Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

The jimtimmy Doctrine and Full Platform

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 8:23:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As most of you probably know, I am running for president of DDO as the nominee of the Anti Banning party. Thus far, I have run on a promise to "ban banning".

However, I have recently come to see how impractical this policy would be. While I see most bannings as unjust, banning members such as "no no" is simply a necessity for the survival of this site.

So, despite the anger of many leaders of the Anti Banning Party, I have decided to adjust my, and the Anti Banning Party's, position on banning.

Here is the new position, what I call the jimtimmy Doctrine:

No member of DDO should be banned in any case, unless they are a blatant and obvious troll or disturbance for the sole purpose of causing harm to this site.

Now, the definition of a blatant troll or disturbance is any member who is, without disagreement, a troll. This means someone like "no no".

Is there a degree of subjectivity to this?

Yes, and there must be. However, it is not too hard to see the kind of troll I am talking about. Our current President, Innomen, put it this way, referencing "no no":

"In the case of say "no no", who was a clear troll with the sole intent of causing disruption to the site by mucking up debate challenges, posting photos that were offensive, voting for him or herself in multi accounts, there is no dispute, it is clear cut troll, that needs to be kept away from the site. Is it a subjective call? Sure, but in these cases a blind man with a cane can identify them as a troll."

I think we can all agree that this type of troll can be identified easily. So, will it technically be a judgement call?

Yes, but I have set a clear precedent that will be fairly easy to moniter.

Now, the point that I disagree with Innomen on is if we should even be able to ban a member like izbo10. I say we should not. In no case, would I even consider banning izbo10, or any member that is just being rude or holds controversial views.

Even though Innomen is not too bad about banning these types of members, that are controversial but not blatant trolls, it does set a tone where people are constantly calling for the banning of any member who holds controversial views or is rude to another member. This would stop if I were president, as only the very obvious and blatant trolls would be banned.

Okay, so please ask questions about my position if you feel like I am being unclear about anything.

Now, on to the rest of my platform for President.

Adding a History Topic

Outside of banning, I would like to add a history topic to DDO. I feel like there are many topics in history which are quite interesting and deserve their own topic.

Big Issues Reform

Furthermore, I will certainly be updating the Big Issues. We should no longer be asked whether or not we are Pro or Con on George W. Bush, who hasn't been president for almost three years.

I will also add more issues to this that reflect the diverse range of views held on DDO. For example, I plan on adding the question of whether or not one favors the existence of the state at all, as well as other questions that apply to some of the members of DDO that do not fit on the traditional left-right political divide.

Please read my platform above and consider voting for jimtimmy for President and Deathbeforedishonour for Vice President.
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 8:28:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Furthermore, I will certainly be updating the Big Issues. We should no longer be asked whether or not we are Pro or Con on George W. Bush, who hasn't been president for almost three years.

Right. We should be asking whether they are Pro or Con Dukakis.
Rob
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 8:30:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 8:28:53 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Furthermore, I will certainly be updating the Big Issues. We should no longer be asked whether or not we are Pro or Con on George W. Bush, who hasn't been president for almost three years.

Right. We should be asking whether they are Pro or Con Dukakis.

Or, we could ask whether or not they are Pro or Con Obama.

Better yet, we could simply stick to asking them about issues, and not about individuals.

Either one of those are better than asking them about a former president.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 8:37:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So the stance of the anti-banning party on banning is exactly the same as Innos, they just disagree with how banning is being used?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 8:42:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 8:37:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
So the stance of the anti-banning party on banning is exactly the same as Innos, they just disagree with how banning is being used?

Disagreeing with how banning is to be used is a pretty big part of this issue.

So, do we "just" disagree on how banning is to be used?

Yes, but that is a major disagreement, so don't marginalize the issue of how banning is to be used.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 9:11:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 8:42:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/3/2011 8:37:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
So the stance of the anti-banning party on banning is exactly the same as Innos, they just disagree with how banning is being used?

Disagreeing with how banning is to be used is a pretty big part of this issue.

So, do we "just" disagree on how banning is to be used?

Yes, but that is a major disagreement, so don't marginalize the issue of how banning is to be used.

Right...but you're the "anti-banning" party. Would you like to change it "anti-excessive-use-of-banning party?"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 9:20:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 9:11:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/3/2011 8:42:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/3/2011 8:37:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
So the stance of the anti-banning party on banning is exactly the same as Innos, they just disagree with how banning is being used?

Disagreeing with how banning is to be used is a pretty big part of this issue.

So, do we "just" disagree on how banning is to be used?

Yes, but that is a major disagreement, so don't marginalize the issue of how banning is to be used.

Right...but you're the "anti-banning" party. Would you like to change it "anti-excessive-use-of-banning party?"

Its not excessive use of banning. It is the use of banning beyond extremely necessary situations.

Besides, that name really isn't very catchy or politically savvy, so I'll stick with the Anti Banning Party.
President of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 10:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So basically you are against banning izbo?

Also, you are a flip-flopper. Too bad innomen isnt running a mudslinging campaign.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 10:19:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How does banning even play a part in this elections, seeing as Innomen has explained many times now (backed by WOG when Juggle confirmed this) that the power to ban is not linked to the presidency, was granted to Innomen as a user mod privilege, and will not pass to you if elected?

In other words, Innomen has a certain degree of power (because Juggle trusts him), and he has the figurehead role of "president." What do you think you can accomplish without that power, with only the title, and with an antagonistic relationship to the hosting company?

Explain your relevance, for I do not see it.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 10:19:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This guy just wants attention.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 10:20:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 8:23:07 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

So, despite the anger of many leaders of the Anti Banning Party, I have decided to adjust my, and the Anti Banning Party's, position on banning.

This part is ridiculous. You are the only member of your party. Why are you angry at yourself for being inconsistent?
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:18:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:08:28 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
You should run again, I'll vote.

I've got something cooking.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:18:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:18:30 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:08:28 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
You should run again, I'll vote.

I've got something cooking.

*cooking up.
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:19:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:18:48 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:18:30 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:08:28 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
You should run again, I'll vote.

I've got something cooking.

*cooking up.

I want in. Let's team up.
I'm so fancy, you already know.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:21:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:19:39 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:18:48 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:18:30 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:08:28 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
You should run again, I'll vote.

I've got something cooking.

*cooking up.

I want in. Let's team up.

PM me tomorrow and we'll discuss.
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:22:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 12:21:10 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:19:39 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:18:48 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:18:30 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 12:08:28 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
You should run again, I'll vote.

I've got something cooking.

*cooking up.

I want in. Let's team up.

PM me tomorrow and we'll discuss.

Sounds good, ttyl.
I'm so fancy, you already know.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:01:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:57:34 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
WHOA.

Since when has Jimtimmy been back?

Last night.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:39:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:35:23 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:07:48 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Please don't encourage him.

And why not?

Do you not know who Jimtimmy is.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:40:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:39:11 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:35:23 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:07:48 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Please don't encourage him.

And why not?

Do you not know who Jimtimmy is.

That's where you are wrong.
I'm so fancy, you already know.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:48:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:40:39 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:39:11 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:35:23 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:07:48 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Please don't encourage him.

And why not?

Do you not know who Jimtimmy is.

That's where you are wrong.

So you know who he is and are still endorsing him?
Are you just trying to be a blatant troll?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:53:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 10:48:10 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:40:39 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:39:11 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/27/2014 10:35:23 AM, SPENCERJOYAGE14 wrote:
At 3/27/2014 1:07:48 AM, Zaradi wrote:
Please don't encourage him.

And why not?

Do you not know who Jimtimmy is.

That's where you are wrong.

So you know who he is and are still endorsing him?
Are you just trying to be a blatant troll?

Yes. And no.
I'm so fancy, you already know.