Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In Defense of Personal Vote-Bombing

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 2:52:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

If the RFD is legitimate, then it's not a votebomb... I don't see the revolution here.
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 2:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

So is I vote in favor of people I thought lost the debate or withhold a ballot because someone I don't like won, you think that is acceptable voting behavior?

Is your position that dishonest voting is legitimate provided the person can put together an RFD that is not incontrovertibly incoherent?

How is it better to vote bomb the debates of people you think are targeting you rather than bring suspect behavior to the community? Your advocacy just leads to vigilante vote bombs and shifts flame wars to the ballots.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:02:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

In your opinion, would a legitimate RFD for 'Convincing argument' be: "Because I agree with his argument". Or would a legitimate RFD include a reason for agreeing with someone's argument? Ex: "I agree with his argument because of (x) and (y)."
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:03:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

Yes! (Actually, I agree with the whole thing but I can't scroll down on this phone)

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:12:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 3:02:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

In your opinion, would a legitimate RFD for 'Convincing argument' be: "Because I agree with his argument". Or would a legitimate RFD include a reason for agreeing with someone's argument? Ex: "I agree with his argument because of (x) and (y)."

A legitimate RFD (as the wise wrichcirw says, IMHO) would be more like "I agree with his argument because he pointed out (x) and (y)," specifically speaking. That kind of RFD, regardless of how weak, could always pass reporting.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:17:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 3:12:01 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
A legitimate RFD (as the wise wrichcirw says, IMHO) would be more like "I agree with his argument because he pointed out (x) and (y)," specifically speaking. That kind of RFD, regardless of how weak, could always pass reporting.

Alright, that's what I thought. I had someone place a vote against me and there reason for awarding my opponent points for 'Convincing Argument' was because they, "agreed with his argument." That's all - the vote provided no reason. I reported it twice but it still hasn't been removed. That's why I asked. Now that I know, it looks like the Mod's are just deciding to ignore my reports.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:20:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

GWLCPA (who is much hated here), makes the following counterargument.

(1) Even meta-debates will be voted on by your opponent's friends.

(2) If your opponent is popular and has many friends, you have higher chances of losing the meta-debate too.

In debates that are centered upon votes, I feel that confirmation biases play a great role. If you like the person being accused of vote-bombing, you're expected to defend him with back-flipping apologetic and convince yourself that he voted fairly. The vice-versa case also applies.

I have once suggested to have a trusted voting committee for the meta-debate, which are trusted by both participants(Pro and Con) and asked to try their best to vote on that particular debate. I got an objection from my friend RoyLatham that most people won't show up on the voting period, similarly to what happens in tournaments. However, I think that if you make it a one month voting period as opposed to two weeks, then the members of the voting committee would be able to cast their votes. This doesn't ensure that their votes would be perfect, however, the votes would be "less wrong" to say the least.

The best voters on this website, from what I know, are Ragnar, N7, Phantom, Whiteflame, TUF, Ore_Ele, RoyLatham, Airmax, Raisor and a few others.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:26:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 3:12:01 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
At 4/6/2014 3:02:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

In your opinion, would a legitimate RFD for 'Convincing argument' be: "Because I agree with his argument". Or would a legitimate RFD include a reason for agreeing with someone's argument? Ex: "I agree with his argument because of (x) and (y)."

A legitimate RFD (as the wise wrichcirw says, IMHO) would be more like "I agree with his argument because he pointed out (x) and (y)," specifically speaking. That kind of RFD, regardless of how weak, could always pass reporting.

Kleptin's passage seems to be inspired from the fact that I provided two legitimate RFDs against people I don't really like, and they were reported and they passed reporting, but I still got a backlash for voting against people I don't like, although I made it clear that they deserved to lose.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:51:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This becomes a tricky issue. Obviously no one can vote on all debates and be expected to give full attention and effort to each one. So we naturally have to limit ourselves only to debates that catch our interest.

Ideally, this should be based on topics that we are interested without regard for who the debater is. I personally have it set for all sporting and science debates to give me notifications.

But it seems to me, if some people are having an interest because someone they like is debating, then it should be equally acceptable if someone has an interest bcause of someone they don't like. As in, both are acceptable or neither is. After all, both are just as prone to abuse and just as able to create a bogus RFD to make it seem legitimate.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:53:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 3:17:33 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/6/2014 3:12:01 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
A legitimate RFD (as the wise wrichcirw says, IMHO) would be more like "I agree with his argument because he pointed out (x) and (y)," specifically speaking. That kind of RFD, regardless of how weak, could always pass reporting.

Alright, that's what I thought. I had someone place a vote against me and there reason for awarding my opponent points for 'Convincing Argument' was because they, "agreed with his argument." That's all - the vote provided no reason. I reported it twice but it still hasn't been removed. That's why I asked. Now that I know, it looks like the Mod's are just deciding to ignore my reports.

Can you shoot me a PM of the debate in question?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:57:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 3:53:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/6/2014 3:17:33 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/6/2014 3:12:01 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
A legitimate RFD (as the wise wrichcirw says, IMHO) would be more like "I agree with his argument because he pointed out (x) and (y)," specifically speaking. That kind of RFD, regardless of how weak, could always pass reporting.

Alright, that's what I thought. I had someone place a vote against me and there reason for awarding my opponent points for 'Convincing Argument' was because they, "agreed with his argument." That's all - the vote provided no reason. I reported it twice but it still hasn't been removed. That's why I asked. Now that I know, it looks like the Mod's are just deciding to ignore my reports.

Can you shoot me a PM of the debate in question?

Sure. I'll send the link now.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:15:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:54:32 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

So is I vote in favor of people I thought lost the debate or withhold a ballot because someone I don't like won, you think that is acceptable voting behavior?

Is your position that dishonest voting is legitimate provided the person can put together an RFD that is not incontrovertibly incoherent?

How is it better to vote bomb the debates of people you think are targeting you rather than bring suspect behavior to the community? Your advocacy just leads to vigilante vote bombs and shifts flame wars to the ballots.

And this kids is a perfect example of a slippery slope logical fallacy.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:27:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:54:32 PM, Raisor wrote:

So is I vote in favor of people I thought lost the debate or withhold a ballot because someone I don't like won, you think that is acceptable voting behavior?

Is your position that dishonest voting is legitimate provided the person can put together an RFD that is not incontrovertibly incoherent?

How is it better to vote bomb the debates of people you think are targeting you rather than bring suspect behavior to the community? Your advocacy just leads to vigilante vote bombs and shifts flame wars to the ballots.

None of that stuff's good voting behavior of course. But the point is that you can't prove any of it. People's motives are invisible even to themselves sometimes. Friends vote for friends all the time. I often think people are shockingly biased. They disagree. Who gets to pick who's right?

It seems to me that with your public shaming policy, you're advocating for a rule of popularity. But I really value diversity of opinion. Someone with an unusual perspective could see things differently from the popular crowd and they could be right. If they have a coherent rfd it should stand without a bunch of people questionning their noticez.
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:31:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:20:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I just saw logic walking out of Raisor's room depressed and disappointed, chanting to himself "That kid Raisor is a hopeless case."

Logic and I have an on off relationship- but I'm down with it because the makeup sex is phenomenal.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:33:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:31:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:20:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I just saw logic walking out of Raisor's room depressed and disappointed, chanting to himself "That kid Raisor is a hopeless case."

Logic and I have an on off relationship- but I'm down with it because the makeup sex is phenomenal.

I wish I found fisting that pleasurable, but I do imagine that's the only thing Logic has done to you, with me around, at least.
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:39:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:27:46 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:54:32 PM, Raisor wrote:

So is I vote in favor of people I thought lost the debate or withhold a ballot because someone I don't like won, you think that is acceptable voting behavior?

Is your position that dishonest voting is legitimate provided the person can put together an RFD that is not incontrovertibly incoherent?

How is it better to vote bomb the debates of people you think are targeting you rather than bring suspect behavior to the community? Your advocacy just leads to vigilante vote bombs and shifts flame wars to the ballots.

None of that stuff's good voting behavior of course. But the point is that you can't prove any of it. People's motives are invisible even to themselves sometimes. Friends vote for friends all the time. I often think people are shockingly biased. They disagree. Who gets to pick who's right?

It seems to me that with your public shaming policy, you're advocating for a rule of popularity. But I really value diversity of opinion. Someone with an unusual perspective could see things differently from the popular crowd and they could be right. If they have a coherent rfd it should stand without a bunch of people questionning their noticez.

OP's alternative is also rule of popularity.

The nature of society is such that you can't escape the influence of personality and social bonds. My argument is that bringing questions into the real, of public discourse is preferable to individuals or groups of individuals acting autonomously to correct perceived injustices. Public discourse offers transparency and forces people to justify themselves before the community.

Public discourse may also shed light on a bias that was invisible to the user being questioned. It forces them to critically compare their method of evaluation to more common voting standards. This isn't to say the community entrenched standards are necessarily right, just that the process of talking about it is valuable to all involved.

I'm not advocating shaming people with unusual RFDs, I see lots of RFDs I think are bad or come from a very different perspective but legitimate. I'm advocating people who exhibit patterns of voting that indicate bias or personal motivations not tied to the quality of the debate.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:41:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I strongly disagree with the OP because "coherence" in an RFD can be presented even while being biased. Personally, when I read a debate, I could justify a coherent looking RFD for either side as long as the debate is somewhat close. While I haven't actually done it, it is not uncommon to believe that you could justify a vote either way. The solution is to think more about the debate/re-read until you get a better idea. Coherence alone shouldn't be the metric to evaluate RFDs.
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:43:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:33:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:31:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:20:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I just saw logic walking out of Raisor's room depressed and disappointed, chanting to himself "That kid Raisor is a hopeless case."

Logic and I have an on off relationship- but I'm down with it because the makeup sex is phenomenal.

I wish I found fisting that pleasurable, but I do imagine that's the only thing Logic has done to you, with me around, at least.

I don't know what bothers me more about this, that you are trying to conjure an image of me being fisted while you watch or that you are relying on anti-gay tropes to insult me...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:56:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:43:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:33:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:31:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:20:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I just saw logic walking out of Raisor's room depressed and disappointed, chanting to himself "That kid Raisor is a hopeless case."

Logic and I have an on off relationship- but I'm down with it because the makeup sex is phenomenal.

I wish I found fisting that pleasurable, but I do imagine that's the only thing Logic has done to you, with me around, at least.

I don't know what bothers me more about this, that you are trying to conjure an image of me being fisted while you watch or that you are relying on anti-gay tropes to insult me...

Lol. I'm heterosexual (I think) but I would like to see you pounded for like 10 seconds, before I roll on the floor laughing at you whimpering like a girl and reaching for logic with your turquoise-colored fingernails.

And I'm not sure how you would think I'm ant-gay. I'm a supporter of gay marriage, and I have many gay friends like Bluesteel and Mikal.
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 5:03:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:56:53 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:43:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:33:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:31:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:20:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I just saw logic walking out of Raisor's room depressed and disappointed, chanting to himself "That kid Raisor is a hopeless case."

Logic and I have an on off relationship- but I'm down with it because the makeup sex is phenomenal.

I wish I found fisting that pleasurable, but I do imagine that's the only thing Logic has done to you, with me around, at least.

I don't know what bothers me more about this, that you are trying to conjure an image of me being fisted while you watch or that you are relying on anti-gay tropes to insult me...

Lol. I'm heterosexual (I think) but I would like to see you pounded for like 10 seconds, before I roll on the floor laughing at you whimpering like a girl and reaching for logic with your turquoise-colored fingernails.

And I'm not sure how you would think I'm ant-gay. I'm a supporter of gay marriage, and I have many gay friends like Bluesteel and Mikal.

Again with the hetero normative insults...

whimpering like a girl, turquoise fingernails?

I guess I just thought you were anti gay because you were trying to use the image of anal sex to imply weakness and powerlessness.

But idk maybe im reading too much into it, you probably don't put that much thought into your posts anyways.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 5:11:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 5:03:01 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:56:53 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:43:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:33:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:31:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:20:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I just saw logic walking out of Raisor's room depressed and disappointed, chanting to himself "That kid Raisor is a hopeless case."

Logic and I have an on off relationship- but I'm down with it because the makeup sex is phenomenal.

I wish I found fisting that pleasurable, but I do imagine that's the only thing Logic has done to you, with me around, at least.

I don't know what bothers me more about this, that you are trying to conjure an image of me being fisted while you watch or that you are relying on anti-gay tropes to insult me...

Lol. I'm heterosexual (I think) but I would like to see you pounded for like 10 seconds, before I roll on the floor laughing at you whimpering like a girl and reaching for logic with your turquoise-colored fingernails.

And I'm not sure how you would think I'm ant-gay. I'm a supporter of gay marriage, and I have many gay friends like Bluesteel and Mikal.

Again with the hetero normative insults...

JARGON. JARGON. WOOF. WOOF.

whimpering like a girl, turquoise fingernails?

Cmon, those would look good on you, baby.

I guess I just thought you were anti gay because you were trying to use the image of anal sex to imply weakness and powerlessness.

Right. You being fisted by logic does imply weakness. But fisting doesn't include all anal sex. Gay sex which includes dick and buttox doesn't imply more weakness than dick and possy to me, so I'm not being anti-gay, more like ant-sex.

But idk maybe im reading too much into it, you probably don't put that much thought into your posts anyways.

Says the kid who placed himself in the corner by saying that he has sex with Logic, a door which opened many opportunities to my superior and creative mind. :D

It's funny how Raisor's only tactic in this discourse is meta-explanations about the discussion. LOL.
Raisor
Posts: 4,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 5:18:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 5:11:28 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 5:03:01 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:56:53 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:43:56 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:33:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:31:28 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/6/2014 4:20:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I just saw logic walking out of Raisor's room depressed and disappointed, chanting to himself "That kid Raisor is a hopeless case."

Logic and I have an on off relationship- but I'm down with it because the makeup sex is phenomenal.

I wish I found fisting that pleasurable, but I do imagine that's the only thing Logic has done to you, with me around, at least.

I don't know what bothers me more about this, that you are trying to conjure an image of me being fisted while you watch or that you are relying on anti-gay tropes to insult me...

Lol. I'm heterosexual (I think) but I would like to see you pounded for like 10 seconds, before I roll on the floor laughing at you whimpering like a girl and reaching for logic with your turquoise-colored fingernails.

And I'm not sure how you would think I'm ant-gay. I'm a supporter of gay marriage, and I have many gay friends like Bluesteel and Mikal.

Again with the hetero normative insults...

JARGON. JARGON. WOOF. WOOF.

whimpering like a girl, turquoise fingernails?

Cmon, those would look good on you, baby.

I guess I just thought you were anti gay because you were trying to use the image of anal sex to imply weakness and powerlessness.

Right. You being fisted by logic does imply weakness. But fisting doesn't include all anal sex. Gay sex which includes dick and buttox doesn't imply more weakness than dick and possy to me, so I'm not being anti-gay, more like ant-sex.


But idk maybe im reading too much into it, you probably don't put that much thought into your posts anyways.

Says the kid who placed himself in the corner by saying that he has sex with Logic, a door which opened many opportunities to my superior and creative mind. :D

It's funny how Raisor's only tactic in this discourse is meta-explanations about the discussion. LOL.

I concede to your superior wit. You have seen through my bluster and lack of substance and bested me in the noble art of flame war. As always, the trump card of "anal fisting by logic" has proven to be my downfall.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 5:19:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol. It all gets too confusing when you're accused of being homophobic for thinking fisting implies weakness, when it is practiced by gays and straights.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 5:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

lol, kleptin, you must at least be semi-trolling with this.

While it is the case that having a personal vendetta against someone does not *preclude* you from voting on their debates, it does create a rebuttable presumption that a vote with a less than perfect RFD was motivated -- at least in part -- by personal animus. And proof that someone *voted against you on all of your debates* is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that they were motivated primarily by personal animus.

You're presuming that the person is unbiased before they vote. But would an unbiased person *ever* randomly choose to vote on *all* of the debates of a person they hate (all at once)?

A flawed RFD from a biased person is *good evidence* of a biased vote. At best -- kleptin -- you could argue that it's not conclusive proof since this is a debate site, and the point of the site is to vote on each other's debates, and some people can sometimes lay their personal animus aside and not have it affect their decisions. But in my experience, very few -- if any -- people can be truly tabula rasa judges. And -- at least to me -- Raisor is the only person on the site I can see who wouldn't allow a personal grudge to affect his decision at all. If people are not voting in explicitly biased ways, they are -- at the least -- being implicitly biased. We vastly under-estimate the effects of implicit bias in our decision-making [insert string citation to a zillion studies on the effects of implicit bias (regarding race and gender) in decision-making]. We may not realize the ways in which our biases are affecting our decisions, but the lack of conscious awareness does not mean that the personal animus we harbor towards someone was not a factor.

Unless you have flame warred with every single member on the site, it's probably best to steer clear of voting on debates of someone who you regularly flame war with in order to prevent your own biases (whether explicit or implicit) to factor into your decision-making when deciding who won the debate. Hopefully, you are generally an upstanding member and don't have to avoid too many people's debates. If a subject *really* interests you, of course read the debate and vote. But if you hate one of the members in the debate, I think questions from other members about what your selection criteria were -- in deciding to read that particular debate -- are legitimate.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 5:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 5:20:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/6/2014 2:40:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I'd just like to put it out there that I think that the alleged "vote-bombing" of an individual for personal reasons is perfectly acceptable provided that the RFD is legitimate. If a person decides to go through every single debate of yours and vote against you for each one, that is their justified right so long as the RFD makes sense.

This is a debate site. You give your opinion and you argue for it. An RFD is an argument, just the same as any round in an actual debate.

If you have a problem with someone's vote, call him out on it. In fact, challenge the voter to a debate to justify their vote. If you really want to, do the same thing to him!

THIS IS A DEBATE SITE.

We are not interested in who is right, who hates who, whether people are in cliques, voting circles, or any of that nonsense. The drama only serves to create a better environment for more debate.

lol, kleptin, you must at least be semi-trolling with this.

While it is the case that having a personal vendetta against someone does not *preclude* you from voting on their debates, it does create a rebuttable presumption that a vote with a less than perfect RFD was motivated -- at least in part -- by personal animus. And proof that someone *voted against you on all of your debates* is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that they were motivated primarily by personal animus.

You're presuming that the person is unbiased before they vote. But would an unbiased person *ever* randomly choose to vote on *all* of the debates of a person they hate (all at once)?

A flawed RFD from a biased person is *good evidence* of a biased vote. At best -- kleptin -- you could argue that it's not conclusive proof since this is a debate site, and the point of the site is to vote on each other's debates, and some people can sometimes lay their personal animus aside and not have it affect their decisions. But in my experience, very few -- if any -- people can be truly tabula rasa judges. And -- at least to me -- Raisor is the only person on the site I can see who wouldn't allow a personal grudge to affect his decision at all. If people are not voting in explicitly biased ways, they are -- at the least -- being implicitly biased. We vastly under-estimate the effects of implicit bias in our decision-making [insert string citation to a zillion studies on the effects of implicit bias (regarding race and gender) in decision-making]. We may not realize the ways in which our biases are affecting our decisions, but the lack of conscious awareness does not mean that the personal animus we harbor towards someone was not a factor.

Unless you have flame warred with every single member on the site, it's probably best to steer clear of voting on debates of someone who you regularly flame war with in order to prevent your own biases (whether explicit or implicit) to factor into your decision-making when deciding who won the debate. Hopefully, you are generally an upstanding member and don't have to avoid too many people's debates. If a subject *really* interests you, of course read the debate and vote. But if you hate one of the members in the debate, I think questions from other members about what your selection criteria were -- in deciding to read that particular debate -- are legitimate.

Oh, here's Bluesteel. With three 0-6 votes against RoyLatham. Coincidence, though. Pure coincidence.