Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why voters should support Harder over DK

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on. This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Both DK and TUF are both awesome people. They are both spirit bros of mine, and they have contributed greatly to this site, of which we are all grateful for. Regardless, the platform that they are running on is objectively inferior to the platform that Harder and Solon are running on. Thus, since voters *need* to vote for the ticket with the better platform, they ought to vote for Harder/Solon.

The first main part of DK"s platform focuses on recruiting new members via Facebook. And this is a valid goal, just an ineffective way of achieving it. Good new members is objectively important. Having more good members leads to a better site, with more diversity. No one can argue against that. It is especially important now as the majority of posts are made by few members, and when we make a new thread we can basically expect everything everyone will say, it's basically a play now; to paraphrase from Maikuru. DK proposes that we fix this by recruiting more new members from other debating communities, such as Facebook communities.

The Harder/Solon ticket proposed that we fix this problem by making new users who already joined DDO more likely to stay. So what we have is the same goal: more quality members on DDO, and two different ways to achieve it. Harder/Solon"s approach of New User Outreach is objectively better than DK"s proposed methods in a variety of ways.

First being that there are already many substantive members that join DDO on a regular basis. I've been doing new user outreach for a few months now, and on the average day I meet two or three collegiate debaters, and a professor every two or three days. Besides this there are many intelligent, awesome people that join the site every day. Each has the potential to be a very good member, but they leave the site because it's too damn confusing as a new user.

New users have no idea who the moderator is. So if they have any issue with the site or anything, they don't know who to contact. Their issue goes unsolved so they leave. Or they don't know how to unsubscribe from all of the emails that debate.org spams you with, or the bugs on the site confuse them, or they don't know how to start a debate, or they don't know how to use a feature, or whatever. In short, the community is too hard to join for new users. Only those with abnormally high passion for staying on the site actually stay, and sadly that is few. Thus resulting in few new users on debate.org.

The New User Outreach Program fixes this by giving the new user someone to talk to. I start conversations with the new user, answer questions, be friendly, welcoming, and refer them to resources they wouldn't be able to find on their own. I'm this way the site is less discouraging for new users, thus making them more likely to stay.

And as I said earlier, there are many users that would be awesome if they decided to stay on the site: college debaters, professors, philosophy graduates, etc.There are *more* potentially good members that already join the site constantly than DK could pull from other debate communities.

New User Outreach is extremely easy and fast to do. I can reach around 40 members in a few minutes, just friending everyone on the Demographics page and copy/pasting a welcome message,of which all I have to do from there is make the site more friendly and less confusing for them. DK has to find a community, individually find every member, then ask them to join. Of which reflects badly upon the site because DK is essentially acting like a spam bot. Imagine if someone from CreateDebate came to the debate.org forum and asked people to go and debate over there because it's better, and then slammed everyone's PM"s with it. It doesn't look good, because it's an annoying spammer. This isn't the message we want to give off to the world.

Even after that DK then has to convince the person to join the site. It's more work with far less gain, as well as added unnecessary cost (spamming reputation.) Thus, the Harder/Solon platform trumps the DK/Platform significantly here.

The DK/TUF ticket also proposes using Facebook to try to get back older members. The problem with this is that older members knew a different DDO, with a different feel. That"s why older members periodically come back and leave again because they can"t capture that same atmosphere. Older users shouldn"t be tempted into coming back to a place they decided to leave. Furthermore, as TBR has pointed out in a thread not too long ago, DDO is a temporary experience, "Look. People come and go. That is good. No, its GREAT! People need to come, and move along. Fresh blood, people growing out of the site. There is not static state where things were, or are going to be perfect." [http://www.debate.org...] And I think this is important. The site can"t look to the past for growing, the site needs to look to the future, with new users.

Moreover, this program doesn"t necessitate having a president. An old friend who is currently active on the site could always send the older member an email. This program doesn"t become more effective by being presidentially run. I, or anyone else, could send a Facebook email asking them to come back. It isn"t a time-consuming task, so the argument that only a president would be committed enough to do it doesn"t work. In short, the idea of DK getting older members to return as president is absurd.

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them. These elected officials would then discuss the issue in a PM. The goal is to reduce drama regarding issues. The problem with this is that the system is overly bureaucratic, which is exactly the opposite of what the presidency should be moving towards at a point when a great majority of the site is favoring abolition. Secondly, this reduces the response time of moderation towards issues. Once an issue comes up, the VP has to organize an election for each side to elect someone to represent them, which will have to last a few days (similar to that of the DDO presidency) to get everyone involved in the issue a chance to vote. And if we know anything thus far about the presidency is that elections bring about drama. Thus the drama that will be caused by electing the officials effectively negates the drama that the program is supposed to negate in the first place; the entire purpose of the program self-negating. Furthermore, the elections divide people into camps, as bsh1 points out in his endorsement thread [http://www.debate.org...]. There is the camp that supports restraining orders and their elected officials, and the camp that doesn"t. This divides the community, and divides friendships.

