Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
Users:
- ILikePie5
- Ramshutu
Debates:
- After meeting their basic needs, individuals have a moral obligation to donate all remaining wealth to effective social causes
- Russia's invasion of Ukraine beginning in 2022 was unjustified
Created:
Posted in:
Locking this thread since it’s basically just an opportunity to spam and/or increase post numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@7000series
So, again, you claim vanilla. That doesn't jive with your cagey attitude about giving your role. Why were you pretending to be a power role?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Well, now it's chicken sandwiches because they're out of brisket. It'll have to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'll give him a chance to respond while I'm ordering/picking up dinner, but I'm ready to hammer.
Created:
Posted in:
At this point, I'm ready to hammer, but I do want to hear something from him before I do. Unvote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@7000series
Alright, I'm available now. From what I've read through this DP, 7000 definitely comes off as sus. He says he's not the mafia boss, specifically, for some reason, which seems like deflection. He says he's Untitled Goose Game, which I'm familiar with, but seems like such an oddball choice. He then says:
My role IS useful, but I can't share it.
which hints at a PR, before saying:
I am vanilla.
...What the fuck dude? Are you trying to out yourself? Can you explain this at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
@JoeBob
@Austin A good use for debating on the site. Cool, will be interested to follow that one, don't know too much about the topic. Unvote.
@JoeBob VTL JoeBob don't think I've had much opportunity to talk to you. What are your thoughts on how the Wylted Mafia game went?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Also, mainly to spur involvement, VTL Austin. Haven't talked much since your return to the site, might as well now. How are things?
Created:
Posted in:
Cool that we're doing this again. I fully admit, my knowledge of more recent indie game titles is minimal. Won't stop me from trying to parse a theme split, but I'll try not to rely on that as much as I have in the past. Also, just note that I might not post much over the next several hours, since I'm still at work and things are going to be ramping up shortly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yeah, it doesn't seem terribly different. I'll usually end up focusing on three points in the end. Gives me more opportunity to expand on those points rather than just doing a bunch of small ones.
Created:
Posted in:
My argument prep is usually a mess of half-considered points to start. I'll list a set of points that I know I want to make and a set that I'm considering, then go track down support for all of them. If I can't find the kind of support I'm looking for, I get rid of the point. So my early prep looks like a couple of bullet points of my text, several links below each, and maybe a snippet taken from the ones I think support my case best. Then I'll go back and write out my thoughts on definitions and burdens before I flesh out each point so that I know the direction I'm taking.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll think about the rest, but I've been narrowing down my favorite debates of the last year and these stood out:
Probably the best debate I judged last year, just some excellent work by both sides despite the lopsided outcome. Wish there had been more votes, if only to ensure that it got more attention.
Judged several debates by Savant and Slainte, and while they've both had several solid entries, this one is probably their best efforts in combination.
Yeah, I'm doing this one, too. Yes, I know it's weird for me to have two invasion topics, but this felt like an obvious pick back when I voted. Didn't expect much regarding a debate that felt pretty lopsided in the annals of history, but both sides put up a solid fight over it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm still down, but we should wait until after they finish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
I’m glad to hear that they’ve been helpful to you. For better or worse, I internalized many of the messages I got from judges in live debates, and a big one was knowing how to pick your battles and figure out how to make the most of what you think you’re winning. I was terrible at it for years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
I'm glad to hear you ended up doing so well in the tournament! I'm glad to hear the the site has been such a help to you, especially after you put in so much effort and took on tough opponents. I hope you continue to excel during your time debating.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't make a habit of being selective when it comes to topics for which I will cast a vote. I like seeing something that hasn't been done a hundred times before. That's about it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, I've given you the ability to report back now. You're welcome to proceed accordingly.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I haven’t recently had much time to go through reports. I got pinged and responded.
Created:
I'm not making a habit of this. If you post back-to-back the exact same thing in replicate, the repeats will get removed. If you just repeat the same post in response at various points to troll, I'm not going to dig through to find every instance of them.
