Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Nice knowing ya'll

pimpmaster
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:32:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
When someone votes, and they explain their rationale, that is the vote and should be final. If you disagree with it, such is life. If the vote is overturned when it has been explained, regardless of the moderators opinion on the vote, it should stand and not be overturned.

Gotchya style debates should be punished and not rewarded. That was well explained in my vote rationale. Voting in such a manner is consistent with what makes for a good community in the long term.

Ya'll need some growing up to do, and I am not going to waste my time here. I have been very active since starting here about 1 week ago, and had desires to make this my free time home... But I can tell where I am not wanted.

NIce knowing ya'll. Good luck. Good bye.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 3:54:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 3:32:08 AM, pimpmaster wrote:
When someone votes, and they explain their rationale, that is the vote and should be final. If you disagree with it, such is life. If the vote is overturned when it has been explained, regardless of the moderators opinion on the vote, it should stand and not be overturned.

Gotchya style debates should be punished and not rewarded. That was well explained in my vote rationale. Voting in such a manner is consistent with what makes for a good community in the long term.

Ya'll need some growing up to do, and I am not going to waste my time here. I have been very active since starting here about 1 week ago, and had desires to make this my free time home... But I can tell where I am not wanted.

NIce knowing ya'll. Good luck. Good bye.

Well, I'm sorry to see you go. You certainly have contributed quite a bit in your short time on the site. I find it strange that you never once attempted to contact me, especially if you really wanted to spend the time here and garner something from the experience. I'm not aware of how your interactions with Blade-of-Truth have gone, but given the fact that you posted this without contacting me first, I take it whatever he's said to you has either been spurned or ignored.

So don't play the victim here. You've had opportunities to contact me or message Blade-of-Truth back, and you still have plenty of opportunity to do so and get back your voting privileges. The reality is that you posted 3 clearly insufficient votes, and while I could post them here for everyone to see, furthering the spectacle you apparently intended to make by making this a public issue, I'd rather discuss them personally and go over the standards with you. Chances are, since you'd like to leave the site over a relatively minor issue, that won't happen, but I'll make the offer nonetheless.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 4:01:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 3:32:08 AM, pimpmaster wrote:
When someone votes, and they explain their rationale, that is the vote and should be final. If you disagree with it, such is life. If the vote is overturned when it has been explained, regardless of the moderators opinion on the vote, it should stand and not be overturned.

Gotchya style debates should be punished and not rewarded. That was well explained in my vote rationale. Voting in such a manner is consistent with what makes for a good community in the long term.

Ya'll need some growing up to do, and I am not going to waste my time here. I have been very active since starting here about 1 week ago, and had desires to make this my free time home... But I can tell where I am not wanted.

NIce knowing ya'll. Good luck. Good bye.

Cheers! Congrats to you for seeing this site for what it is in record time. I've been deactivated myself for nearly a year and just came back for one short exchange in the forums. It makes me sick to see how nothing around here has changed for the better.

Ironic too that some of the biggest vote bombers on the site are looking to give it another chance.

Good luck in your searches.

~ Chuz
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 4:08:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 3:32:08 AM, pimpmaster wrote:

NIce knowing ya'll. Good luck. Good bye.

Who are you?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
pimpmaster
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 5:13:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 3:54:30 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 1/7/2016 3:32:08 AM, pimpmaster wrote:
When someone votes, and they explain their rationale, that is the vote and should be final. If you disagree with it, such is life. If the vote is overturned when it has been explained, regardless of the moderators opinion on the vote, it should stand and not be overturned.

Gotchya style debates should be punished and not rewarded. That was well explained in my vote rationale. Voting in such a manner is consistent with what makes for a good community in the long term.

Ya'll need some growing up to do, and I am not going to waste my time here. I have been very active since starting here about 1 week ago, and had desires to make this my free time home... But I can tell where I am not wanted.

NIce knowing ya'll. Good luck. Good bye.

Well, I'm sorry to see you go. You certainly have contributed quite a bit in your short time on the site. I find it strange that you never once attempted to contact me, especially if you really wanted to spend the time here and garner something from the experience. I'm not aware of how your interactions with Blade-of-Truth have gone, but given the fact that you posted this without contacting me first, I take it whatever he's said to you has either been spurned or ignored.

So don't play the victim here. You've had opportunities to contact me or message Blade-of-Truth back, and you still have plenty of opportunity to do so and get back your voting privileges. The reality is that you posted 3 clearly insufficient votes, and while I could post them here for everyone to see, furthering the spectacle you apparently intended to make by making this a public issue, I'd rather discuss them personally and go over the standards with you. Chances are, since you'd like to leave the site over a relatively minor issue, that won't happen, but I'll make the offer nonetheless.

I never contacted you because I don't know who you are. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I have been here 1 week and I don't know who people are.

My first introduction to the voting cycle is a ban. My first conversation with anyone about any possible issue from a moderating team was a ban. My first text message to discuss any term violation was a ban. That's how you welcome someone trying to integrate into your community.... ]

I have a high personal standard of ethics. I will finish my current debates. But I don't believe this is the place I belong in. The debates in question were rather immature and I voted in a manner that reflected the efforts put in by the parties involved. My point discussion was in 1 case longer than the debate. Perhaps I missed the finer points of the point allocation discussion.

But let me ask you an honest question, when I am voting and one person uses sources and the other does not, and I vote for the one who used sources, and sate that is my rationale for the point award, what else is required? Because I was told: Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side had sources while the other didn't is not enough.

When someone is awarded points on conduct, it is not about which person had better conduct? It needs to be a violation to award the point? Because when someone has a questionable style of bullying and using semantics when the rules of the specific debate were semantics constitute a disqualification, and after I vote accordingly I am told: The voter insufficiently explains conduct. While the voter clearly has issues with Con's style of debating, conduct requires a higher standard of violation
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 5:59:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Well, I'm sorry to see you go. You certainly have contributed quite a bit in your short time on the site. I find it strange that you never once attempted to contact me, especially if you really wanted to spend the time here and garner something from the experience. I'm not aware of how your interactions with Blade-of-Truth have gone, but given the fact that you posted this without contacting me first, I take it whatever he's said to you has either been spurned or ignored.

So don't play the victim here. You've had opportunities to contact me or message Blade-of-Truth back, and you still have plenty of opportunity to do so and get back your voting privileges. The reality is that you posted 3 clearly insufficient votes, and while I could post them here for everyone to see, furthering the spectacle you apparently intended to make by making this a public issue, I'd rather discuss them personally and go over the standards with you. Chances are, since you'd like to leave the site over a relatively minor issue, that won't happen, but I'll make the offer nonetheless.

I never contacted you because I don't know who you are. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I have been here 1 week and I don't know who people are.

...I posted in the comments of every debate on which a vote of yours was removed. You never checked back on those debates, I take it.

My first introduction to the voting cycle is a ban. My first conversation with anyone about any possible issue from a moderating team was a ban. My first text message to discuss any term violation was a ban. That's how you welcome someone trying to integrate into your community.... ]

Your vote was removed, yes. And you voted quite a few times, each time in violation of the voting standards of the site, so you were banned from voting, yes. If you had read through the "NEW MEMBERS READ Me!!" stickied thread, you might have seen that the standards are there for you to read. That's a welcome thread, which states the expected behaviors of people on the site, including how they vote. So yes, standards exist and you were held to them. If you feel they were misapplied, we can discuss that. If you feel that you should have been able to violate them just because you're new, that's something else entirely. Everyone who has voting privileges can lose them, and every one of them can earn them back as well. Instead of pursuing that track, you appear to be more interested in being upset about losing them.

I have a high personal standard of ethics. I will finish my current debates. But I don't believe this is the place I belong in. The debates in question were rather immature and I voted in a manner that reflected the efforts put in by the parties involved. My point discussion was in 1 case longer than the debate. Perhaps I missed the finer points of the point allocation discussion.

...Alright, whatever your personal standard of ethics, the site does have clear guidelines to be followed. If your ethics are against the policy of having vote moderation, that's your choice, but it doesn't change those standards. Whether the debates that you voted on were immature makes little difference - the voting standards are applied the same to any debate, so long as they aren't full forfeits, outright concessions or troll debates.

But since you appear to want to cover the reasons for removal, let's get into those.

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

You allocated points to the debater who conceded.

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

This is the one with the longer RFD. Even if I ignore the issues with how you explained conduct and the standards you should be applying, you didn't explain sources or S&G, despite allocating all 7 points. Your desire to prevent future instances of "dishonest debating style" does not justify allocating those points. Your personal activism doesn't suffice as a reason to award more points.

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

Once again, you didn't explain S&G despite allocating it. You didn't meet the standards on arguments or sources either.

But let me ask you an honest question, when I am voting and one person uses sources and the other does not, and I vote for the one who used sources, and sate that is my rationale for the point award, what else is required? Because I was told: Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side had sources while the other didn't is not enough.

There are a lot of people who award these points to a given side on the basis that they presented sources while the other side did not. While that might be part of the explanation, it's also not sufficient in and of itself. Those sources have to matter in the context of the debate, otherwise merely posting an irrelevant link suffices as reason to award 2 points to one side. The idea that merely because one side had more sources, they deserve these points is similarly faulted, and thus is applied to this as well.

When someone is awarded points on conduct, it is not about which person had better conduct? It needs to be a violation to award the point? Because when someone has a questionable style of bullying and using semantics when the rules of the specific debate were semantics constitute a disqualification, and after I vote accordingly I am told: The voter insufficiently explains conduct. While the voter clearly has issues with Con's style of debating, conduct requires a higher standard of violation

Conduct isn't merely based on personal perception of how one side acted versus the other. There does need to be a clear violation. Bullying and semantics can be that violation, but they need to be explained. Your RFD didn't do that. The word bullying doesn't appear, and while semantics does, debate itself is semantics. It's a matter of how someone employs semantics rather than just their usage, something you have to provide an example of from the debate.

However, note that this case with conduct probably wouldn't have been reason enough to award the point in the absence of the other fault. If you'd like, I can post the standards and give you an even clearer idea of how they work, but I'd rather that we continue that discussion via PMs.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 4:39:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 3:32:08 AM, pimpmaster wrote:
When someone votes, and they explain their rationale, that is the vote and should be final. If you disagree with it, such is life. If the vote is overturned when it has been explained, regardless of the moderators opinion on the vote, it should stand and not be overturned.

Gotchya style debates should be punished and not rewarded. That was well explained in my vote rationale. Voting in such a manner is consistent with what makes for a good community in the long term.

Ya'll need some growing up to do, and I am not going to waste my time here. I have been very active since starting here about 1 week ago, and had desires to make this my free time home... But I can tell where I am not wanted.

NIce knowing ya'll. Good luck. Good bye.

K. Bye.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.