Moreover, we have to look at whether there was ever an issue with discussing policies before.

(continued)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:10:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Whenever there was a policy issue, was there 50 people on each side completely spamming out the other so that no meaningful discussion could be had? No, there was maybe 5 or 6 members tops all sides of the issue combined. So if the issue had three sides, the amount of people moderation has to listen to is reduced by one or two? This doesn"t provide much of a benefit, if any at all. And when we count in all of the other negatives: being overly bureaucratic, dividing the community, creating drama, we can conclude that the program is a net negative to the site.

The third, and final tier of DK/TUF"s platform is voting reform. DK wants to take a more option-friendly approach, wherein the instigator of the debate has options on how to moderate the votes. Yet, this already exists. There is no "one-size-fits-all" approach that DK claims is the status quo. An instigator of a debate can choose to have no moderation (no RFD required), or to have a 7-point voting system standard, or to use a select winner standard wherein only the arguments are evaluated, or the instigator can opt-in to higher standards for the 7-point, or the instigator can opt-in to higher standards for the select winner, or the instigator can select a panel of judges to vote on the debate, or can set an Elo minimum and maximum of people that can vote on the debate. The opt-in option is already explained comprehensively here [https://docs.google.com...]. Moreover, instigators are already allowed to set vote moderation rules in R1. As long as the rule is clear and not absurd, the instigator is allowed to set whatever vote moderation desire he or she may desire. 700 character RFD minimum, only conduct allocation, anything the instigator desires. In short, there are already more than enough options available to the instigator that there is no need nor desire for a program to give even more options, especially given that every option that could be made available is already available.

DK/TUF also has two programs that they propose creating: the Writer"s Guild and the Varsity program.

The Writer"s Guild mentors users in writing a fan fic. The intention of this is to create more fan fics, thus incentivising the "Golden Era of Fan Fics." The problem is that this is a mentoring program, and a mentoring program necessitates interest. For example, in the debate mentorship program I run under Bsh1"s administration; if a noob is not interested in debate, I don"t assign them to a debate mentor. Much like a football mentorship class at a high school. If no one at the high school plays, or is interested in football, or the only people that do play football are already pros at it: a football mentorship class is useless. It's wasteful. It's not worth having. This is exactly the situation with fan fic. There are few people that are interested in fan fic. Of those that are, they are already good at writing fan fics and don"t need a mentor. The Writer"s Guild *assumes* that interest is already there. The interest is not there, thus the program doesn"t work.

The Varsity program consists of training people how to mod community games such as tournaments, mafia or FATE so that they can then become self-proficient, thus creating more site activity. This ties into their platform philosophy: making activity self-proficient. I find this program entirely useless because bsh1"s administration already released a comprehensive guide on how to mod site tournaments,
[https://docs.google.com...]

There are also several guides on how to mod mafia games [http://www.debate.org...], as well as the mafia beginner"s series. Regardless, even if a potential mod was confused, he could easily PM Fourtrouble, or Solon, or F16 to clarify a question. There is hardly a need for an assigned mentor program for mafia.

Although there aren"t guides to FATE, we have to look at how many games of FATE are done on DDO. If someone ever decides to mod one, couldn't he/she just go up and ask someone for some tips and advice? For example, if I wanted to mod a game of FATE and I was curious about one part, couldn't I just go up to DK and ask him the question about FATE? I don't see the need to have a program to *assign* potential FATE moderators to an older FATE moderator so they can clarify something; it's silly. It runs into the same problem as the Writer"s Guild, and for the same reasons. And, again, this program makes the same mistake as the Writer" Guild: it assumes that interest already exists, which is not the case with FATE.

So, in conclusion, I"ve analyzed and broken down all aspects of DK"s platform and shown how, if implemented, would be either be detrimental to the site, useless, or widely inferior to the corresponding aspects of Harder"s platform, of which you can read in its entirety by seeing the links in my sig. Thus, I urge Pro-Presidency supporters to vote Harder/Solon/Hayd for DDO presidency over DK/TUF.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:31:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on.

Okay awesome I can go back to watching Frozen and masturba-, I mean watching Frozen and nothing else. Nothing else at all. Nothing.

This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Both DK and TUF are both awesome people. They are both spirit bros of mine, and they have contributed greatly to this site, of which we are all grateful for. Regardless, the platform that they are running on is objectively inferior to the platform that Harder and Solon are running on. Thus, since voters *need* to vote for the ticket with the better platform, they ought to vote for Harder/Solon.

The first main part of DK"s platform focuses on recruiting new members via Facebook. And this is a valid goal, just an ineffective way of achieving it. Good new members is objectively important. Having more good members leads to a better site, with more diversity. No one can argue against that. It is especially important now as the majority of posts are made by few members, and when we make a new thread we can basically expect everything everyone will say, it's basically a play now; to paraphrase from Maikuru. DK proposes that we fix this by recruiting more new members from other debating communities, such as Facebook communities.

The Harder/Solon ticket proposed that we fix this problem by making new users who already joined DDO more likely to stay. So what we have is the same goal: more quality members on DDO, and two different ways to achieve it. Harder/Solon"s approach of New User Outreach is objectively better than DK"s proposed methods in a variety of ways.

First being that there are already many substantive members that join DDO on a regular basis. I've been doing new user outreach for a few months now, and on the average day I meet two or three collegiate debaters, and a professor every two or three days. Besides this there are many intelligent, awesome people that join the site every day. Each has the potential to be a very good member, but they leave the site because it's too damn confusing as a new user.

New users have no idea who the moderator is. So if they have any issue with the site or anything, they don't know who to contact. Their issue goes unsolved so they leave. Or they don't know how to unsubscribe from all of the emails that debate.org spams you with, or the bugs on the site confuse them, or they don't know how to start a debate, or they don't know how to use a feature, or whatever. In short, the community is too hard to join for new users. Only those with abnormally high passion for staying on the site actually stay, and sadly that is few. Thus resulting in few new users on debate.org.

The New User Outreach Program fixes this by giving the new user someone to talk to. I start conversations with the new user, answer questions, be friendly, welcoming, and refer them to resources they wouldn't be able to find on their own. I'm this way the site is less discouraging for new users, thus making them more likely to stay.

And as I said earlier, there are many users that would be awesome if they decided to stay on the site: college debaters, professors, philosophy graduates, etc.There are *more* potentially good members that already join the site constantly than DK could pull from other debate communities.

New User Outreach is extremely easy and fast to do. I can reach around 40 members in a few minutes, just friending everyone on the Demographics page and copy/pasting a welcome message,of which all I have to do from there is make the site more friendly and less confusing for them. DK has to find a community, individually find every member, then ask them to join. Of which reflects badly upon the site because DK is essentially acting like a spam bot. Imagine if someone from CreateDebate came to the debate.org forum and asked people to go and debate over there because it's better, and then slammed everyone's PM"s with it. It doesn't look good, because it's an annoying spammer. This isn't the message we want to give off to the world.

Even after that DK then has to convince the person to join the site. It's more work with far less gain, as well as added unnecessary cost (spamming reputation.) Thus, the Harder/Solon platform trumps the DK/Platform significantly here.

The DK/TUF ticket also proposes using Facebook to try to get back older members. The problem with this is that older members knew a different DDO, with a different feel. That"s why older members periodically come back and leave again because they can"t capture that same atmosphere. Older users shouldn"t be tempted into coming back to a place they decided to leave. Furthermore, as TBR has pointed out in a thread not too long ago, DDO is a temporary experience, "Look. People come and go. That is good. No, its GREAT! People need to come, and move along. Fresh blood, people growing out of the site. There is not static state where things were, or are going to be perfect." [http://www.debate.org...] And I think this is important. The site can"t look to the past for growing, the site needs to look to the future, with new users.

Moreover, this program doesn"t necessitate having a president. An old friend who is currently active on the site could always send the older member an email. This program doesn"t become more effective by being presidentially run. I, or anyone else, could send a Facebook email asking them to come back. It isn"t a time-consuming task, so the argument that only a president would be committed enough to do it doesn"t work. In short, the idea of DK getting older members to return as president is absurd.

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them.

Wait, is that seriously in their platform??? XD

These elected officials would then discuss the issue in a PM. The goal is to reduce drama regarding issues. The problem with this is that the system is overly bureaucratic, which is exactly the opposite of what the presidency should be moving towards at a point when a great majority of the site is favoring abolition. Secondly, this reduces the response time of moderation towards issues. Once an issue comes up, the VP has to organize an election for each side to elect someone to represent them, which will have to last a few days (similar to that of the DDO presidency) to get everyone involved in the issue a chance to vote. And if we know anything thus far about the presidency is that elections bring about drama. Thus the drama that will be caused by electing the officials effectively negates the drama that the program is supposed to negate in the first place; the entire purpose of the program self-negating. Furthermore, the elections divide people into camps, as bsh1 points out in his endorsement thread
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
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:33:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:10:36 AM, Hayd wrote:
Whenever there was a policy issue, was there 50 people on each side completely spamming out the other so that no meaningful discussion could be had? No, there was maybe 5 or 6 members tops all sides of the issue combined. So if the issue had three sides, the amount of people moderation has to listen to is reduced by one or two? This doesn"t provide much of a benefit, if any at all. And when we count in all of the other negatives: being overly bureaucratic, dividing the community, creating drama, we can conclude that the program is a net negative to the site.

The third, and final tier of DK/TUF"s platform is voting reform. DK wants to take a more option-friendly approach, wherein the instigator of the debate has options on how to moderate the votes. Yet, this already exists. There is no "one-size-fits-all" approach that DK claims is the status quo. An instigator of a debate can choose to have no moderation (no RFD required), or to have a 7-point voting system standard, or to use a select winner standard wherein only the arguments are evaluated, or the instigator can opt-in to higher standards for the 7-point, or the instigator can opt-in to higher standards for the select winner, or the instigator can select a panel of judges to vote on the debate, or can set an Elo minimum and maximum of people that can vote on the debate. The opt-in option is already explained comprehensively here [https://docs.google.com...]. Moreover, instigators are already allowed to set vote moderation rules in R1. As long as the rule is clear and not absurd, the instigator is allowed to set whatever vote moderation desire he or she may desire. 700 character RFD minimum, only conduct allocation, anything the instigator desires. In short, there are already more than enough options available to the instigator that there is no need nor desire for a program to give even more options, especially given that every option that could be made available is already available.

DK/TUF also has two programs that they propose creating: the Writer"s Guild and the Varsity program.

The Writer"s Guild mentors users in writing a fan fic. The intention of this is to create more fan fics, thus incentivising the "Golden Era of Fan Fics." The problem is that this is a mentoring program, and a mentoring program necessitates interest. For example, in the debate mentorship program I run under Bsh1"s administration; if a noob is not interested in debate, I don"t assign them to a debate mentor. Much like a football mentorship class at a high school. If no one at the high school plays, or is interested in football, or the only people that do play football are already pros at it: a football mentorship class is useless. It's wasteful. It's not worth having. This is exactly the situation with fan fic. There are few people that are interested in fan fic. Of those that are, they are already good at writing fan fics and don"t need a mentor.

Thats actually a solid point.

The Writer"s Guild *assumes* that interest is already there. The interest is not there, thus the program doesn"t work.

The Varsity program consists of training people how to mod community games such as tournaments, mafia or FATE so that they can then become self-proficient, thus creating more site activity. This ties into their platform philosophy: making activity self-proficient. I find this program entirely useless because bsh1"s administration already released a comprehensive guide on how to mod site tournaments,
[https://docs.google.com...]

There are also several guides on how to mod mafia games [http://www.debate.org...], as well as the mafia beginner"s series. Regardless, even if a potential mod was confused, he could easily PM Fourtrouble, or Solon, or F16 to clarify a question. There is hardly a need for an assigned mentor program for mafia.

Although there aren"t guides to FATE, we have to look at how many games of FATE are done on DDO. If someone ever decides to mod one, couldn't he/she just go up and ask someone for some tips and advice? For example, if I wanted to mod a game of FATE and I was curious about one part, couldn't I just go up to DK and ask him the question about FATE? I don't see the need to have a program to *assign* potential FATE moderators to an older FATE moderator so they can clarify something; it's silly. It runs into the same problem as the Writer"s Guild, and for the same reasons. And, again, this program makes the same mistake as the Writer" Guild: it assumes that interest already exists, which is not the case with FATE.

So, in conclusion, I"ve analyzed and broken down all aspects of DK"s platform and shown how, if implemented, would be either be detrimental to the site, useless, or widely inferior to the corresponding aspects of Harder"s platform, of which you can read in its entirety by seeing the links in my sig. Thus, I urge Pro-Presidency supporters to vote Harder/Solon/Hayd for DDO presidency over DK/TUF.
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
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:45:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:31:44 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them.

Wait, is that seriously in their platform??? XD

Just for the record: Im talking about officials being chosen to represent each side of a moderation policy reform discussion, not if restraining orders should be banned
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
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:53:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:45:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:31:44 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them.

Wait, is that seriously in their platform??? XD

Just for the record: Im talking about officials being chosen to represent each side of a moderation policy reform discussion, not if restraining orders should be banned

I know. The restrainging orders was an example of an issue that would be handled by elective administration
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:45:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:45:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:31:44 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them.

Wait, is that seriously in their platform??? XD

Just for the record: Im talking about officials being chosen to represent each side of a moderation policy reform discussion, not if restraining orders should be banned

As the idea goes, if such an issue occurs, TUF would make a thread, likely with a Pollcode page attached, allowing people to vote for the person they think will best present their concerns to Airmax... It's far fairer than the idea of one person trying to represent both sides of every issue. Especially someone who is less than trustworthy with the opinions of the side he disagrees with. And would help give both sides a calm, more organized voice, as opposed to right now, when such an issue would be disorganized and full of screaming.

Of course, if such a concept doesn't end up working, it wouldn't be around afterwards.

I did in fact make an entire thread about it... The Elective Administration thread. So it's concerning that you didn't know about it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 5:50:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on. This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Interesting that my ticket is being ignored even though I am polling higher than Harder in TBR's poll and am the campaign with the greatest gains in the last 2 weeks.
DK..........42 -> 48 +6
Ima .......31 -> 34 +3
NOTA .....7 -> 18 +11
Harder ...7 -> 13 +6

Yet somehow NOTA is ignored from your posting which is promoting a campaign with less apparent committed support...
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 1:38:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 4:45:50 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:45:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:31:44 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them.

Wait, is that seriously in their platform??? XD

Just for the record: Im talking about officials being chosen to represent each side of a moderation policy reform discussion, not if restraining orders should be banned

As the idea goes, if such an issue occurs, TUF would make a thread, likely with a Pollcode page attached, allowing people to vote for the person they think will best present their concerns to Airmax... It's far fairer than the idea of one person trying to represent both sides of every issue. Especially someone who is less than trustworthy with the opinions of the side he disagrees with. And would help give both sides a calm, more organized voice, as opposed to right now, when such an issue would be disorganized and full of screaming.

Of course, if such a concept doesn't end up working, it wouldn't be around afterwards.

I did in fact make an entire thread about it... The Elective Administration thread. So it's concerning that you didn't know about it.

Its far more concerning that you think thats somehow a good idea to campaign on....
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
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 1:42:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 5:50:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on. This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Interesting that my ticket is being ignored even though I am polling higher than Harder in TBR's poll

TBR's poll is known by just about everyone to be open to double-votes.... You have 18 votes on his poll which everyone on here knows isnt true since you cannot name more than 4 supporters who back your campaign..... Furthermore, you are a ghost half the time in the election and take days or even weeks to respond to posts in the campaign threads you make, sometimes you dont even respond at all.

Youre being ignored because you cannot run a campaign and do not have a base of support like the 3 other campaigns do
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
rosaliesecretadmiror
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:19:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on. This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Both DK and TUF are both awesome people. They are both spirit bros of mine, and they have contributed greatly to this site, of which we are all grateful for. Regardless, the platform that they are running on is objectively inferior to the platform that Harder and Solon are running on. Thus, since voters *need* to vote for the ticket with the better platform, they ought to vote for Harder/Solon.

The first main part of DK"s platform focuses on recruiting new members via Facebook. And this is a valid goal, just an ineffective way of achieving it. Good new members is objectively important. Having more good members leads to a better site, with more diversity. No one can argue against that. It is especially important now as the majority of posts are made by few members, and when we make a new thread we can basically expect everything everyone will say, it's basically a play now; to paraphrase from Maikuru. DK proposes that we fix this by recruiting more new members from other debating communities, such as Facebook communities.

The Harder/Solon ticket proposed that we fix this problem by making new users who already joined DDO more likely to stay. So what we have is the same goal: more quality members on DDO, and two different ways to achieve it. Harder/Solon"s approach of New User Outreach is objectively better than DK"s proposed methods in a variety of ways.

First being that there are already many substantive members that join DDO on a regular basis. I've been doing new user outreach for a few months now, and on the average day I meet two or three collegiate debaters, and a professor every two or three days. Besides this there are many intelligent, awesome people that join the site every day. Each has the potential to be a very good member, but they leave the site because it's too damn confusing as a new user.

New users have no idea who the moderator is. So if they have any issue with the site or anything, they don't know who to contact. Their issue goes unsolved so they leave. Or they don't know how to unsubscribe from all of the emails that debate.org spams you with, or the bugs on the site confuse them, or they don't know how to start a debate, or they don't know how to use a feature, or whatever. In short, the community is too hard to join for new users. Only those with abnormally high passion for staying on the site actually stay, and sadly that is few. Thus resulting in few new users on debate.org.

The New User Outreach Program fixes this by giving the new user someone to talk to. I start conversations with the new user, answer questions, be friendly, welcoming, and refer them to resources they wouldn't be able to find on their own. I'm this way the site is less discouraging for new users, thus making them more likely to stay.

And as I said earlier, there are many users that would be awesome if they decided to stay on the site: college debaters, professors, philosophy graduates, etc.There are *more* potentially good members that already join the site constantly than DK could pull from other debate communities.

New User Outreach is extremely easy and fast to do. I can reach around 40 members in a few minutes, just friending everyone on the Demographics page and copy/pasting a welcome message,of which all I have to do from there is make the site more friendly and less confusing for them. DK has to find a community, individually find every member, then ask them to join. Of which reflects badly upon the site because DK is essentially acting like a spam bot. Imagine if someone from CreateDebate came to the debate.org forum and asked people to go and debate over there because it's better, and then slammed everyone's PM"s with it. It doesn't look good, because it's an annoying spammer. This isn't the message we want to give off to the world.

Even after that DK then has to convince the person to join the site. It's more work with far less gain, as well as added unnecessary cost (spamming reputation.) Thus, the Harder/Solon platform trumps the DK/Platform significantly here.

The DK/TUF ticket also proposes using Facebook to try to get back older members. The problem with this is that older members knew a different DDO, with a different feel. That"s why older members periodically come back and leave again because they can"t capture that same atmosphere. Older users shouldn"t be tempted into coming back to a place they decided to leave. Furthermore, as TBR has pointed out in a thread not too long ago, DDO is a temporary experience, "Look. People come and go. That is good. No, its GREAT! People need to come, and move along. Fresh blood, people growing out of the site. There is not static state where things were, or are going to be perfect." [http://www.debate.org...] And I think this is important. The site can"t look to the past for growing, the site needs to look to the future, with new users.

Moreover, this program doesn"t necessitate having a president. An old friend who is currently active on the site could always send the older member an email. This program doesn"t become more effective by being presidentially run. I, or anyone else, could send a Facebook email asking them to come back. It isn"t a time-consuming task, so the argument that only a president would be committed enough to do it doesn"t work. In short, the idea of DK getting older members to return as president is absurd.

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them. These elected officials would then discuss the issue in a PM. The goal is to reduce drama regarding issues. The problem with this is that the system is overly bureaucratic, which is exactly the opposite of what the presidency should be moving towards at a point when a great majority of the site is favoring abolition. Secondly, this reduces the response time of moderation towards issues. Once an issue comes up, the VP has to organize an election for each side to elect someone to represent them, which will have to last a few days (similar to that of the DDO presidency) to get everyone involved in the issue a chance to vote. And if we know anything thus far about the presidency is that elections bring about drama. Thus the drama that will be caused by electing the officials effectively negates the drama that the program is supposed to negate in the first place; the entire purpose of the program self-negating. Furthermore, the elections divide people into camps, as bsh1 points out in his endorsement thread [http://www.debate.org...]. There is the camp that supports restraining orders and their elected officials, and the camp that doesn"t. This divides the community, and divides friendships.

Moreover, we have to look at whether there was ever an issue with discussing policies before.

(continued)

your all liars and attackers. rosalie proved that youre all liars and attackers
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:41:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 1:42:16 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 5:50:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on. This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Interesting that my ticket is being ignored even though I am polling higher than Harder in TBR's poll

TBR's poll is known by just about everyone to be open to double-votes.... You have 18 votes on his poll which everyone on here knows isnt true since you cannot name more than 4 supporters who back your campaign.....

Yes it is subject to multi-voting - for everyone. It is based on an honor system. I will freely admit that there may be a couple of extra votes in my column as my ISP was having issues resulting in 3 and TBR wanted us to re-vote every week. Considering that you have been on the polls for about a month more than me there has been significantly more opportunity for this to happen with your polling numbers.

However, none of this was in the past 2 weeks as my poll numbers have gained traction. So it is all guess work for now. In the various 1 day polls that prevent multi-voting, my numbers have been very close. I cannot accurately tell me what my true base is anymore than you can guarantee me what your base is.

I also admit that not everybody who votes for me tells me they are doing so. I have no idea who clicks in the polls - I cannot even tell you if those people are eligible to vote. It is all guesswork. The polls are indicators not hard numbers.

Furthermore, you are a ghost half the time in the election and take days or even weeks to respond to posts in the campaign threads you make, sometimes you dont even respond at all.

I have noted very clearly multiple times that the real world has absorbed an inordinate amount of time recently. If you believe that I should let my clients lose contracts because I'm spending time on the DDO campaign please let me know. The current work surge is coming to an end for me, and I will be devoting much more time to the campaign.

Youre being ignored because you cannot run a campaign and do not have a base of support like the 3 other campaigns do

Base of support = cult of personality. Precisely what you want to do away with? You want open democracy, but are trying to squelch it in the presidential campaign. You seem conflicted with your own ideals.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:45:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 4:41:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/31/2016 1:42:16 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 5:50:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on. This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Interesting that my ticket is being ignored even though I am polling higher than Harder in TBR's poll

TBR's poll is known by just about everyone to be open to double-votes.... You have 18 votes on his poll which everyone on here knows isnt true since you cannot name more than 4 supporters who back your campaign.....

Yes it is subject to multi-voting - for everyone. It is based on an honor system. I will freely admit that there may be a couple of extra votes in my column as my ISP was having issues resulting in 3 and TBR wanted us to re-vote every week. Considering that you have been on the polls for about a month more than me there has been significantly more opportunity for this to happen with your polling numbers.

However, none of this was in the past 2 weeks as my poll numbers have gained traction.

Again you repeat that lie. In the most recent poll you only registered 4 votes, almost half what any of the other campaigns pulled in.

Furthermore, you are a ghost half the time in the election and take days or even weeks to respond to posts in the campaign threads you make, sometimes you dont even respond at all.

I have noted very clearly multiple times that the real world has absorbed an inordinate amount of time recently.

Which indicates you do not have the time nor the energy to run DDO and have no business being in the election by extension.
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
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:49:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 4:45:50 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:45:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:31:44 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them.

Wait, is that seriously in their platform??? XD

Just for the record: Im talking about officials being chosen to represent each side of a moderation policy reform discussion, not if restraining orders should be banned

As the idea goes, if such an issue occurs, TUF would make a thread, likely with a Pollcode page attached, allowing people to vote for the person they think will best present their concerns to Airmax... It's far fairer than the idea of one person trying to represent both sides of every issue. Especially someone who is less than trustworthy with the opinions of the side he disagrees with.

I thought airmax is the one being presented with concerns...?
And would help give both sides a calm, more organized voice, as opposed to right now, when such an issue would be disorganized and full of screaming.

Of course, if such a concept doesn't end up working, it wouldn't be around afterwards.

I did in fact make an entire thread about it... The Elective Administration thread. So it's concerning that you didn't know about it.

This drops all of the issues I brought up with it: delayed response time, overly bureaucratic in an abolitionist environment, dividing people into camps, creating more drama over elections, and the fact that it doesn't solve any problems. You can't ensure that the representatives elected aren't going to be disorganized and scream. It doesn't even reduce the amount of sides you have to pay attention to, for on any given issue theres tops six people discussing it on all sides of the issue. You reduce the amount of people by two...which then limits the diversity of viewpoints. Its just a bad program
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:50:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 4:19:53 PM, rosaliesecretadmiror wrote:
your all liars and attackers. rosalie proved that youre all liars and attackers

for sure, for sure...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 5:04:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 4:45:15 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 4:41:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/31/2016 1:42:16 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 5:50:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:
This election cycle has come down to three tickets. DK/TUF and Harder/Solon/Hayd on the Pro-Presidency side, and Imabench on the Abolitionist side. I won't be addressing the Abolitionist ticket, so if you are reading this and are a set abolitionist, there's no need to read on. This post is for those favoring the Pro-Presidency side, but unsure of whether to support the DK/TUF ticket, or the Harder/Solon ticket. The purpose of this post is to convince Pro-Presidency supporters to support Harder/Solon ticket over the DK/TUF ticket.

Interesting that my ticket is being ignored even though I am polling higher than Harder in TBR's poll

TBR's poll is known by just about everyone to be open to double-votes.... You have 18 votes on his poll which everyone on here knows isnt true since you cannot name more than 4 supporters who back your campaign.....

Yes it is subject to multi-voting - for everyone. It is based on an honor system. I will freely admit that there may be a couple of extra votes in my column as my ISP was having issues resulting in 3 and TBR wanted us to re-vote every week. Considering that you have been on the polls for about a month more than me there has been significantly more opportunity for this to happen with your polling numbers.

However, none of this was in the past 2 weeks as my poll numbers have gained traction.

Again you repeat that lie. In the most recent poll you only registered 4 votes, almost half what any of the other campaigns pulled in.

No what that says is the number of people who were in the main forum that noticed that poll and chose to answer it. Some of my support comes from people in the religion forum who don't typically venture out of there and would never even see this poll. A poll that you opt into is considered the worst type of poll, that is why I'm looking forward to TBR's tokened poll.

Furthermore, you are a ghost half the time in the election and take days or even weeks to respond to posts in the campaign threads you make, sometimes you dont even respond at all.

I have noted very clearly multiple times that the real world has absorbed an inordinate amount of time recently.

Which indicates you do not have the time nor the energy to run DDO and have no business being in the election by extension.

I wouldn't run for president because I cannot make that level of commitment. That is fortunate because I'm not running to be president, I'm campaigning to implement a replacement for the president. This role I would have the time to meet the requirements of.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 6:44:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 4:49:26 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 4:45:50 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:45:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:31:44 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:10:24 AM, Hayd wrote:

The second big part of the DK/TUF ticket is the elective administration idea, wherein moderation policy disputes are settled by the VP coordinating an election of an official to represent each side of the issue. So if there was a dispute on whether member restraining orders should be allowed, each side of the issue will elect a member to represent them.

Wait, is that seriously in their platform??? XD

Just for the record: Im talking about officials being chosen to represent each side of a moderation policy reform discussion, not if restraining orders should be banned

As the idea goes, if such an issue occurs, TUF would make a thread, likely with a Pollcode page attached, allowing people to vote for the person they think will best present their concerns to Airmax... It's far fairer than the idea of one person trying to represent both sides of every issue. Especially someone who is less than trustworthy with the opinions of the side he disagrees with.

I thought airmax is the one being presented with concerns...?
And would help give both sides a calm, more organized voice, as opposed to right now, when such an issue would be disorganized and full of screaming.

I'm talking about the president acting as sole liaison with moderation.

Of course, if such a concept doesn't end up working, it wouldn't be around afterwards.

I did in fact make an entire thread about it... The Elective Administration thread. So it's concerning that you didn't know about it.

This drops all of the issues I brought up with it: delayed response time, overly bureaucratic in an abolitionist environment, dividing people into camps, creating more drama over elections, and the fact that it doesn't solve any problems. You can't ensure that the representatives elected aren't going to be disorganized and scream. It doesn't even reduce the amount of sides you have to pay attention to, for on any given issue theres tops six people discussing it on all sides of the issue. You reduce the amount of people by two...which then limits the diversity of viewpoints. Its just a bad program

My response was about Imabench not knowing about the EA, despite a whole thread I wrote up about it. It had nothing to do with your post.

To start, there is no delay time. You assume the election delays the discussion, when the reality is that the discussion would continue during the one day long election. The representatives wouldn't replace discussion, or sit around an office waiting to have their concerns addressed...They would get elected via a poll... like Pollcode. This wouldn't cause any drama, and would be relatively fast. Then they immedately start talking with the Mods, and doing organized events built to speed up and conclude the discussion faster. Currently, with no organized voice on either side of an issue, a discussion would last longer and with more attacks.

The assumption that it would divide people into camps presumes they weren't already in camps. People aren't in Group A because they voted for someone, they voted for someone because they are in group A.

The whole bureaucratic bit is blatantly overhyped... your tickets spends too much time making the EA appear twice as complicated as it really is. You play it out like it's complicated, but even if it hit 6 members total, it'd be the simplist administration we've had in the last year. Three members to start... an issue arises, and people elect members in a one day long poll to work with airmax to conclude the issue, and those elected members than leave. Compared to the many jobs, committees, sub-administrations, and 12+ members of the current administration (that, as far as I'm aware, Harder is continuing) the EA is incredibly simplistic.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 3:15:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 6:44:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
To start, there is no delay time. You assume the election delays the discussion, when the reality is that the discussion would continue during the one day long election.

But isn't the elected representatives the ones who are supposed to be discussing the issue? So they can only start discussing the issue in PM's, podcasts, etc. once they are elected, thus eliminating discussion before and during the election.

And only one day? That only lets a small amount of members of the site vote, which is hardly democratic. If the representatives are supposed to represent the site's positions, they have to give members of that position ample time to vote. 24 hours isn't enough, 3 days is the norm. Having it for one day negates the entire point of having an elective administration, being democratic.

The representatives wouldn't replace discussion, or sit around an office waiting to have their concerns addressed...They would get elected via a poll... like Pollcode. This wouldn't cause any drama, and would be relatively fast. Then they immedately start talking with the Mods, and doing organized events built to speed up and conclude the discussion faster. Currently, with no organized voice on either side of an issue, a discussion would last longer and with more attacks.

Why would the elected officials not use attacks? Since the president isn"t choosing people, the people are, there is no reason to believe that anyone elected will not attack during the discussions. Thus, using elected officials does not increase or decrease the amount of attacks used during discussions; because they are elected.

The assumption that it would divide people into camps presumes they weren't already in camps. People aren't in Group A because they voted for someone, they voted for someone because they are in group A.

And how does the elective administration resolve this? Wouldn"t it only further the division? As long as the program makes the situation worse the impact is the same.

The whole bureaucratic bit is blatantly overhyped... your tickets spends too much time making the EA appear twice as complicated as it really is. You play it out like it's complicated, but even if it hit 6 members total, it'd be the simplist administration we've had in the last year. Three members to start... an issue arises, and people elect members in a one day long poll to work with airmax to conclude the issue, and those elected members than leave. Compared to the many jobs, committees, sub-administrations, and 12+ members of the current administration (that, as far as I'm aware, Harder is continuing) the EA is incredibly simplistic.

The 12+ members would advise and discuss presidential policy, not moderation policy. Your program relates to moderation policy, thus you cannot compare those. And it is bureaucratic because it unnecessarily adds another layer of people to get something done, when there was no problem before.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 5:42:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 3:59:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 1:40:54 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
TL;DR

If you are going to vote in the election you should read it

I'll take a look at the Hard DK thing later.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:18:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 5:04:46 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/31/2016 4:45:15 PM, imabench wrote:

Again you repeat that lie. In the most recent poll you only registered 4 votes, almost half what any of the other campaigns pulled in.

No what that says is the number of people who were in the main forum that noticed that poll and chose to answer it. S

Figures that you only care to cite polls when you do well in them, but any other poll where you do awful as expected suddenly dont count.... Youre such a child
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
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:04:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 1:40:54 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
TL;DR

Harder.
DK.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 12:26:14 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
But in all seriousness... my main dilemma is voting period; rather than choosing among candidates.
Tsar of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 12:36:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:25:30 AM, YYW wrote:
*(CONTROL + F) + (types YYW)*

*sees no results*

*doubts this thread is relevant to me*

YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW

Now it's relevant to you.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 12:40:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:36:30 AM, TUF wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:25:30 AM, YYW wrote:
*(CONTROL + F) + (types YYW)*

*sees no results*

*doubts this thread is relevant to me*

YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW
YYW


Now it's relevant to you.

lol

Also, we really do need more slaves. Might reduce crime.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 12:47:27 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:26:14 AM, YYW wrote:
But in all seriousness... my main dilemma is voting period; rather than choosing among candidates.

Really? How long is the election thread open right now?