Total Posts:161|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Conservative Voting Block Group

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:26:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
From my understanding, vote bombing has never been worse on this site than when a group of users formed a conservative voting block that refused to vote against each other.

Seems we have another one forming. 16kadam's RFD on my gay marriage debate:

"I feel hesitant to vote on arguments to avoid controversy as I am in the "conservative VB group" So I will go with sources. Pro had more sources, and from less biased websites. Also his sources where more reliable outside the realm of biased or quantity."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:37:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think he was joking (see: http://www.debate.org... and the related thread in the Politics forum).

However, his vote there did strike me as odd. The debate in question wasn't remotely close; as I recall, your opponent was still at 0 points by the time I read it.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:53:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:37:02 AM, Maikuru wrote:
I think he was joking (see: http://www.debate.org... and the related thread in the Politics forum).

However, his vote there did strike me as odd. The debate in question wasn't remotely close; as I recall, your opponent was still at 0 points by the time I read it.

Hm, after reviewing the evidence, I don't think royalpaladin is joking, but she may have originated the term "conservative voting block." 000ike does point out in the politics thread that the debates that these individuals choose to vote on is only on conservative issues and they always vote for the conservative side. He specifically references danielle vs. 16k, where lordknukle and oberherr both "counter-vote bomb" to counter the exact same person. http://www.debate.org...

Personally, I have a problem with 16k basically saying I won and then refusing to vote for me because it is the liberal side. This is not the first time I have had an issue with the way he selects which debates of mine to vote on and how he chooses to vote.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:55:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
another example of both

Not a big issue I guess in the grand scheme of thing, but I can see where royal is coming from.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:25:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm thinking people should look into this more, and get more evidence, if all you can find right off the bat, is some counter VBs and a joking RFD.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:41:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:25:36 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I'm thinking people should look into this more, and get more evidence, if all you can find right off the bat, is some counter VBs and a joking RFD.

Idk. It might be a problem if its how they vote 100% of the time...

But if not it cant really hold water.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:57:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:41:55 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/14/2012 1:25:36 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I'm thinking people should look into this more, and get more evidence, if all you can find right off the bat, is some counter VBs and a joking RFD.

Idk. It might be a problem if its how they vote 100% of the time...

But if not it cant really hold water.

What I'm saying is that, if all they can find is those three debates, which I can refute, then this is a dead argument.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 10:54:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ober, you're being a little defensive for someone who is innocent. I didn't know what 16k was referring to when I posted this. It's not really smart to go around to people's debates and say "I can't vote for you on arguments because my voting bloc wouldn't like that."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 10:56:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol yeah, its all a joke until they reach your debate and bomb it.
"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
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:14:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 10:54:27 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Ober, you're being a little defensive for someone who is innocent. I didn't know what 16k was referring to when I posted this. It's not really smart to go around to people's debates and say "I can't vote for you on arguments because my voting bloc wouldn't like that."

Why shouldn't I be defensive? I've been accused of something I haven't done, and then no one responds to me asking for proof that I have done this, and then I get accused again, without proof.

I personally don't understand how I couldn't be defensive.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:44:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it would be a good idea to stop counter vote-bombing. It's essentially vigilante justice, and it runs into problems when not everyone agrees that the vote you're countering is a vote-bomb and therefore feels the need to counter your counter vote-bomb, or when two people counter the same vote-bomb, or when a countered vote-bomb is removed, leaving only the counter.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 11:44:55 AM, mongeese wrote:
I think it would be a good idea to stop counter vote-bombing. It's essentially vigilante justice, and it runs into problems when not everyone agrees that the vote you're countering is a vote-bomb and therefore feels the need to counter your counter vote-bomb, or when two people counter the same vote-bomb, or when a countered vote-bomb is removed, leaving only the counter.

Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:53:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:55:46 AM, bluesteel wrote:
http://www.debate.org...
another example of both

Not a big issue I guess in the grand scheme of thing, but I can see where royal is coming from.

I voted FOR YOU in that debate.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:54:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:44:55 AM, mongeese wrote:
I think it would be a good idea to stop counter vote-bombing. It's essentially vigilante justice, and it runs into problems when not everyone agrees that the vote you're countering is a vote-bomb and therefore feels the need to counter your counter vote-bomb, or when two people counter the same vote-bomb, or when a countered vote-bomb is removed, leaving only the counter.

Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.

did you read a word he said? Mongeese's entire point was that there will not always be agreement on what is and is not a votebomb. Taking matters into your own hands just ends up being an assertive irrational vote.
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:55:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 11:54:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:44:55 AM, mongeese wrote:
I think it would be a good idea to stop counter vote-bombing. It's essentially vigilante justice, and it runs into problems when not everyone agrees that the vote you're countering is a vote-bomb and therefore feels the need to counter your counter vote-bomb, or when two people counter the same vote-bomb, or when a countered vote-bomb is removed, leaving only the counter.

Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.

did you read a word he said? Mongeese's entire point was that there will not always be agreement on what is and is not a votebomb. Taking matters into your own hands just ends up being an assertive irrational vote.

Yes, but obvious vote bombs are obvious vote bombs.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:55:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 11:54:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:44:55 AM, mongeese wrote:
I think it would be a good idea to stop counter vote-bombing. It's essentially vigilante justice, and it runs into problems when not everyone agrees that the vote you're countering is a vote-bomb and therefore feels the need to counter your counter vote-bomb, or when two people counter the same vote-bomb, or when a countered vote-bomb is removed, leaving only the counter.

Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.

did you read a word he said? Mongeese's entire point was that there will not always be agreement on what is and is not a votebomb. Taking matters into your own hands just ends up being an assertive irrational vote.

So, if the person gives no RFD, and gives someone 7 points, its not a VB?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:32:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.

Not true.

http://www.debate.org...

On my gay marriage debate (which I won only after calling attention to the v-bombs), your "counter vote bomb" was completely unjustified.

The first vote was from Mangani which was legitimate. The second vote was a straight 7 v-bomb against me from the user Ron-Paul. The third vote was a 7 v-bomb in my favor (to counter) so at this point the votes were balanced. The 4th vote was from drafterman and was legitimate. The 5th vote from Maikuru was legit, as was the 6th from wiploc. Then you, OberHerr, voted a straight 7 points against me... but you weren't countering anyone, as the votes to that point were fine. Nobody v-bombed in my favor prior to that except for the person countering Ron-Paul's initial vote bomb. The 8th vote from Raisor was legit. The 9th vote by RussianFish99 countered Oberr in my favor, so the votes were fine again. The 10th vote was once again another completely unnecessary v-bomb against me by Man-Is-Good. RoyalPaladdin voted next, then jimtimmy who gave arguments points to my opponent... LOL. LordKnukle then gave my opponent 7 points for NO REASON. Once again, he wasn't countering anybody nor were the previous people from this voting bloc. Then ConservativePolitico gave my opponent sources (haha). This is ridiculous because my opponent had far inferior sources (he used legitimate hate groups and Conservapedia), plus as others have pointed out, had a ton of s/g mistakes. But whatever.

Worse, these people RFD's suck. Jimtimmy's reason for decision was "Pro won because he proved that gays have worse marriages." Um, vague much? I spent the entire debate countering that. Jimtimmy didn't give a reason for why my opponent's arguments were better and instead just stated an ambiguous opinion. The same thing happened on my debate about the war in Iraq which I lost. 16kadams obviously voted against me, stating "both sides did well, but imabench came out on top very slightly." Um, WHY? The reason why you think that is supposed to be explicit in the Reason For Decision. 1HistoryGenius (another Conservative) voted against me stating, "I would have to overall give my vote to Con." Once again this doesn't explain why at all whatsoever. OberHerr did the same thing: "Con refuted Pro's arguments well, and he did well at defending his own. Close debate, but Con wins."

I have other examples (with the same people) but don't care enough to go looking for them at the moment. Maybe later. The point is, these people only vote in allegiance with their own views regardless of what was put forth in the debate. They also fake counter bomb, as you can see that at least 3 of them voted against me to "counter" yet were countering nobody.
President of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:32:23 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.

Not true.

http://www.debate.org...

On my gay marriage debate (which I won only after calling attention to the v-bombs), your "counter vote bomb" was completely unjustified.

The first vote was from Mangani which was legitimate. The second vote was a straight 7 v-bomb against me from the user Ron-Paul. The third vote was a 7 v-bomb in my favor (to counter) so at this point the votes were balanced. The 4th vote was from drafterman and was legitimate. The 5th vote from Maikuru was legit, as was the 6th from wiploc. Then you, OberHerr, voted a straight 7 points against me... but you weren't countering anyone, as the votes to that point were fine. Nobody v-bombed in my favor prior to that except for the person countering Ron-Paul's initial vote bomb. The 8th vote from Raisor was legit. The 9th vote by RussianFish99 countered Oberr in my favor, so the votes were fine again. The 10th vote was once again another completely unnecessary v-bomb against me by Man-Is-Good. RoyalPaladdin voted next, then jimtimmy who gave arguments points to my opponent... LOL. LordKnukle then gave my opponent 7 points for NO REASON. Once again, he wasn't countering anybody nor were the previous people from this voting bloc. Then ConservativePolitico gave my opponent sources (haha). This is ridiculous because my opponent had far inferior sources (he used legitimate hate groups and Conservapedia), plus as others have pointed out, had a ton of s/g mistakes. But whatever.

Worse, these people RFD's suck. Jimtimmy's reason for decision was "Pro won because he proved that gays have worse marriages." Um, vague much? I spent the entire debate countering that. Jimtimmy didn't give a reason for why my opponent's arguments were better and instead just stated an ambiguous opinion. The same thing happened on my debate about the war in Iraq which I lost. 16kadams obviously voted against me, stating "both sides did well, but imabench came out on top very slightly." Um, WHY? The reason why you think that is supposed to be explicit in the Reason For Decision. 1HistoryGenius (another Conservative) voted against me stating, "I would have to overall give my vote to Con." Once again this doesn't explain why at all whatsoever. OberHerr did the same thing: "Con refuted Pro's arguments well, and he did well at defending his own. Close debate, but Con wins."

I have other examples (with the same people) but don't care enough to go looking for them at the moment. Maybe later. The point is, these people only vote in allegiance with their own views regardless of what was put forth in the debate. They also fake counter bomb, as you can see that at least 3 of them voted against me to "counter" yet were countering nobody.

Hmm so it appears that only your opinion matters eh? You should be ultimate vote judge? I gave your opponent sources because I found his sources more useful, who are you to tell me otherwise? I gave you conduct (which you fail to mention of course) because you put up a good case and deserved points. Also your opponent got sources for the source confusion that you had, at first I couldn't even find your sources.

Leave me out of this. I'm a legit voter. (Many liberals have already backed me up on this) Please don't drag me back into this.

Thanks.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:32:23 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.

Not true.

http://www.debate.org...

On my gay marriage debate (which I won only after calling attention to the v-bombs), your "counter vote bomb" was completely unjustified.

The first vote was from Mangani which was legitimate. The second vote was a straight 7 v-bomb against me from the user Ron-Paul. The third vote was a 7 v-bomb in my favor (to counter) so at this point the votes were balanced. The 4th vote was from drafterman and was legitimate. The 5th vote from Maikuru was legit, as was the 6th from wiploc. Then you, OberHerr, voted a straight 7 points against me... but you weren't countering anyone, as the votes to that point were fine. Nobody v-bombed in my favor prior to that except for the person countering Ron-Paul's initial vote bomb. The 8th vote from Raisor was legit. The 9th vote by RussianFish99 countered Oberr in my favor, so the votes were fine again. The 10th vote was once again another completely unnecessary v-bomb against me by Man-Is-Good. RoyalPaladdin voted next, then jimtimmy who gave arguments points to my opponent... LOL. LordKnukle then gave my opponent 7 points for NO REASON. Once again, he wasn't countering anybody nor were the previous people from this voting bloc. Then ConservativePolitico gave my opponent sources (haha). This is ridiculous because my opponent had far inferior sources (he used legitimate hate groups and Conservapedia), plus as others have pointed out, had a ton of s/g mistakes. But whatever.

Worse, these people RFD's suck. Jimtimmy's reason for decision was "Pro won because he proved that gays have worse marriages." Um, vague much? I spent the entire debate countering that. Jimtimmy didn't give a reason for why my opponent's arguments were better and instead just stated an ambiguous opinion. The same thing happened on my debate about the war in Iraq which I lost. 16kadams obviously voted against me, stating "both sides did well, but imabench came out on top very slightly." Um, WHY? The reason why you think that is supposed to be explicit in the Reason For Decision. 1HistoryGenius (another Conservative) voted against me stating, "I would have to overall give my vote to Con." Once again this doesn't explain why at all whatsoever. OberHerr did the same thing: "Con refuted Pro's arguments well, and he did well at defending his own. Close debate, but Con wins."

I have other examples (with the same people) but don't care enough to go looking for them at the moment. Maybe later. The point is, these people only vote in allegiance with their own views regardless of what was put forth in the debate. They also fake counter bomb, as you can see that at least 3 of them voted against me to "counter" yet were countering nobody.

Sorry if I didn't realize that the ones that were VBing were already being countered. I got a message from 16adams that people were VBing, so I went on the debate, saw allkid's vote, and countered. If others either didn't realize I had already countered or not, is not my fault. I was countering the clear VBing I saw, and thats that.

Also, Russianfish was trolling. Simply as that.

As for the war in Iraq one, what was I suppose to say? imabench won, simply as that. I stated why I thought he won. I'm not a big one for making detailed RFD's. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy you, but thought he won simply as that. He gave better sources, and had better arguments, gave good reason for why we didn't invade for oil. I'll say you were at a disadvantage, but he won simply as that.

And anyways, how is what I put VBing? You do realize, in a debate like that, with it being that close, the voting is based a lot on opinion fr who did better, and well, in my opinion, imabench did better.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:46:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
LordKnukle then gave my opponent 7 points for NO REASON.

I hate to pick him out but LK is such a blatant offender. In my debate on equal opportunity with DanT LK's uses the initial RFD "The question was whether people CAN move up or done the class structure. PRO proved that they can relatively easily." I pointed out that this was an extreme misrepresentation of the debate, and DoubleR countered it - but then LK unbelievably awards all 7 points to Pro instead of realizing his mistake.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:46:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
LordKnukle then gave my opponent 7 points for NO REASON.

I hate to pick him out but LK is such a blatant offender. In my debate on equal opportunity with DanT LK's uses the initial RFD "The question was whether people CAN move up or done the class structure. PRO proved that they can relatively easily." I pointed out that this was an extreme misrepresentation of the debate, and DoubleR countered it - but then LK unbelievably awards all 7 points to Pro instead of realizing his mistake.

To him it wasn't a mistake, that's how he read into it.

All of this stems from whose perception of voting and arguments is correct when its all based on the person. Obviously you're going to feel like you won. Obviously you're going to interperate somethings differently. Not everyone thinks the same way...

You guys are looking sillier and sillier all the time.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:53:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:43:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Hmm so it appears that only your opinion matters eh? You should be ultimate vote judge?

No, I never implied that.

I gave your opponent sources because I found his sources more useful, who are you to tell me otherwise?

Justify Conservapedia as a legitimate source. Justify giving him points for sources when the sources he used are considered legitimate hate groups... Ergo, their "facts" are skewed and misrepresented to defend a particular POV. Furthermore, my opponent merely copied and pasted (which is basically plagiarism) from the sources. In other words, he didn't use facts to support his case but rather let other people make his case for him and was simply honest enough to post the links he lifted entire paragraphs from. I explained this in the debate. Apparently you didn't read it or are too intellectually dishonest to care.

I gave you conduct (which you fail to mention of course) because you put up a good case and deserved points.

I didn't deserve conduct points. If you thought I put up a good case (which I did), then I should have won points for arguments, not conduct. You're basically making up your own point system which can be problematic.

Also your opponent got sources for the source confusion that you had, at first I couldn't even find your sources.

I explained in the debate and in the comments section that I was having technological difficulties posting links thanks to a glitch on DDO. Penalizing me for that is unwarranted.

Leave me out of this. I'm a legit voter. (Many liberals have already backed me up on this) Please don't drag me back into this.

Thanks.

I pointed out that you gave my opponent sources which is a joke for aforementioned reasons. Deal with it.
President of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 1:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:53:03 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/14/2012 1:43:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Hmm so it appears that only your opinion matters eh? You should be ultimate vote judge?

No, I never implied that.


I gave your opponent sources because I found his sources more useful, who are you to tell me otherwise?

Justify Conservapedia as a legitimate source. Justify giving him points for sources when the sources he used are considered legitimate hate groups... Ergo, their "facts" are skewed and misrepresented to defend a particular POV. Furthermore, my opponent merely copied and pasted (which is basically plagiarism) from the sources. In other words, he didn't use facts to support his case but rather let other people make his case for him and was simply honest enough to post the links he lifted entire paragraphs from. I explained this in the debate. Apparently you didn't read it or are too intellectually dishonest to care.

I gave you conduct (which you fail to mention of course) because you put up a good case and deserved points.

I didn't deserve conduct points. If you thought I put up a good case (which I did), then I should have won points for arguments, not conduct. You're basically making up your own point system which can be problematic.

Also your opponent got sources for the source confusion that you had, at first I couldn't even find your sources.

I explained in the debate and in the comments section that I was having technological difficulties posting links thanks to a glitch on DDO. Penalizing me for that is unwarranted.

Leave me out of this. I'm a legit voter. (Many liberals have already backed me up on this) Please don't drag me back into this.

Thanks.

I pointed out that you gave my opponent sources which is a joke for aforementioned reasons. Deal with it.

And I did it anyways, deal with that.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:03:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Danielle, you're complaining about losing the Sources vote, but this may be part of the problem:
"This debate was a tie. Mangani was wrong to favor Danielle. Danielle did not use any sources outside of debate.org. And the other points should be ties. So basically, 16kadams should win on the sources part. That was the only thing he edged Danielle on." - Ron-Paul's RFD
http://www.debate.org...

People see your link to Debate.org and assume that you're sourcing the website instead of the fake debate you started to put your sources in, which is actually another issue entirely: http://www.debate.org...

Also, your first Sources link is actually broken entirely, which I believe is because under Rich Text, your hyperlink absorbed an extra space into its URL, so its redirecting to a " " page that doesn't exist, givng the 404 error.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:05:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:53:03 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/14/2012 1:43:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Hmm so it appears that only your opinion matters eh? You should be ultimate vote judge?

No, I never implied that.


I gave your opponent sources because I found his sources more useful, who are you to tell me otherwise?

Justify Conservapedia as a legitimate source. Justify giving him points for sources when the sources he used are considered legitimate hate groups... Ergo, their "facts" are skewed and misrepresented to defend a particular POV. Furthermore, my opponent merely copied and pasted (which is basically plagiarism) from the sources. In other words, he didn't use facts to support his case but rather let other people make his case for him and was simply honest enough to post the links he lifted entire paragraphs from. I explained this in the debate. Apparently you didn't read it or are too intellectually dishonest to care.

I gave you conduct (which you fail to mention of course) because you put up a good case and deserved points.

I didn't deserve conduct points. If you thought I put up a good case (which I did), then I should have won points for arguments, not conduct. You're basically making up your own point system which can be problematic.

Also your opponent got sources for the source confusion that you had, at first I couldn't even find your sources.

I explained in the debate and in the comments section that I was having technological difficulties posting links thanks to a glitch on DDO. Penalizing me for that is unwarranted.

Leave me out of this. I'm a legit voter. (Many liberals have already backed me up on this) Please don't drag me back into this.

Thanks.

I pointed out that you gave my opponent sources which is a joke for aforementioned reasons. Deal with it.

By picking apart every vote you don't like or agree with you are implying that you're judgement is better. You give "reasons" that these votes are unsatisfactory but unless you don't give ANY RFD then who are you to say what vote is legit or not? Seriously. Come down off the soapbox and deal with the fact that not every RFD will be a thesis paper in your favor.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:06:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:32:23 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:48:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Trust me, the VB's I was countering were VB's.

Not true.

http://www.debate.org...

On my gay marriage debate (which I won only after calling attention to the v-bombs), your "counter vote bomb" was completely unjustified.

The first vote was from Mangani which was legitimate. The second vote was a straight 7 v-bomb against me from the user Ron-Paul. The third vote was a 7 v-bomb in my favor (to counter) so at this point the votes were balanced. The 4th vote was from drafterman and was legitimate. The 5th vote from Maikuru was legit, as was the 6th from wiploc. Then you, OberHerr, voted a straight 7 points against me... but you weren't countering anyone, as the votes to that point were fine. Nobody v-bombed in my favor prior to that except for the person countering Ron-Paul's initial vote bomb. The 8th vote from Raisor was legit. The 9th vote by RussianFish99 countered Oberr in my favor, so the votes were fine again. The 10th vote was once again another completely unnecessary v-bomb against me by Man-Is-Good. RoyalPaladdin voted next, then jimtimmy who gave arguments points to my opponent... LOL. LordKnukle then gave my opponent 7 points for NO REASON. Once again, he wasn't countering anybody nor were the previous people from this voting bloc. Then ConservativePolitico gave my opponent sources (haha). This is ridiculous because my opponent had far inferior sources (he used legitimate hate groups and Conservapedia), plus as others have pointed out, had a ton of s/g mistakes. But whatever.

This chaos is why counter-vote bombing is such a bad idea. You can't keep track of it all, and everything piles up on each other. What we need is a way to report votes so that a moderator can remove any actual vote-bombs.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:11:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 1:58:12 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
And I did it anyways, deal with that.

Good for you. I called you out for giving sources points to someone who practically plagiarized from hate groups and blatantly biased websites. Now people will see you for the illegitimate voter you are. That's fine.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 2:03:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
Danielle, you're complaining about losing the Sources vote, but this may be part of the problem:

Only from one person. The rest of the v-bombs were "counters" though they weren't countering anyone.

People see your link to Debate.org and assume that you're sourcing the website instead of the fake debate you started to put your sources in, which is actually another issue entirely

Yes, so it shows they didn't even bother to click the link.

Also, your first Sources link is actually broken entirely, which I believe is because under Rich Text, your hyperlink absorbed an extra space into its URL, so its redirecting to a " " page that doesn't exist, givng the 404 error.

Yes, and I explained in the debate and in the comments section that I was having technological difficulties due to the Rich Text b.s. or whatever (I can't post working links in many cases). I explained that DDO put an extra back slash and all they had to do was remove it, and the page would show up. Regardless, only 1 mo voted Sources against me in a non blatant v-bomb.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:13:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 2:06:33 PM, mongeese wrote:

This chaos is why counter-vote bombing is such a bad idea. You can't keep track of it all, and everything piles up on each other. What we need is a way to report votes so that a moderator can remove any actual vote-bombs.

Actually no. Counter-VB has only been a problem since this Conservative Coalition came about, a group of people that don't know what humility is, and don't know how to vote like adults. Normally, countering is an excellent idea especially since we have a set of moderators in incognito that aren't necessarily quick to cancel votes.
"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