Created:
I removed the repeat posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Can you please stop spamming moderation with post after post about this? You’ve made your statement. Especially from someone who is concerned that another user is taking up our time unnecessarily, I don’t need to see 5 posts in order for you to clarify what’s going on. I’ll look at this tomorrow when it’s not a national holiday that I’m spending with family.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I've discussed it with him. I do agree, he should not be insulting in responses like this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Please help me understand this "derailing the thread" idea that it is so popular to whine about here.
I would say when you're actively trying to shift the focus of discussion to the poster themselves, that's changing the subject of the thread, or derailing it.
Where is it mentioned in the so called "C of C rules"
I didn't mention the CoC. There are portions of it that do apply to derailing, but they apply to persistent efforts to pursue grudges. I'm not assuming this is a grudge, and I haven't looked back into previous conversations between you two to determine that this is a pattern of behavior that constitutes harassment, but I'd prefer it not turn into that. Hence the "please."
Obviously, the agenda is to control the conversation and suppress the free exchange of ideas and opinions, but how exactly are the kinds of questions that can be asked and the kinds of answers that can be given determined?
That's pretty clearly not what I'm trying to do, since my point was that this could be done in a separate thread more relevant to the conversation you're trying to have.
Why is this applied so selectively, what are the protected agendas?
Because I'm not constantly perusing the forums looking for instances where this is occurring. If there are other examples to report, I'll be happy to take a look at them. It's not an effort to protect any agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
@Sidewalker
Please refrain from derailing this thread by trying to place attentions elsewhere. The OP posted a thread with a specific subject. If you don’t intend to engage on that, you can always post elsewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
As a voter, I don’t treat it as negatively as posting, say, an academic paper that exists behind a paywall, which I view as a bit of a dick move as well as a deliberate attempt to prevent people from reading deeper into your material. I do think if you can find an online version of the book, that’s a best case scenario, though even then I’d recommend directing to a few pages (to include context) for the sake of making things simpler for voters.
If you can’t do that, including a picture of at least a page or two would not be amiss. I agree with BK that you should certainly quote it directly in the body of your argument, and include at least a few sentences for basic context. Paraphrasing works fine when you have full context, but with books, it’s not always that simple. If you do that, as a voter, I would view it rather similarly to most other published sources. There’s room for your opponent to argue that they said something elsewhere that disagrees with you, but that’s always the case.
Created:
Posted in:
09/12/2023
Moderator: Joint Decision
TWS1405_2 has been permanently banned for creating an additional ALT to circumvent the aforementioned ban.
From the CoC:
Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You have my condolences. Unfortunately, these kinds of tragedies happen often, but it's rare that we are so personally affected by them. I have no doubt that your work with troubled youth has had a substantial impact on a lot of lives. I'm sure he was among those that benefitted from your efforts.
Created:
Vocab size of 29334
Top 0.26% apparently.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Discord... as in an audio conversation?
Just chat, actually. And how it goes usually depends on his mood. This did not go well.
You banned lancelot on a suspicion?
That’s not what I said. I said that RM was seeking a permanent ban based on suspicion that Lancelot was involved in this vote bombing scheme, for which we have little evidence. When he was banned, it was chiefly for insults that continued after he received a warning, though there was one case of vote bombing and likely collusion that contributed to the decision.
Created:
Well, since RM asked to be banned after hearing my answer to him on Discord, I guess he wasn’t satisfied with what I had to say. Still, I’ll post it here.
Neither I nor moderation are condoning or allowing Sir.Lancelot’s behavior in these posts. He was warned that continuing this behavior would result in a ban, and chose instead to opt for a self-imposed ban. So not only is this behavior not allowed, it’s explicitly called out in the new enforcement policy. It’s also stated there that warnings occur before someone is banned for their behavior. That includes when someone returns from a ban.
The expectation that we impose a permanent ban on him because of the accusation that he was behind a concerted effort to vote bomb RM, something we still have not verified, is not going to happen just because RM feels so strongly that it is him. Similarly, while RM feels that the abuse imposed on him is beyond the pale, we can and have enforced a standard of increased ban durations when offenses are repeated, but we don’t just jump to permanent bans off of insults and personal attacks like this.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Considering I never discussed any other basis for banning Lancelot this time, your claim that there was some unstated "real reason he was banned" is a little strange. You informed me of the personal attacks he had committed since returning from his previous ban, the reasons for which are documented in the moderation log. A warning was issued to him this time (as it was prior to acts that got him banned last time), and he responded by asking for his account to be banned. I complied. So, the reason he was banned was because he asked to be banned. I can add to his profile that the warning was issued and the reason why, but they will not be the reason for this ban.
As such, if he chooses to make an alt, that alt cannot be active at the same time as this account should he want it opened again, but he is indeed allowed to make an alt. Other people on this site who have asked for bans on their accounts have done that before and it has been allowed. Efforts to vote bomb you and other people on this site will receive the appropriate response, potentially resulting in a permanent ban on his main account should he participate in those efforts.
If you would like further clarification or have issues with this, it will have to wait until tomorrow as I have a very early morning ahead of me and will be logging off as soon as I post this. My day will be cluttered with work and flights, so expect delays in my responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Seems about right to me. I think it can become easy to start harassing someone with the same statement over and over just because it’s not precisely a personal attack, but it can and does drift into murky territory under repetition and is just used everywhere.
Created:
Posted in:
08/02/2023
Moderator: Joint Decision
Sir.Lancelot has been banned for 14 days following an instance of suspected voter collusion and clear instances of personal attacks and insults.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You know the rules - if you didn’t before, then you do now. You can either choose to follow them going forward, or you can see what happens if you keep on pushing.
If you don’t like the rules as they stand, so be it. I’m not here to argue in support of them. You can push for changes to what I’m enforcing if you wish. Until that happens, I will continue to enforce the existing rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Correction: if you call the statement stupid, that’s on topic. If you call them stupid, you’re using a personal attack and, as I already said, are off topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Personal attacks are, by their very nature, off topic.
I’ll also note that there’s a whole separate post clarifying enforcement based on use of insults and personal attacks.
You can continue to feign ignorance all you want, but I know you have seen and presumably understand these rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
You’re welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I’m not going to continue to engage on this. You know the policy regarding insults, and yes, that relates to personal attacks. These were insults, plain and simple. Don’t do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yeah… whatever you say, dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Just follow the basic rules of the site, dude, it’s not hard. You can say what you want about his posts, but targeting him with a personal accusation is off limits. Simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yes. Claiming that someone is effectively not an individual capable of thought, functionally acting as a mouthpiece of the Russian government, is a pretty clear personal attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s not what I said. Insinuating that someone is either a Russian bot or a moron based on something they said is a personal attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@IwantRooseveltagain
Is Grey Parrott a Russian bot or just an uninformed moron? I’m just asking questions .
Posing it as a question does not make it any less of a personal attack, especially since you’re saying that it’s between these two possibilities, both of which are personal attacks.
Consider this your warning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Honestly sorry to see him go. He will be missed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
What roles do offense and defense play in a debate?Do Constructives = Defense, Rebuttals = Offense?
Constructives and rebuttals should both have offense and defense in them. Usually, if you have an argument with an impact, it’s offense for your case or against your opponent’s case, usually depending on where it appears.
Constructives usually are a set of arguments that contain mainly offense with a little defense built in to protect against some of the more dangerous arguments your opponent might make (e.g. why you’ve chosen the USFG to implement your plan).
Rebuttals are more varied. Your goal can be to knock down an opposing argument or rebuttal (defense, e.g. this point doesn’t apply to my case or this point doesn’t matter), or to turn arguments/the opposing case (offense, e.g. this argument is actually bad because, or this point supports my point because). There’s also counter-rebuttals, which are largely defensive of your constructive but can include turns of their own. Usually, it’s best to emphasize offense in rebuttals, but that’s not always the best way to handle an argument, even though it would be a net positive for your case (whereas the best you could gain from defense is negating a harm). It’s all about understanding where a point is weakest.
Created: