coal

Perhaps, though speedrace has just disqualified himself from holding that title.  Of course he will likely not be removed despite the fact that this site needs at most two mods, but his attitude here is going to create many problems for moderation in the future. 

Your conduct is exceptionally out of line.

When someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are "mad."  While I grant you that tone does not always carry through by way of text, and that interpreting tone is perhaps a difficult thing to do, there is nothing in my comment to you which would suggest or imply that I was "mad."

You ignored every salient point in my post so I presume you aren't paying attention, as well.  Re-read it, and take it to heart.  You, and whoever was involved in locking that thread, was out of line.

I presume that the reason bsh1 selected you as a moderator is because of the fact that you are a child and would be disinclined to challenge him.  Someone like, for example, Wylted or Drafterman who are widely known and respected in the community (much less OreEle or Airmax) would obviously have thoughts of their own, thoughts which bsh1 would have been disinclined to have to contend with.  But, with someone in your situation, you're going to defer to him.  That is not good.

There are certain principals you will realize, with experience, matter, when it comes to moderating posts.  Among them is maintaining legitimacy.  I see what has happened here as a situation in which a predictably unwelcome decision was made by someone else, and you were the cat's paw who made the announcement.  This was not good on the part of the others who currently esteem themselves as moderators.   You get the flack, for a decision they made.   That largely isn't fair to you.

But you still made the post, and locking that thread was out of line, for the reasons I stated.  If you make a habit of locking threads that involve discussion of salient community topics, including bsh1's absconding/banning/whatever happened from the site, it is *your* legitimacy that will be called into question.  Some people who perceive you as cow-towing to their complaints will like you, but most will resent you -- and you don't want that to be the case. 

This thread remains open, and questions are encouraged. 

Nothing about my comment was inappropriate.  There were some members who were engaged in unbecoming activities, but discussion of factual information has never been, is not now, and will never rise to the level of a "personal attack" by any lucid interpretation of that phrase.  Suggesting otherwise would reflect some intellectual deficit, or nefarious motive. 

You, and whoever else was involved in the decision to lock that thread, are out of line.  

I know you are new at this and so I won't write a full explanation of why that decision was wrong -- but this is a mistake I highly recommend you learn from. 

Principally, there seems to be some confusion on your part and others (not obvious you were alone in making this incorrect judgement) as to what a "personal attack" is.  

A personal attack is not, and will never be, discussion of factual information.  A personal attack -- unlike what occurred in that thread -- might involve name calling, insults, and the like.  I make this point to you because the fact that you subjectively disagree with something is not a basis to lock a thread.  I agree that some members (TUF) were out of line, and however preposterous his opinions may have been, that thread was an appropriate place to share them.  Same for everyone else.  

There is a further practical consideration to this as well: you do not have the power to, nor will you or any other moderator, ever be able to "end" a conversation on a salient topic of community interest by merely locking a thread.  Either the conversation moves to another thread (as in part it has here), or it moves somewhere else (i.e., Facebook) where you have no ability to do anything.  Here, at least what is said **can be seen** whereas on Facebook or elsewhere, you don't see what is said unless you belong to the groups that have formed independently of this site -- and neither you nor any member of moderation here is a member of them.  

There is an additional point of consideration, too:  member complaints do not equate to inappropriate conduct.  Whenever someone's feelings get hurt, including because someone disagreed with their opinion (see Drafterman's prior comments on hurt "fee fees"), they are inclined to report things.  This does not mean that you need to do something.  In fact, it means often that you need to AVOID doing something, and let whatever fire is burning run its course.  Doing otherwise is going to create a lot more problems for you and the so called community down the line.

I'm neither a conservative nor a traditionalist.  Would you expect me to remove content I disagreed with on a political basis? 

I usually go for trees.  I like trees, but I could go for something else.

Submit proposals for my new profile pic here.

If bsh1 had simply said "Yes, what I said was wrong and I should not have said that." we wouldn't be here.  But instead, he refused to take responsibility, made excuses (only a joke, he has problems with his family, his other problems, blah blah blah) that have absolutely nothing to do with what mattered here.

I don't see a way for him to remain a moderator here or anywhere else with any credibility after, in a position of authority, making a comment like that, about sexual exploitation by way of an abuse of authority.  But, he can return to the community and re-integrate himself when he accepts that what he said was wrong -- and not before.  And I don't just mean some passing statement, either.  He needs to understand that you can't do something like that and why. 

Your post was well placed, but the bottom line is this:

Those who feel the need to either trivialize what bsh1 was engaged in (e.g., Castin), or white knight to his defense (e.g., TUF aka Lunatic or whatever his name is) discredit themselves by presuming that it is appropriate for a 24 year old to tell a 16 year old that if he "wants to be a big boy he has to bend over for daddy."

People lose their careers over less.  

The context I will not go into now, though, it is not as if I am unable or unwilling to do so.  I certainly am able and willing, though I see that the costs of that context would outweigh the likely benefits.  The costs would be personal and would affect other people whose personal information they have not given consent for release, while the benefit would at most be to "one up" TUF who is acting like an obnoxious jackass.  Presumably, because TUF even went so far as to create a disingenuous and misleading debate over the subject, he is going to continue to be an obnoxious jackass because this is now more about "winning" for him than it is about the truth.  Wouldn't be the first time.  I suppose some things never change.

"Debate me, bro!  What are you, chicken?  Don't put your money where your mouth is?  Coward!"  

Blah blah blah...  Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Let's suppose a high school speech coach told his sixteen year old team captain that?  I'll bet something similar happened at Bronx Science.  End of career. 

Suppose a high school teacher told his favorite student that?  End of career.  

Suppose, moreover, that a comment like that was made by a boss to his teenage employee?  That's the kind of thing that can create legal problems the depths of which would unfold over many, many months if not years.  Oh, and almost certain career ender there, too. 

But we are supposed to look the other way because some people think it was "just a joke"?  It is not "just a joke" when a teacher, coach, or any other adult in a position of authority directs sexual innuendo like that at someone else.  And to be clear, it is the relationship that matters more than the age differential.  TUF can bitch and moan about how unfair he thinks all of this is, how blown out of proportion it is, etc.  Doesn't change the fact that bsh1 was out of line. 

Moreover, the issue is not about "other people's" intentions.  Annie's intentions are whatever they were.  Nothing she said was false, yet she has been attacked and maligned, her motives impugned, and she has been painted as irrational, a reactionary, or worse.... by people who think they have a more informed perspective than someone who knows bsh1 better than, anyone else on this site with maybe two exceptions (neither of whom are TUF)?  

A less pig-headed person might have asked "Hmm maybe there' something going on here that I perhaps don't know about.  This looks like a situation that involves more than may be meting the eye.  I better not risk making a jackass out of myself and stay out of it, unless I have something productive to say."

But that didn't happen.  Instead Mr White Knight rushed in to do the white knight thing... not even really white knight-ing... much worse in reality, but enough has been said on this issue.  

What Annie did is beyond reproach, and her motives follow in kind.  Anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but impugn their own moral character by contending otherwise. 

Grow up, Tuf. 

This is not merely an issue of subjective disagreement.  Sexual harassment of the species engaged in by bsh1 is absolutely unacceptable.  Harvey Weinstein doesn't get the chance to sit back and way "oh chill out I was just joking."  That is blatant idiocy.

Worse, Castin's absolutely inexcusable writing this off as mere "political correctness" is a complete disgrace, and a reflection of the fact that she lacks the maturity and judgement to opine on any issue.  

Frankly, your response to this has implicated serious doubts as to your judgment and ability to see situations for what they are.  Were I in your situation, I would stop wading into waters the depths of which you lack the ability to identify before you find yourself in over your head.  Given your propensity to misinterpret the English language, I will clarify that metaphor: 

There is more to this than simply what bsh1 said in that isolated context, which you seemingly do not know.  Given that, you would be well advised to avoid expressing future opinions on this or related issues. 

How long is bsh1 banned for? 

Month?  Two months? 

This is obviously a step in the right direction.  I continue to be amazed that Castin was ever selected for a moderation position, and am amazed that it took so long to correct this problem.  That is not to say that she is a bad person, but someone who acts like a moody 12 year old should not be in any form of a position of authority, even on a site as trivial as this one. 

So to clarify, Castin is no longer a moderator? If so, this would obviously be a step in the right direction given her repeated demonstrations of immaturity (among other issues).

It looks to me like you're Monday morning quarter backing a game that your team didn't even play on.

Your opinion is as misguided as it is wrong.  Who even are you?

This is good.

Yup

Relevant: https://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/39336/?fbclid=IwAR0KuR25PMD7r6z8b7b572Eq132sG0YUF-KlLmMj0wTUa-jjvMal3L9EQlw

The fact that you've got a delusional moderator who is accusing people of things that are absolutely false, in response to him being called out for his rank indecency, is something I'm going to have to speak up on. 

As for your fan fic, I might read it... but it's not as high on the priority list as dealing with the current set of issues implicated by bsh1 right now. 

This is disgraceful.  There is no world in which that kind of prurient, lascivious comment is appropriate to direct at a 16 year old boy.  Absolutely disgraceful. 

An impeachment inquiry has commenced. 

An impeachment inquiry has commenced.

In re the Matter of Moderation Impeachment   )

on DebateArt.com                                            )

                                              ORDER

WHEREFORE, Wylted having completed and published the official Wylted Report, linked elsewhere, and

WHEREFORE, the Wylted Report having conclusively proven the absence of collusion and obstruction in relation to the recent DebateArt.Com (DART) Hall of Fame (HOF) elections, and

WHEREFORE, TheHammer having been exonerated, in whole, of any collusion, and, likewise, of any obstruction, and

WHEREFORE, the moderation decision to ban TheHammer has proven to be, itself, an act of obstruction into the Wylted Investigation of the moderation decision to ban TheHammer, for reasons unspecified, and

WHEREFORE, that decision having the material effect of, among other effects, obstructing the Wylted Investigation into the moderation decision to ban TheHammer, and,

WHEREFORE, the people of the site of DART find it necessary to conduct a public inquiry into these matters specified herein, and others related thereto; 

THEREFORE, by the power of the High Commissioner of the DDO Elite, a moderation impeachment inquiry shall be formed, and commence from the time of this order's filing; and of said omission, Wylted shall be appointed Chair of the Moderation Impeachment, his powers being limited only by the Covenants of the DDO Elite, as have been appropriately recorded, at an appropriate location, and published to appropriate individuals. 

SO ORDERED.

The Wylted report conclusively proves that TheHammer should not have been banned and that moderation has repeatedly interfered with the investigation into moderation's banning TheHammer.  

An impeachment inquiry must be opened. 

Why not just use hangouts?

what is a discord

We have more important things to do, comrade. 

Worry not.  Franklin is a triviality. 

Speak when spoken to.

This ban was unjust, and will be addressed appropriately. 

Bernie, Warren, Tom Stier and Biden.

Speak when spoken to.

These silly conspiracy theories.  I have said before and will reiterate again, I am an irrelevant user. 

I am but an irrelevant user. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Wylted, in his capacity as High Inquisitor, shall have the power to, among other powers, interrogate any and all persons who Wylted, in his sole discretion, deems may have information with respect to the ongoing investigations, for which he has been appointed special counsel; and any other matter, as shall arise in the course of those investigations. 

Wylted, in his capacity as High Inquisitor, shall have the power to, among other powers, declare facts to be true as a result of any investigative efforts, at his sole discretion, for the purpose of preparing a report, into the nature and extent of, among other matters, the potential interference by certain moderators, into the Wylted investigation of certain moderators' banning or involvement in the banning of, among others, TheHammer. 

And and all questions, as to the scope, nature, or extent, of Wylted's powers stated herein or elsewhere, shall be resolved in favor of an extended grant of power to Wylted, and against those who would challenge it. 

Indeed it has been a while.  Good to see you as well.

Subpoenas will issue as justice shall require. 

You are not permitted to participate in Special Counsel Wylted investigation due to potential conflicts of interest, appearance of impropriety, and personal involvement in the subject matter relating to at least two topics for which Sp. Counsel Wylted has been appointed to investigate.  Your motion to join the office of the special counsel is hereby denied. 

I expect that he like the disgraced James Comey will continue to conspire with his deep state conspirators to prevent our making DART great again.  Not to worry.  The Wylted Report will tell all. 

Also, the scope of your mandate for investigation has now widened: you must now also investigate (a) the investigation into TheHammer's election interference, for possible corrupt influence by, among others, certain members of site moderation; and (b) the facts and circumstances leading up to TheHammer's ban due to, among others, corrupt influence by site moderation.

You may appoint whomever you like.  Just remember.  NO COLLUSION!  NO OBSTRUCTION!

lol

Now I finally have the time to write a proper welcome back post.  Glad to see you here in purgatory.  Kind of nice, though. Site doesn't break, unlike certain other sites.  Also seems to be ran by what you might call a "hobbyist" (if you could go that far) which is lovely.

You should check your old fake facebook account.  We have invited you to a group with all the old peeps.  A lot has happened DDO.  Some people have gone on to go to college.  Many, in fact, enrolled this year.  Others have since graduated.  Others yet have met other great life milestones.

You may not have heard yet, and I don't know if there is an appropriate way or place to let you know... but I think you would want to know... Bladerunner was killed in a motor vehicle incident.  While in the end it doesn't matter, I think it is worth it to note that he was not the driver at fault.  There was some local media coverage of this.  Most of us just learned of this a few days ago, after we learned that he hasn't been on facebook in a while.  Very sad.  He was an incredibly decent, friendly, kind person. 

Not an easy transition point, but you might enjoy the facebook group.  Cool people only.  Whiteflame was invited.  About 30 others were as well I think.  Potentially more.  

TheHammer's election interference efforts were trivial.  He should not have been banned.  Wylted as special prosecutor should investigate the investigation into TheHammer.

I don't know why anyone would think I have the time or skills to develop a website like this.  There are some things I can do, but they are few and far between.    

I agree.  Moderation has a conflict of interest.  

I get to fire Comey.

You got out just in time. 

Wylted is officially appointed to lead the Special Counsel investigation.

In re the matter of DDO Election       )

Interference.                                      )

ORDER

The extent of campaign influence lead by, among others, the DDO Elite, has required the appointment of a Special Counsel. 

Wylted is hereby appointed for this purpose.