The Instigator
Pro (for)
70 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
70 Points

Airmax was justified with his ban on Jifpop

Do you like this debate?NoYes-11
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 22 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,487 times Debate No: 55037
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (238)
Votes (22)




Simple enough

Resolution - The ban on jifpop that airmax put into place was justified



(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing Statements


(1) Contentions
(2) Contentions/Rebuttals /Closing Statements
(3) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else


(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point loss due to my adversary having an extra round. This means that if any other words are typed besides the aforementioned ones, my adversary will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss.
(2) 10k character limits.
(3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff


I accept. I don't think it was stated, but since my opponent is taking the affirmative stance, and claming that a certain statement is true, he should have the burden to prove this. This is for my opening argument. Very well, let's get into it.

Burden of proof
I can already smell what my opponent is going to say by looking at his past debates. He's going to argue that since he is arguing in favor of the status quo, then he cannot be expected to solely carry the burden. However, I see two problems with this. Let's just formalize this argument quickly.

P1: Whenever something is the status quo, the one arguing against it should at least have half the burden
P2: It is the status quo that Airmax was justified in banning Jifpop
C: The one arguing against "Airmax was justified in banning Jifpop" should at least have half the burden.

First, premise 1. What does the "status quo" mean? Does it mean what most people generally think? If so, how is this anything other than an ad populum fallacy?

But why should anyone believe P2? Do most members on DDO believe that Airmax was justified in banning Jifpop? Yes? No? Maybe?

My opponent has not stated in R1 who has the burden. So I argue that since he is taking the affirmative, he should have the burden. Why? Because if I start a debate, and make an affirmative about anything I should have the burden to defend it.

My opponent's argument
My opponent's argument will most assuredly have this form:

P1: Any member who meets negative XYZ criteria may be justifiably banned
P2: Jifpop meets negative XYZ criteria
C: Jifpop may be justifiably banned

However, I'd like to point out that these premises contain built in assumptions.

To begin with, it pressupposes that DDO users who meet a certain negative criteria should be banned. In most arguments, this major premise is *never* stated, and is simply assumed. So in addition to my opponent presenting lots of negative things about Jifpop, he needs to show why this is ban-worthy in the first place. Furthermore, he needs to show why a statement which begins with "Any member" is true, not a statement that begins with "Some members".

If he were to argue...

P1: Some members who meet negative XYZ criteria may be justifiably banned
P2: Jifpop meets negative XYZ criteria
C: Jifpop may be justifiably banned

Then this would be a formal fallacy, and have the form IAA, which is invalid [1].

Now here's another point. My opponent is going to have to define these XYZ criteria very very carefully. Why? Because if he makes these XYZ criteria too broad, then it will include other members who obviously shouldn't be banned. if he makes these XYZ criteria too narrow, then it won't include Jifpop. So he has to make these XYZ criteria the perfect size... not too big, not too small. And he also has to adequately defend that these criteria deserve a ban.

Then he has to show how Jifpop fits into these criteria.

My arguments
Now I'll briefly state my arguments.

Ore_ele and not Airmax

To begin with, Jifpop has claimed...

"Airmax has a personal grudge against me

I"m sure he will probably deny this, but there is no hiding the fact that I wasn"t his favorite person on this site. I have called out his effectiveness as a moderator more than a dozen times. Usually met with a long response over PM or forum post demanding a public apology. Now, you might be thinking in your head, Airmax is a good guy, he would never do something like that out of pure spite.

You're absolutely right. But can we agree it might of swayed his hand? None of us like having our reputation and integrity brought into question. I was doing that, and it's become obvious to me why Airmax would resort to a ban , and not the 1000 more evident problems on this site. You guys may not believe me here, but a person can usually tell beyond a doubt when they"re on someone's bad side, and I definitely wasn"t on Airmax"s good one." [2]

Jifpop felt that Airmax had a grudge against him, and that Airmax was influenced by this emotional status.

Thus, for Airmax to be the one to ban Jifpop, would, understandably, cause drama and anger.

However, there is a better solution. Let Ore_ele ban Jifpop.

My argument...

P1: Whenever there are two courses of action, one which would cause unnecessary drama, and the other not, the first course of action is unjustified.
P2: In this case there are two courses of action, one which could cause unnecessary drama (Airmax banning Jifpop), and one which would not (Ore_ele banning Jifpop).
C: Airmax was not justified in banning Jifpop

I can just imagine what any user who likes Jifpop is going to say. "Airmax didn't like Jifpop! That's why he banned him!!". However, this could easily be avoided by a very very simple action. Just have Ore_ele ban Jifpop.

Jifpop's youth
P1: No member who is young and has promise to be a good DDO member should be banned by a moderator
P2: Jifpop is young and has promise to be a good DDO member
C: Jifpop should not be banned by a moderator

Jifpop was admittedly very young. We all know that. However, in addition to this, he had promise to be a prominent and decent DDO member.

He had participated in 108 debates. He had an ELO of 3,850 (which you either consider high or low depending on your own ELO;). Furthermore, he has had serious debates with members like whiteflame, Romanii, CJKAllstar, Zaradi, Tophatdoc, SeventhProfessor, bluesteel, Kleptin, tylergraham95, etc.

Furthemore, he has participated in numerous forum discussions regarding serious topics.

Now I'm not arguing that a young and promising member should never be banned. There may be times when this is necessary. However, I am arguing that a young a promising member should not be banned by a moderator.

Essentially what I'm saying is that when there is a member who is well known, is not afraid to debate some of the greatest debaters on this site with serious topics, has serious discussions, etc. should not be banned by a mod.

Instead, I am arguing that a member who has shown potential to be an excellent DDO user should be evaluated by other DDO members.

This means that there would be a public trial in which the members of DDO could vote.

Jifpop's reason for being banned
Airmax stated,

"Jifpop has been indefinitely temp banned for several conduct violations. He ignored many warnings which culminated in my contacting him today. Rather than acknowledging this, he instead made several mass PMs, making this a public issue and justifying this thread."

Now while I certainly don't justify everything Jifpop has done, (from reading over his stuff I can see he was rather annoying) I can still argue against Airmax's ban.

Jifpop has explained his ban.

Jifpop claims Airmax banned him for four reasons.

"1. I called a conspiracist a fool. I added my signature -_- next to it.

2. I sent out a mass PM (One, but the PM glitch copied it 6 times).

3. One of my polls had a picture of a English women in a swimsuit.

4. Personal Attack Forums"

Airmax replied,

"That list ignores the context, and there are at least a dozen problems with what is written above otherwise. I could spend at least an hour replying to all those issues but I don't see the point. Jif was given many warnings and he decided to ignore them. When I brought up the issues of just that specific day, he decided to ignore me entirely. His judgement there was terrible, and it reflects his behavior/judgement in general."

Now I don't know for sure about Jif's behavior and Airmax's ban. However, the arguments I have given above stand completely regardless of what Jif's behavior was.

Furthermore, Jifpop's behavior and ban seem controversial at best. This once again, shows that this topic is not really status quo, and that my opponent should have the burden. He made a positive statement, he should defend it.

Or else he should have clarified in R1.

In conclusion, I've given numerous reasons why Jifpop should not have been banned by Airmax.

Over to Pro.

Debate Round No. 1


I am going to build my case and offer contentions in the following round. The first thing I want to note is that Juggle owns DDO and this is a privately owned site. They are allowed to set up and rules and regulations that they please. This is commonly referred to as the TOS. When you make an account on this site you are agreeing to abide by the TOS and everything within it. It is the moderators job to ensure that people abide by the TOS to the fullest. If you break the TOS you are given a chance to fix your behavior(possibly multiple chances), and then if you continue to break the rules and guidelines that are on the site you will be issued a ban in a attempt to correct your behavior.

DDO TOS - View TOS (my link is broken for some reason. Apologies). Ask ore or max if you need it.

Burden of Proof - I will accept the burden of proof in this case to show that airmax was justified in Banning Jifpop

Justified - to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable[2]

Revised Policy on Personal Attacks - [3]

The revised policy on personal attacks go into great detail about what you can and cannot due when you insult a member personally. This is in response to the TOS, because it touches on this for a brief 3 words. It says something along the lines of "do not attack people". Airmax took the time to write out an entire response and forum clarifying what attacking people means.

C1) Response to the in Defense of Jifpop post

Jifpop says this in a defense post he put up for himself.

" Welcome everybody, I wish to tell you all of my story. The one I never got to tell, for simple yet peculiar reasons. Airmax, had come to me with a list of 4 special complaints. Complaints about my conduct on this site. He badgered me for a little while, requesting I defend myself. I waited a while, thinking and devising my response, until I recieved a PM from Airmax. It said I have one hour to defend my actions to him, or I will be perma-banned. That hour never came though, as Airmax closed my account not ten minutes after writing that PM. I feel I still owe DDO my defense though, so lets begin with the four charges brought against me, in my final hours of DDO" [4]

The first thing I want to notate is something that everyone needs to be aware of. The list that was presented by Jifpop and max was a reoccurring issue. Meaning airmax went to jifpop on a day to day basis asking him to change his behavior.

(a) That entire list that jifpop wrote and that airmax laid out was only THAT DAYS OFFENSES. I want you to really let that sink in. This entire controversy was about issues that kept reoccurring but when you read all of this and assume all of those issues were an ongoing problem (which they were), in this specific instance that entire message airmax sent jifpop was only about issues jif was causing on that specific day. This shows the great length at which jif would go on a day to day basis to break site policies.

(b) That entire list was a list of offense that had only occurred that day, but that kept occurring over and over on a day to day basis.

C2) Ad Homs and Attack threads

This is a direct violation of the new site policy that was created by airmax and which is enforced by juggle. Bear in mind that any user that goes agaisnt site policy and conduct has the right to be banned. This is juggles website and they can decide what is ban worthy and what is not ban worthy. By accepting the TOS and joining you are under juggles authority and everything that entails including the new site policy on personal attacks[3]. Not this is not really a new policy but just a clarification on what is actually considered a personal attack because the TOS was so vague.

Jifpop has made numerous attack threads insulting members and calling them out publicly. Airmax has removed most of these so as far as posting them publicly, it will almost be impossible. This however should be common knowledge. Most members on here can recall logging in and seeing a call out thread by jifpop in which a good many of us posted in and then the thread being removed later on.

Here are just a few examples when he got into a rage war with a southern member

" Do I know you. It says you joined 10 hours ago. Why don't run off and cry to someone who cares. For all I know your another bigot hick. " - [6]

He even acknowledges that

" Alright, well low blows are my specialty" [6]

He then rages so much that he makes a call out thread and a debate saying, that if he wins the person has to leave the site for 2 weeks. Listing them as terrible people [7]

Airmax briefly address why he was banned in regards to personal attack in this post[5]

C2A ) Breaking the site policy

This line of logic and harassing members continued up to this ban. This was a direct violation of the rules within the new site policy.

" 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. " [3]

As I stated airmax has deleted a majority of these threads and posts that jifpop has made. He also has accused multiple members of vote bombing which is in direct violation of the new policy as well [8]. See this entire debate and the comments. There were threads about this as well where he accused people voting in favor of zaradi to be vote bombers [8]

" 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." [3]

As we can clearly see he has violated the TOS and new policy several times, with countless more violations being deleted because he was insulting members. Due to jif having an account on DDO and having accepting the TOS and juggles guidelines and rules, personally and continually violating the TOS and new policy is a justified reason for a ban.

C3) Fair moderation and multiple chances.

Being a recipient of airmaxes grace and kindness I can assure you jif had received multiple warnings and chances to fix his behavior before he was banned. I receive warnings from airmax every now and then and well, and all he asks is that I acknowledge my mistake and restrain myself from doing it again.

View this example

Monday, May 19, 2014 @ 10:31:24 PM
Posted by:
Profile Cardairmax1227

"arguing with him is like taking a fish and slapping yourself with it. I would not waste your effort or time"

Avoid this kind of thing.... and in general please avoid any kind of insults...

Monday, May 19, 2014 @ 10:59:40 PM
Posted by:
Profile CardMikal


All he generally asks is that you abstain from site attacks on people directly and if you personally attack someone he will confront you about it and ask you to stop. If and only if you continue to personally attack and violate the rules will he ban you.

I have not been the only one to receive this type of warning, even rational mad man one of DDOS most notrious members was given chances to fix himself before being perma banned. In addition to RMM, zarrottte received multiple warnings about her behavior and attacks on the site. So much so that she made a new account and tried to integrate herself back into the community. After much deliberation she acknowledge that she overstepped boundaries and that she was in the wrong. She is now a really liked member within the community.

C4) Spam

Most of this has went away but does anyone recall the revolutionary party? All the spam in the polls and main DDO page that he was warned about multiple times. This is also in direct violation of site conduct and the TOS. Spamming is directly prohibited.

C5) Not responding to airmax

Jif was contacted and asked to acknowledge that he understood that days offences and what he did wrong. (again note this was an ongoing occurrence and this was just the issues about that specific day). Airmax gave him a time limit to respond and instead of acknowledging airmaxs warning, he sent out a giant rant about moderation in a mass personal PM

This was the final straw. He directly ignored multiple warnings and even ignored a chance to correct his behavior. At this point he had/has

(a) Personally attacked more members than I can count
(b) Directly went against moderation
(c) Spammed polls and posts
(d) Created attack thread and debates
(e) Chose to sent out a giant pm harassing moderation instead of acknowledging his warning.



By joining DDO you are accepting the rules and regulations in the TOS and everything that it entails. If you chose to break the rules a ban is justified due to you have accepted the rules to begin with

Jif has broke these rules and continued to break these rules. A ban was justified.


[1] view TOS. My link is broken for some reason
[6] [see comments]


Friends, DDOians, debaters, lend me your eyes. I come not to praise Jifpop, but to bury him.

My opponent has conceded that he has the burden of proof in showing that Airmax was justified in banning Jifpop.

You'll also notice that he has not even touched any of my arguments. This is unfortunate, since I won't be able to respond to them in the next round.

Since I won't be able to respond to them in the next round, and my opponent is essentially attacking an opponent who is unable to speak, I ask that the voters not put as much emphasis on his rebuttals, since of course, they are rather one-sided.

My opponent's argument
My opponent's argument is actually extremely weak. While he has presented it excellently, and is a fantastic debater, the argument itself is actually very bad.

Let me formalize it for you to show what I mean.

First of all, we all know what the conclusion is that my opponent is driving at.

P1: ???
P2: ???
C: Banning Jifpop is a justifiable action

What are the reasons, or premises he gives for this conclusion?

Because Jifpop broke the TOS.


P1: ???
P2: Jifpop is a member who broke the TOS
C: Banning Jifpop is a justifiable action

Now our first premise, the major premise, is very easy to fill in.

P1: Any members who breaks the TOS can be justifiably banned
P2: Jifpop is a member who broke the TOS
C: Banning Jifpop is a justifiable action

Now please note. I am NOT saying that Jifpop should be banned. This is not what my opponent is arguing either. All he's arguing is that it's justifiable.

So, as my opponent admits, he has broken the TOS. Thus, if Juggle wants to ban him, such an action is justifiable.

So far so good.

However, the reasons that my opponent gives to believing P1 in the argument outlined above are because DDO is privately owned, and Juggle can make the rules as they please.

This is important to the argument, so we better make this argument a polysyllogism.

P1: Whatever rules Juggle state for DDO are justified
P2: Juggle states that members who break the TOS may be banned
C1: Members who break the TOS may be justifiably banned
P3: Jifpop broke the TOS
C2: Jifpop may be justifiably banned.

Aha! Now we have my opponent's entire argument written out.

Note that he spends most of his time defending P3, which states "Jifpop broke the TOS".

I won't be disputing this. Yes, Jifpop broke the TOS.

However, the premise I shall attack will be P1.

An attack on premise 1
My opponent has essentially argued that whatever Juggle states as rules for DDO ought to be followed. However, this is question begging. You might say: How is this question begging?

The logician S. Morris Engel explains that question begging can occur when the justifications for a premise are even more questionable than the premise itself [1].

Now this premise is actually very controversial. You'll notice my opponent doesn't once defend it. He merely asserts it over and over and over again ad nauseam.

My opponent states,

"Juggle owns DDO and this is a privately owned site. They are allowed to set up and rules and regulations that they please."

Well, yes, they are allowed to do as they please with their site, but does that mean it's justified? Not necessarily.

Simply because something is allowed to go on, that doesn't mean it's justified at all. This is a red-herring. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Essentially, my opponent is trying to justify his already controversial premise by appealing to another even more controversial premise.

Well it doesn't work that way.

Having the property of being private property doesn't mean everything is acceptable
My opponent's argument is that since Juggle owns DDO as its private property, then they can do as they please with it. This includes setting terms of service, which they will ban members for.

I see no reason to accept this.

Merely having the property of being owned by someone doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you want with it. After all, why should it? Can I do whatever I want with my property if it directly or indirectly harms someone?

Does the right to private property over-rule the principles of justice?

Essentially I'm arguing that the fact that DDO is owned by a company is irrelevant. True, but irrelevant.

In other words, my opponent is assuming that the right to private property trumps everything else, and thus Juggle has the right to ban members, even if this is done unjustly.

I just don't accept this. This is a controversial assumption which we need more evidence before we accept.

Explicit vs. implicit agreement
My opponent also argues that since Jifpop has accepted the TOS when he joined the site, he doesn't have anything to complain about.

But this simply raises the question... If I sign a paper and don't read the fine print, have I "agreed" to it?

How can I agree to something, if I don't even know what that thing is in the first place?

In order to agree to something, I need to first know what it is I am agreeing to.

"Agree" is defined as "to say that you will do, accept, or allow something that is suggested or requested by another person" [2]

It's quite obvious that knowledge of what you are agreeing to is a necessary condition for agreeing to it.

I seriously doubt that Jifpop read all the terms of service. I didn't read all the TOS when I joined. Did you, the reader, read through all the TOS when you joined? Did my opponent?

Thus, the argument that Jifpop has agreed to his ban by making an account on DDO is completely debunked.

My arguments
Now that I've completely debunked my opponent's arguments, I'll procceed to rebolster my own.

Ore_ele and not Airmax
Once again, this argument remains untouched as are all my arguments.

I argued here that Airmax was not justified in making the ban, since this would cause (as it already has) unneeded drama which could very very easily have been avoided. I have suggested that there is a much easier course of action, and that is that Ore_ele is to be the one doing the ban. Just so that Jifpop and his followers cannot play the victim card.

This argument stands.

A potentially valuable member
Here is what I am arguing to be more exact:

Jifpop has greatly impacted DDO and all the users of this site. Peoples' opinions on him differ.

Since he has impacted DDO as a community it is most reasonable to say that DDO as a community should respond. Especially when his impact is controversial. And it is.

Despite Jifpop's youth, he has already shown a great deal of intelligence. I've named numerous prominent and semi-prominent debaters he has debated.

So I don't see how it can be said that he doesn't have a very potentially valuable future on DDO.

Yes, moderators do have their place. However, it just makes so much more sense to let the DDO userbase deal with it. That way we avoid all the controversy of "So and so banned my favorite member blah blah blah wah wah wah".

Let's connect the dots.

Jifpop has..

I. Impacted DDO greatly.
II. Is very controversial
III. Has shown intelligence by debating serious topics with prominent debaters
IV. Caused drama by his ban.

And then on the other hand we have my opponent's complaints...

I. He broke the TOS in regards to ad hominems
II. He broke the TOS in miscellaneous regards...
III. He spammed
IV. He ignored the mods and attacked them

Now you can see why this is controversial.

Which is why a debate trial is the justified course of action.

Not a moderator ban.

In conclusion, I have given many arguments which remain untouched. I've also refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments. When we are asking what should be done, we shouldn't go and say "Well what does the law say?" or "Well what do the terms of service say?". Why? Because laws and terms of service are made by men. They're fallible.

On the other hand, I've argued that Jifpop shouldn't have been banned, and should instead have been put on trial. He has impacted the users of DDO. Let the users of DDO deal with him.

Furthermore, even if a moderator ban were justified, the ban by Airmax would not be, as I have argued and at this point remains untouched.

Now here's why my opponent has lost this debate.

1. Pro has taken the burden.
2. I've refuted all his arguments.
3. Even if my refutations of the arguments do not work, if my arguments are put on the same level as my opponents, he has not met his burden.

Remember, Pro has the burden here. Which means that he has to show that his skyscraper reaches higher into the sky than mine. I don't even have to build a skyscraper. All I have to do is destory his. However, I have still chosen to build.

If our skyscrapers remain level at the end of this debate, my opponent has not met his burden.

To win, he must show that his skyscraper is higher.

But I have drilled out the supports of his skyscraper and have built my own.

Thank you.

[1] With Good Reason, 6th edition, pg. 164
Debate Round No. 2


Note : I put aside my rebuttals due to the debate structure which my adversary openly accepted. It clearly specifies my rebuttals are for the final round. My adversary accepted this debate when it was clearly outlined in the rules that were layed out in R1. Basically he accepted this debate and then says "The rules are not fair so therefore (x) should not be taken into consideration". This is entirely false since my adversary took the debate with the rules being specified.

(a) There is no need to put aside by rebuttals because my adversary accepted this debate structure.
(b) If you were to put aside my rebuttals ( he would have a round of rebuttals and I would not. In any debate someone receives the final word. In this it is myself. This was accepted when my adversary accepted the debate due to the round 1 guide lines and rules) [1]

Reviewing the basic outline of this debate.

[P1] Juggle is a privately owned company, and is allowed to set up a TOS. (View tos - [2])
[P2] By joining the site you are agreeing to abide by the TOS that juggle set up
[P3] Failure to abide by the TOS justifies a ban due to acceptance of the TOS when you sign up for the site
[C] Jifpop did not abide by the TOS and received multiple warnings about his conduct and still chose not to abide by the TOS. Therefore a ban on jifpop is justified.

Concession to the initial premise of my arguments

" I won't be disputing this. Yes, Jifpop broke the TOS. "

By him conceding this he essentially loses the debate. He tries to refute it with dancing around the word justified, but I will refute this in latter rounds.

R1) Airmax has a personal grudge against me

This is entirely false and even if it was true there is no way to add credibility to this argument. These are the words coming from a member that was banned and banned with due cause.

Note : Airmax was not the sole person to ban Jifpop. This was a general consensous between Airmax, Tuf, and Ore ele. He consulted both of them about the situation and all of them where in agreement. [3]

Reviewing my adversaries Premise for this contention.

"P1: Whenever there are two courses of action, one which would cause unnecessary drama, and the other not, the first course of action is unjustified.
P2: In this case there are two courses of action, one which could cause unnecessary drama (Airmax banning Jifpop), and one which would not (Ore_ele banning Jifpop).
C: Airmax was not justified in banning Jifpop"

Operating under this assumption banning anyone could be considered non justified. Again this is entirely false. Banning anyone would almost always cause drama. Izbo, Askbob, RMM, and almost any member you can think of that has been banned has resulted in some type of drama. They all have friends on the site and people that wanted them to stay around, that however does mean the ban is not justified.

Out of these members there was one that was trying to track peoples ip addresses and was threatening to find them in real life, and even harassing them on Facebook and other avenues.

Under my adversaries premise anything is not justifiable because it could lead to drama which would promote and condone members being on the site no matter what offense they commit. This entire premise is false and based on a faulty reduction principle. We can discard this.

R2) Youth

Reviewing the premise

"P1: No member who is young and has promise to be a good DDO member should be banned by a moderator
P2: Jifpop is young and has promise to be a good DDO member
C: Jifpop should not be banned by a moderator"

This premise shares the same failure in logic as the first. This is basically saying any member who is (x) in this case young, and promises (y) in this case to be a good member should not be banned.

This entire premise is based off of words. If a member verbally promises to improve and shows the promise of becoming a good member he should not be banned.

We can dismiss this for a majority of reasons

(a) Airmax contacted jifpop on multiple occasions and asked him to improve his behavior. Jifpop failed to do this on countless occasions.
(b) Since he was contacted and broke (x) and did not fulfill (y) my adversaries premise falls apart.

In addition to this you are simply giving a member a free pass based on verbal communications and not actions. Just because someone promises to do better does not mean a ban is not justified. Anyone will always verbally promise to be a better member, but after being confronted on several occasions and with no change occurring this would lead to a loophole where no younger member would ever be banned due to false promises that could occur.

We can dismiss this point because of the reasons listed above. Jifpop received due warning on many occasions and promised to change his behavior. A failure to change his behavior on several occasions defeats my adversaries premise. Thus we can dismiss it.

R3) Jifpops reason for being banned

We can dismiss this right off the start.

(a) Whatever jifpop is claiming is not proven to be true
(b) Two moderators and the president confirmed the reasons he was banned and he still argued against it saying it was unfair

Essentially this points holds no weight. Anyone who is banned is generally going to have a problem with it. He was banned for multiple personal attacks on people, spam, attack threads, and ignoring a moderators request to change his behavior. This is an objective fact that multiple others can testify too.

See C2 in R2 to clarify this further.

R4) His attack on premise 1 and everything that followed it

This essentially boils down to this. This is juggles site and juggle makes the rules. My adversary claims in spite of this breaking the TOS and receiving a ban may not be justifiable.

Again review what justified means.

Justified - to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable[4]

Basically all I have to do is show that the ban on Jifpop is right or reasonable.

When you join this site you are accepting the TOS and everything that it entails.

Literally there is no need to go in depth with this due to character limitations and common sense so I am going to cite wiki since my adversary fails to realize what a TOS is [5]

A TOS is something someone has to agree to before they can use (x) service. In this case you are agreeing to use [2] when you sign up for DDO. If you do not like the rules, do not sign up for the site. By keeping your account open on the site and by this site being privately owned they are allowed to set up their own rules. The same is true with facebook, myspace, and probably another other social networking site/game you can think of. When you sign up for (x) you are almost always agreeing to abide by (y). Since they own the company and the rights to this site, when you choose to join and stay on the site you are agreeing to abide by the rules that are set up

He makes a poke saying that jif probabbly did not read the TOS. This is entirely irrelevant to anything that can be presented. Anytime something prompts you read to the TOS, by choosing not to read it and simply clicking I agree, you are still agreeing to abide by the TOS. In addition to this he states that jifpop had no idea what the TOS meant

This is false. Airmax went out of his way to explain to jifpop what he was doing wrong, and even specified what a personal attack was in the thread he made about the new site policy[6].

When you accept the rules of DDO you are agreeing to abide by [2], since jifpop did not abide by [2] and received multiple warnings and still chose not to change his behavior. A ban is definitely justified.

R5) A debate trial

A debate trial is something that is used for the most contraversiol members and usually only in the case of perma bans. Jifpop was temp banned for chosing to ignore moderation. A tiral is something that is not mandatory and is generally a mass agreement by the community at large only in cases of perma bans.

There have also only been 2 in the history of DDO, one being the trial of IZBO which was one of the most if not most controversial members to ever use the site. He was loved by a minority within the community and banned countless times and upon a final ban being implemented it was decided to put him on trial as a community to see the outcome and if he was detrimental to the community as a entity. This is only used in severe and rare situations and is not required to ban someone.

Juggle gives the mods power to ban whom they feel they need to ban as far as breaking site rules and policies. By breaking the TOS and ignoring multiple warnings a ban is justified. A trial is just a courtesy in the most severe situations and at the discretion of juggle and the moderators.

(a) Jifpop was temp banned in a attempt to reform his behavior
(b) After being tempt banned he logged on to DDO fans harassing member on there for being banned

A trial could be a possible solution to a perma ban should it occur, but a temp ban is used often to reform the user. Therefore we can dismiss this premise because this ban was clearly an attempt to correct his behavior.


This entire debate boils down to this.

I have the BOP and have met it.

My job is to simply show that the ban is justified, which I have did. Therefore I have upheld my end of the BOP. For my adversary to win he must have shown that the ban is not justified, which he has not done. I have shot down all of his contentions and arguments and shown how the ban is justified throughout this debate. Again it boils down to this

[P1] Juggles site, juggles rules
[P2] By joining you are agreeing to the TOS and their rules
[P3] Failure to abide by their rule justifies a ban
[C] Jifpop failed to abide by the rules set in place and received warnings in the process therefore a ban is justified


[1] Round 1 rules
[3] Personal source from airmax, ore ele and TUf


no round as agreed
Debate Round No. 3
238 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
This is the most heated debate I have ever seen.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
tbhidc - zmikecuber ?
Posted by ClassicRobert 2 years ago
I really wish that I had voted on this debate. I didn't, so I'll just give some constructive criticism.

Tbh, you set an awesome framework in your first round, and I'm disappointed that you didn't utilize it. This was when you said,

"P1: Some members who meet negative XYZ criteria may be justifiably banned
P2: Jifpop meets negative XYZ criteria
C: Jifpop may be justifiably banned"

I liked your arguments about the ToS not being justified, but at the end of the debate, it felt like you had typed that whole section about what Mikal needed to prove for no reason.

Mikal: You're arguments were generally sound, but I hate the way you set up these debates.

You set it up with two rounds per side, where only your side is able to defend against refutations, and you get the instigator elo advantage, even given the fact that the elo advantage was meant to combat the advantage given to the last speaker in the debate.

If you want to make it fair instead of a snipe, either add a round and post first (conversely, you could add a round and ask your opponent to challenge you to a debate on the same topic so the one who's instigating actually gets the elo advantage), or post first and not defend yourself against your opponent's refutations.

I get that people accept the debate with the rules you set up, and I get that you "like your win record," but I know you can do better by at least making it a level playing field.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago

The argument is that the ToS itself is not necessarily justified.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago

Mine isn't. This debate just proves that sometimes, not even an elo floor helps... I will say, however, that it's pretty cool to see a debate with so many votes by prominent members only...
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
"No, we don't cheat. And even if we did, I'd never tell you."

- Tommy Lasorda
Posted by TN05 2 years ago
Did not expect this debate to end in a tie given how voting was going... my faith in DDO voting is restored.
Posted by mrsatan 2 years ago
What didn't go down in the debate?

Mikals counter argument to the justifiability of the ToS is basically that it's irrelevant. There are terms by which juggle is willing to provide a service. If a user receiving that service is unwilling to abide by those terms, then juggle is justified in ending the service for that user (banning them), because of the user has not upheld their end of the service agreement. That if someone does not consider those terms fair, then they should not agree to them in the first place.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
[This comment was censored by the DDO ToS]
Posted by tbhidc 2 years ago

But that didn't go down in the debate. Besides, semantics wasn't supposed to be permitted in this debate. So Mikal dropped it and tried to show it was "reasonable" in that there were good reasons to do so. But that doesnt seem to be in keeping with the original debate to me... because really, we could say the holocaust was "justifiable". Why? Because it was reasonable... there were good reasons to do it from a Nazi's point of view. Which is ridiculous because the original context of the debate here was that it was *fair* for Jifpop to be banned.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. May take a bit because I have to do this over my phone and I'm lazy so remind me if I dot get go it.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: The structure of this debate and the unconventional argumentation made it really confusing. I'm surprised at how close the debate ended up being because, honestly, the resolution seems almost impossible to refute. Negs strategy was mostly to question all of the underlying assumptions in the Aff case and show them to be invalid--this would normally be unpersuasive and in most cases it was, but Neg wins the round by pointing out that there's no reason to assume that everything Juggle does (I.E. the TOS) is automatically justified. This goes completely ignored by Mikal and thus throws the viability of his case into question because who cares if Jifpop breaks the TOS if we have no evidence it's justified? Moreover while I have great faith in Airmax, the argument that Ore_Ele should've banned Jif instead if he deserved it is moderately persuasive. Therefore I vote for Con.
Vote Placed by rross 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP to show that Airmax was justified banning Jifpop. I personally believe that he WAS justified, but I don't think it was shown in this debate. Pro appeals to voters' knowledge of Jifpop, but I haven't actually seen anything he's done. Con conceded that Jifpop broke the TOS multiple times, but I agree that this happens all the time without people getting banned. It comes down to basic trust in personalities - do we trust Airmax or Jifpop? Of course we trust Airmax. But that's not the same as proving that the ban was justified. I don't think such a thing is possible without a transparent banning process, which we don't have. [disclaimer: tbhidc invited me to vote on this]
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Hard to choose. I'm leaving it as tied. Pro did not effectively respond to Con's arguments, and Con failed to give examples of other users who should have been banned but weren't banned. If Con managed to do that, I would have seen good evidence why Jiff's ban was not justified on that basis, as Pro's argument that Juggle can do what they want with their website doesn't seem convincing at all and makes everything Juggle does justified, when that is clearly not the case according to the TOS itself. I thank both participants for an interesting debate which went into debate-theory and the status quo, but I couldn't make up my mind on who won the debate, unfortunately.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro upheld his BOP by sufficiently explaining how Jifpop broke the site's rules, which he agreed to have followed upon registering for DDO.
Vote Placed by TUF 2 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Removing as new evidence suggests Jifpop09 has not actually voted for himself as was previously thought.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: The simple syllogism that both Pro/Con seem to agree is the heart of the debate stands proven. Con acknowledges that the word "justified" is the cornerstone of Pro's argument, but Con failed to challenge Pro's definition and failed to challenge juggle's right to define what's reasonable. When Con concedes that "[juggle] is allowed to do as they please," Con recognizes the legitimacy of juggle's proscriptions. We can agree with Con that juggle does not have the right to do anything without denying juggle authority and legitimacy. Nor is every justified action necessarily righteous by Pro's definition, so long as a reasonable standard was applied- Hiroshima was not justified by Gandhi's standard but justified by USAF standards. Con concedes that juggle's standard is the most applicable, which makes his critique of juggle's choices irrelevant.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I felt the BOP for this debate was simple.... Did Jifpop deserve to get banned, meaning did he break site policy. All Mikal had to do was prove that Jifpop broke the rules, by which he would then be banned. Mikal shown that Jifpop broke site policy in a few instances. That's an auto-win. Breaking site policy = ban. No ands if or butts. Especially since that was only the issues from that day alone.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.