate--it only hinders it.
Comment on the arguments presented, and the way they're being
presented. Not about the member or your own general opinions of
them.
Treat every new exchange with a member with as much
of a "clean slate" as possible.
Cross-thread
contamination is a personal attack. It is not tolerated.
(Ex.:
In a forum about the relative tastiness of cheeses, User A opines
that smoked gouda is by far his favorite. User B says "Yeah,
smoked gouda is delicious. But you think that leveraged buyouts are
legitimate uses of corporate financing, so your opinion is
worthless!")
ACCUSATIONS AND THREATS
Accusing
a member of misconduct (such as votebombing) is serious. Obviously,
misconduct is bad. But likewise, baseless accusations are bad.
If
you're going to accuse a member of something, remember that serious
accusations require serious evidence. Egregious misconduct of the
kind likely to warrant immediate banning should be reported to
airmax1227, rather than complained about in the forums. However, if
you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote
bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually
have cause to make the accusation. Without that evidence, an
accusation is as stifling to discussion as a threat.
It
should be noted that, even with a justified accusation, stating what
consequences will result would be a threat. Which brings us to
threats.
Threats are, for the purposes of this policy,
personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are
not limited to):
- Threats of legal action. This should be
self explanatory.
- Threats of violence (even oblique
ones). This should also be self-evident.
- Threats of
"Doxxing" someone, or exposing a user's real-life persona.
Particularly if the threat implies exposing the user to political,
religious or other persecution. It's not doxxing if it's information
they have provided. It is if they have not.
- Threats of
moderator reporting or action. If you are not a moderator,
threatening someone with moderator action is, first and foremost, an
empty threat. More than that, though, it's a threat intended
specifically to cut off the discussion at hand. If you really have a
reason to report someone to a moderator, do so. Do not threaten to do
so.
(Ex.: "I'm going to hunt you down and break your
legs", "I'm gonna get you banned for this!")
INSTIGATION,
RETALIATION, AND "FIGHTING WORDS"
As previously
noted, instigation of a personal attack will not be tolerated.
Neither will retaliation for a personal attack. Report attacks to
airmax. It can be difficult to not respond when you've been
personally attacked or abused. But you should not take it upon
yourself to reply in kind. Airmax is the moderator. It is his job to
intervene and ensure no one is getting attacked or abused. Help him
do his job by reporting any you receive, and understand that he will
investigate and act accordingly.
"Fighting words"
are posts intended solely to provoke or belittle. They're essentially
a form of bullying. Even if you've avoided the specific use of an
insult, if you post a diatribe intended solely to make someone feel
bad, you're going against the goal of the site. If you're getting in
the way of that goal, even if you're technically keeping your hands
clean, expect to have a conversation on the subject with
airmax.
CONCLUSION & THE "JUST KIDDING"
EXEMPTION
The above examples are not an exhaustive list.
Just as there are many forms of personal interaction in general,
personal attacks can take many forms. While not every negative thing
said to you is a personal attack, if you believe you've been
attacked, contact airmax1227. In the interests of allowing as much
exchange of ideas as possible, moderator intervention is primarily
initiated when a member contacts a moderator about an issue. In some
cases, for the good of the site, a moderator may step in even when no
complaint has been made.
It cannot be said often enough
that the goal is the fostering of debate and discussion of ideas.
Please keep that in mind in every post you make. If you know that
what you're saying will stifle that, reconsider. Remember that you
don't have to comment on everything you have an opinion on. If your
opinion is just a mere insult, then it would be better for you to not
voice it.
When in doubt, simply comment on the content
without referring to its user at all.
And always remember
that the internet is a primarily text-based medium; tone of voice
doesn't always come through. If you meant to be kidding, but the
person you were joking with didn't "get it", trying to say
"I was just kidding" isn't going to be a sufficient
defense.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Created:
3ru7al has
the following platform
“My
platform - any and all code-of-conduct enforcement should be
uniform - regardless of the individual being considered and
regardless of where they posted”
creating a uniform code of
conduct is something airmax is familiar with doing and has done. He
also has enough of a prior relationship with the mods to be able to
influence them deeply to adopt a uniform policy he created. I am
posting his code of conduct from debate.org below. If 3ru7al wants a
uniform code of conduct, he should drop out and endorse the guy who
not only has created one, but who has the ability to make that code
of conduct a reality.
If 3ru7al is Going to stay in the race, I challenge him to
create the uniform code he wants to see adopted.
My guess is that not only will it pale in comparison to the one
listed below, but that his uniform code of conduct will be less
likely to be adopted than Airmax’s one, which I’m sure he is
willing to update, to remove even more ambiguity, not that there is
much of it.
Extended Code of Conduct for Debate.org (DDO)
1.
Definitions
1.1 Terms of Use. The rules agreed to by
members as a condition of membership, given at http://www.debate.org.............
Sometimes referred to as terms of service [TOS].
1.2
Trolling. Use of inflammatory language, personal attacks, or extreme
and unsupported claims aimed at provoking emotional response rather
than debate.
1.3 Vote bombing. Abuse of DDO voting
privileges by awarding points to a debater for reasons unrelated to
the arguments or evidence presented in the debate.
1.4
Moderator. A person granted authority by the site owners to enforce
the rule of the site.
2. Scope
2.1 If there is
any conflict between this document and the Terms of Use, the Terms of
Use takes precedence.
2.2 This document establishes
trolling and vote bombing as offenses punishable by a Moderator or
through trial.
2.3 This document establishes the
procedures for holding trials of members in cases where violations of
the rules as judged by a Moderator are for any reason unclear. Trials
are at the sole discretion of a Moderator, and the provision of the
Terms of Use whereby members may lose membership privileges is
unchanged.
2.4 The Moderator retains the ability to remove
a member or restrict privileges without benefit of a trial.
3.
Warnings
3.1 The Moderator shall issue warnings to members
upon observing patterns of their apparent trolling or vote bombing.
The forum post, debate, or debate comment exhibiting the offense
shall be cited in the warning. The member may choose to respond with
a defense of the behavior.
3.2 The warning shall advise
the member that repeating the offense may result in loss of
membership privileges.
3.3 If an offense is repeated after
the member has received a relevant warning, the member may be
subjected to, at the option of the Moderator, revocation of
membership privileges or subjecting the member to DDO trial.
4.
Trials
4.1 The member shall be notified in advance of the
trial.
4.2 The Moderator shall appoint a prosecution
team.
4.3 The accused member may select a defense team or
request that the Moderator solicit a defense team.
4.4 The
Moderator shall establish accounts for prosecution and defense for
the trial, which will be conducted as a DDO debate. The trial debate
shall be four rounds of 8000 characters with a three day response
period. The voting period shall be two weeks.
4.5 The
Prosecution shall prepare charges and post the charges with links to
supporting evidence as a challenge to the Defense. No new charges or
evidence of offenses may be introduced after the challenge. The
Prosecution may, however, post additional evidence in rebuttal to
defense claims.
4.6 All members having voting privileges
may vote on the trial debate.
4.6.1 At the option of the
Moderator, the Moderator may appoint a jury prior to the start of the
trial and announce that the verdict will be determined by the vote of
the jurors alone. If a jury is appointed there shall be either three,
five, or seven jurors. Each juror shall have participated in at least
ten debates. The jury may consider the membership vote in making
their decision, but are not bound by it.
4.6.2 The
standard for voting for the Prosecution is that the charges have been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not any
doubt, but rather the doubt that a reasonable person would have given
the evidence of the trial.
4.6.3 Voters shall be
instructed in the Prosecutors' R1 that they may vote up to all seven
votes for the prosecution or the defense.
4.6.4 Voters
finding the defendant guilty may use the RFD to recommend a
suspension of privileges rather than permanent loss, and they shall
be advised of this by the Prosecutors in R1.
4.6.5 The
Moderator shall comply with the result of the trial. If a guilty
verdict is found, the Moderator shall select the level of
punishment.
4.6.6 The Moderator shall act as judge in
ruling upon trial procedures.
....
Personal
Attacks Policy
TL;DR: Personal attacks serve no
purpose and only harm what we are trying to foster on this site. They
will no longer be tolerated. This policy will take place site
wide--In debates, forums, polls, opinions, and everywhere else. Do
not make personal attacks, or there will be consequences.
ON
PERSONAL ATTACKS
This is a website of heated exchanges.
Yet it should also be a place where all users can feel comfortable--a
space where they can be free of personal attack. But on a website of
such variety of ideology, and that's intended to foster debate, it's
worth spending some time explaining what that means in our
context.
Personal attacks have always been against the
TOS. However, there has not been an extended discussion on what,
exactly, is a personal attack for the purposes of the site. Recently,
it has become apparent that that discussion is necessary.
The
following is an explanation of the sorts of things that are not
allowed on DDO, in order to keep this a place that fosters debate and
discussion. Expect this to be followed moving forward. This policy
will take place site wide, including in debates, forums, polls, and
opinions. If you have made personal attacks, stop doing so. If you
were thinking about making a personal attack, don't.
INTRODUCTION
A
personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything
directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only
would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and
debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could
be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack".
You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally.
But that's not what's intended by the policy.
The goal is
to foster debate, and allow for even heated debate and exchange of
ideas, without allowing abuse and unwarranted attack.
Instigation
of a personal attack will, of course, face a harsher penalty than
reciprocating against one. But understand that the latter is not off
the hook.
The only appropriate responses to personal
attack are: taking the high ground and replying to it without a
personal attack, ignoring it, or reporting it.
Violations
of this policy may or may not include a warning--and scale quickly
from that, to a suspension, up to even a permanent ban. Airmax is the
final arbiter of the policy.
A personal attack can take
several different common forms. There is some overlap between them,
but it may be helpful to specifically outline a few:
DIRECT
ATTACK
This is where, outside the context of a discussion
on the topic or of behavior in the course of that discussion, someone
posts something negative about a specific member. Generalized
complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But,
for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and
speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads
will be deleted out of hand.
There is another kind of
direct attack, as well. The kind of post where someone drops in to
just say something like "You're all idiots". While not a
direct personal attack against an individual, it's still a direct
attack against the members on the thread.
There is a very
slim exception to this rule, noted mostly for history's sake. It only
applies to moderators. On occasion, a moderator may initiate a trial
of a member. Only moderators can initiate this process. If you have a
beef with a member being on this site, the appropriate place to bring
it up is with a moderator. In the unlikely event something like a
trial is necessary, they will make that determination.
Direct
attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated.
(Ex.:
A forum post saying "You're an idiot", or a debate with the
resolution "User123 should be kicked off the sit
-----------------------------------------------
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The one where I posted a video of black kids watching a black man drown and laughing at him
Created:
Posted in:
Supa is odd, because he simultaneously claims to like a laissez-faire approach to modding, while he has locked threads on the basis of it "stirring up drama" on several repeated occasions.
So he knows what the greater good is here, and refuses to abide by it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
People that can't figure it out, shouldn't accept any sort of authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Patient safety protocols exist for a reason. You don't violate rules that cause harm, you only violate things where the violation brings more good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
That's exactly why you will be stuck wherever you are in life. Every job I get, I have been promoted within 6 months. One of the biggest reasons is I do what's right and could give a shit less about rules. My bosses noticed that I am effective and refuse to let red tape or bullshit get in the way of me accomplishing big things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You need to pay attention when rivals join together to support people or something. A lot of us were rivals with each other on DDO and we are standing in unison.
Some of us were rivals with max and we are supporting him as well.
This would be like if the American Nazi party and the anti defemation league got together to support a presidential candidate. It should mean that almost everyone gets on board and that what is at stake is bigger than all the other random bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
I did a debate with Roy on DDO that got like 50k views. And for like 5 years I would get random messages from people on Google asking me my thoughts because they were doing a paper for school or college
I can confirm this happens. I Have debates in the 100k range even, and I got messages all the time for people.
I also met people around during historical events I debated like the people on the USS Liberty who freely and randomly reached out to me during a debate with somebody.
These people Don't know what they are missing out on by being in the dark. Their debates have the opportunity to help them meet influential people and if their debates are seen, they have the opportunity to plant a seed that changes the thinking of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If you want to lead a call to action for the next MEEP where we get rid of the call out rule. Feel free to do so. I was able to do as such with RO's and making a more effective system
Just following orders huh?
Those rules literally left the site in ruins, almost destroying it. Now that airmax is back, perhaps it can be saved before it's last dying breath, but literally using the same excuses as the nazis did in nuremburg is not a healthy attitude to have.
Instead of blindly following things that ruined the site and almost destroyed it and carry on David's legacy, please use some common sense and behave ethically in the future
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I just wish thett's poll would capture names of voters so we can have the opportunity to reason with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Anyone not voting airmax was never going to anyway, because they think he is too new (absolutely silly argument, considering his extremely active past on DDO, and immense amount of work put in). Regardless if people wanna stick to a narrative they will.
This is what is bothering me about the people voting for brutal. The only argument they have is familiarity, which is absolutely a brain dead justification for voting for him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you using different phones or something to fake votes for yourself?
I don't think you could name 3 supporters outside of Athias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The suggestion isn't intended to measure you, at least in your capacity as a moderator, against anyone else there. But your mentions about your capacity as moderator there would be like one's mentioning one's management of Enron right up until its bankruptcy, to continue the business analogy.
A lot of Enron employees did a fantastic job, some of them even managers. Why should they be ashamed of something where they proved their skill in whatever department they were working?
I have been in positions where I did a lot of hiring, and I assure you if I were hiring somebody for management, I'd pick an Enron manager who kept his nose clean, faster than a random cynic who happens to be witty.
Created:
-->
@Athias
No. Not all voters and candidates who posted during that time helped create that "acidic drama pool." It was primarily you and Wylted, with some help from Lunatic
Name something I did to make it acidic and post evidence
Created:
-->
@Athias
You admitted else where that you indulged pretenses all for the sake of this election
I actually have no ideal what this means
Created:
-->
@Athias
Brutal's platform is in post 1.
I have read his other threads and that is the maximum effort 3ru7al puts in.
I think we can get an ideal of what type of effort he will put into the presidency. One of his most recent threads he posts links to YouTube with no explanation and hours long in length. LoL
Created:
Posted in:
It's entirely inappropriate to ban somebody for their "mental safety", and it annoyed me that I've heard max say he was tempted to, to protect bornofgod.
Maybe bornofgod should be banned for proselytizing, but for his own safety is an absurd motive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@airmax1227
The site really has to gain the ability to have group messages before mafia will take off here, I think.
Created:
Posted in:
I haven't submitted anything either, but I do enjoy watching people's more u filtered thoughts
Created:
-->
@Athias
your encouraging others to vote for what's essentially an unknown
It would be wise for you to take the effort to learn, because right now out of all 3 candidates. You are supporting the o ly one that would actually be ineffective at creating any positive change
Created:
Posted in:
I was trying to win an election. It might take a while to course correct
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
I think it's perfectly reasonable to support a person for president and have legitimate concerns about the person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Exactly, capitalism that's uncontrolled is self-defeating after all. In such nations, you can't even truly trust the police, you are better off hiring a security firm if you can afford it.
You can't have capitalism without rule of law, for the reason I mentioned. Nigeria is very low on the economic freedom index which measures how capitalistic a country is
Created: