Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Fatal Contradiction in the Trial Against Izbo

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:30:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

Why is there a threshold? The ToS explicitly states that violation leads to banning.

Second, we have no way to objectively measure intent, so there is no reason that this can be used as a justification in this round.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:31:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

does that actually matter? violation is a violation is a violation.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:32:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:31:35 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

does that actually matter? violation is a violation is a violation.

Absolutely correct. Please put the other offenders on trial.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:36:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:30:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

Why is there a threshold? The ToS explicitly states that violation leads to banning.

Second, we have no way to objectively measure intent, so there is no reason that this can be used as a justification in this round.

No it doesn't, please read the ToS again. Intent also does not require objective measurement, just like it doesn't in real world trials.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:37:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:31:35 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

does that actually matter? violation is a violation is a violation.

Is there not a difference between accidently driving your car into someone else, verus intentionally doing it?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:48:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:36:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:30:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

Why is there a threshold? The ToS explicitly states that violation leads to banning.

Second, we have no way to objectively measure intent, so there is no reason that this can be used as a justification in this round.

No it doesn't, please read the ToS again. Intent also does not require objective measurement, just like it doesn't in real world trials.

It does require objective measurement because anybody can just make something up. If you ask Izbo, he will declare that he was not intending to troll; rather, he simply was debating. There is no means through which to actually disprove this; you can only claim that you perceived it differently. Just because something is not done in the real world does not mean that it is just. The Milon Hershey company still uses slavery to make its chocolate, but that does not mean it is just.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:49:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:36:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:30:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

Why is there a threshold? The ToS explicitly states that violation leads to banning.

Second, we have no way to objectively measure intent, so there is no reason that this can be used as a justification in this round.

No it doesn't, please read the ToS again. Intent also does not require objective measurement, just like it doesn't in real world trials.

From the Terms of Service:

". Use of Website Conditioned upon Agreement. YOU AGREE TO READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE DEBATE.ORG WEBSITE. (Your failure to read this Agreement will not excuse you from its terms and conditions of use.) Please read this Agreement carefully and save it. If you wish to become a Member, communicate with other Members and make use of the Debate.org Services, you must read this Agreement and indicate your acceptance during the Registration process.

If you do not agree to these terms and conditions of use, you may not access or otherwise use the Website. By using the Website, you acknowledge that you have read this Agreement and that you agree to be contractually bound by it."

YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR OTHERWISE USE THIS SITE
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 9:58:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

The Gospel according to illegalcombatant.

And then ye came the moderators with some DDO users to Jesus and they said what shall we do with Izbo ?, for he has been caught violating the DDO TOS , then they said the TOS says that if anyone is caught violating the TOS he shall be banned.

Then Jesus said, he who is without violating the TOS cast the first vote to ban, and one by one the users of DDO left as did the moderators.

Then Jesus said go your way izbo and violate the TOS no more. Then Izbo said, screw you Jesus you don't tell me what to do. Then Jesus saith man....Izbo really is an a$$hole.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:37:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:31:35 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

does that actually matter? violation is a violation is a violation.

Is there not a difference between accidently driving your car into someone else, verus intentionally doing it?

lol hpg corrected
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 11:03:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Violating the ToS and abusing the ToS are two completely different things. Many members on this site violate the ToS. Banning all of them would not be beneficial. But neither is allowing members to do and say whatever they want, whenever they want, as often as they want. Someone has to make decisions as to who stays and who goes, and those decisions will be subjective. Objectivity in finding a middle ground is not humanly possible.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 2:51:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The decision to ban is less dependent on a violation of the ToS, but a total cost benefit analysis. The net harm that Izbo does cancels out the benefits he brings, whereas other members like C_N, or Danielle, etc bring vastly greater benefits to the site than harm. To some extent it is a subjective determination, which is why i wanted a site wide process that would further hash out this issue.

Although it is true a small part of me does regret the indulgance i gave izbo with the trial; on the whole, it has been a net benefit to me, because i am hearing more voices about the issue of banning trolls. I do pay close attention to the priorities of the community by reading as many posts as possible when it comes to the way the site is going.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 5:49:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:37:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:31:35 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

does that actually matter? violation is a violation is a violation.

Is there not a difference between accidently driving your car into someone else, verus intentionally doing it?
What's your point? Many users have done things as deliberately and horribly as Izbo. Their accounts should have been wiped off of this site a long time ago, in case we actually do value the ToS.

I agree with you on intention. On a debate site, people will definitely insult each other one way or another. Someone will tell that you insulted him for stating the obvious about some of his deeds here. But to deliberately use profane words against someone and insist on attacking him in many ways - that is not accidental. It's intentional. And it should be punished.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 9:59:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:49:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:36:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:30:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:26:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:23:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The prosecution team, created by Innomen has made a fatal error. If you read the comments, you will note that Innomen decided not to ban Izbo based on a standard of violation of the Terms of Service because many other individuals, including Danielle, would be eliminated as well. Thus, Izbo simply has to invoke this argument in order to win the round and remain on the website. If he is being banned for violations, then so too must they. Otherwise, some individuals are being granted special license to violate the terms of service.

Difference of intent and theshold.

Why is there a threshold? The ToS explicitly states that violation leads to banning.

Second, we have no way to objectively measure intent, so there is no reason that this can be used as a justification in this round.

No it doesn't, please read the ToS again. Intent also does not require objective measurement, just like it doesn't in real world trials.

From the Terms of Service:

". Use of Website Conditioned upon Agreement. YOU AGREE TO READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE DEBATE.ORG WEBSITE. (Your failure to read this Agreement will not excuse you from its terms and conditions of use.) Please read this Agreement carefully and save it. If you wish to become a Member, communicate with other Members and make use of the Debate.org Services, you must read this Agreement and indicate your acceptance during the Registration process.

If you do not agree to these terms and conditions of use, you may not access or otherwise use the Website. By using the Website, you acknowledge that you have read this Agreement and that you agree to be contractually bound by it."

YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR OTHERWISE USE THIS SITE

You did not list the actual rule in the TOS, let me help.

"Content Posted and Code of Conduct

You agree to use the Debate.org's service in accordance with the following content posted and code of conduct guidelines:

...

T. Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account.

1. No use of profanities or swear words.
2. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
3. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
4. No threats or implications thereof."

Surely you can look up the definition of the word "may."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"