Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

****UPDATE on OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT******

YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.
Tsar of DDO
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:56:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?
+1
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:58:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?

I think "everything" is a massive, massive overstatement. I actually prefer avoiding him because usually when I don't I get attacked. Where did you even get this from? Are you trying to mock me or something? What's your goal here exactly besides to make a baseless and somewhat random statement? Maybe I'm just delusional though. Point out where I responded to each of YYW's last 30 posts (I'm being generous here since "everything" is a lot) .
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:01:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:58:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?

I think "everything" is a massive, massive overstatement. I actually prefer avoiding him because usually when I don't I get attacked. Where did you even get this from? Are you trying to mock me or something? What's your goal here exactly besides to make a baseless and somewhat random statement? Maybe I'm just delusional though. Point out where I responded to each of YYW's last 30 posts (I'm being generous here since "everything" is a lot) .

You prefer avoiding him so much that you took the time to dredge up 50 quotes of his to use against him? I think that really redefines what avoidance means. I would have to say based on the facts you are being pretty delusional, yes. Furthermore, I would like to return the question and ask what it is you were trying to accomplish by posting on this very thread.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:08:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:01:44 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:58:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?

I think "everything" is a massive, massive overstatement. I actually prefer avoiding him because usually when I don't I get attacked. Where did you even get this from? Are you trying to mock me or something? What's your goal here exactly besides to make a baseless and somewhat random statement? Maybe I'm just delusional though. Point out where I responded to each of YYW's last 30 posts (I'm being generous here since "everything" is a lot) .

You prefer avoiding him so much that you took the time to dredge up 50 quotes of his to use against him? I think that really redefines what avoidance means. I would have to say based on the facts you are being pretty delusional, yes. Furthermore, I would like to return the question and ask what it is you were trying to accomplish by posting on this very thread.

One, it was no where near 50 quotes. Stop exaggerating things. Two, hard evidence needed to be presented, especially with an ultimatum like that. And I don't see how that "redefines" what avoidance is. I mean, it's still only one post and I think the last time I posted in response to him before that was when he said that I was "out of my league" when I made a thread about killing civilians in war, which was quite some time ago and it was him initiating it. Three, it's very odd that the "facts" always seem to favor those who decide to insult me (yes, calling someone delusional is an insult). I don't see any facts weighed against me here, but I guess according to you I'm delusional so it doesn't matter. What I hoped to accomplish is that some sense would be knocked into him. Although, I shouldn't have to explain why I post in a thread. For example, why did you respond to me with your false statement that you failed to prove?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:14:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:08:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:01:44 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:58:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?

I think "everything" is a massive, massive overstatement. I actually prefer avoiding him because usually when I don't I get attacked. Where did you even get this from? Are you trying to mock me or something? What's your goal here exactly besides to make a baseless and somewhat random statement? Maybe I'm just delusional though. Point out where I responded to each of YYW's last 30 posts (I'm being generous here since "everything" is a lot) .

You prefer avoiding him so much that you took the time to dredge up 50 quotes of his to use against him? I think that really redefines what avoidance means. I would have to say based on the facts you are being pretty delusional, yes. Furthermore, I would like to return the question and ask what it is you were trying to accomplish by posting on this very thread.

One, it was no where near 50 quotes. Stop exaggerating things. Two, hard evidence needed to be presented, especially with an ultimatum like that. And I don't see how that "redefines" what avoidance is. I mean, it's still only one post and I think the last time I posted in response to him before that was when he said that I was "out of my league" when I made a thread about killing civilians in war, which was quite some time ago and it was him initiating it. Three, it's very odd that the "facts" always seem to favor those who decide to insult me (yes, calling someone delusional is an insult). I don't see any facts weighed against me here, but I guess according to you I'm delusional so it doesn't matter. What I hoped to accomplish is that some sense would be knocked into him. Although, I shouldn't have to explain why I post in a thread. For example, why did you respond to me with your false statement that you failed to prove?

I would reply to this but trying to make sense of it (both the grammar and content) is actually giving me a headache... and I'm not even saying that to insult you this time... but to be fair, you called yourself delusional and I just confirmed it, hahaha.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:15:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:14:53 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:08:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:01:44 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:58:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?

I think "everything" is a massive, massive overstatement. I actually prefer avoiding him because usually when I don't I get attacked. Where did you even get this from? Are you trying to mock me or something? What's your goal here exactly besides to make a baseless and somewhat random statement? Maybe I'm just delusional though. Point out where I responded to each of YYW's last 30 posts (I'm being generous here since "everything" is a lot) .

You prefer avoiding him so much that you took the time to dredge up 50 quotes of his to use against him? I think that really redefines what avoidance means. I would have to say based on the facts you are being pretty delusional, yes. Furthermore, I would like to return the question and ask what it is you were trying to accomplish by posting on this very thread.

One, it was no where near 50 quotes. Stop exaggerating things. Two, hard evidence needed to be presented, especially with an ultimatum like that. And I don't see how that "redefines" what avoidance is. I mean, it's still only one post and I think the last time I posted in response to him before that was when he said that I was "out of my league" when I made a thread about killing civilians in war, which was quite some time ago and it was him initiating it. Three, it's very odd that the "facts" always seem to favor those who decide to insult me (yes, calling someone delusional is an insult). I don't see any facts weighed against me here, but I guess according to you I'm delusional so it doesn't matter. What I hoped to accomplish is that some sense would be knocked into him. Although, I shouldn't have to explain why I post in a thread. For example, why did you respond to me with your false statement that you failed to prove?

I would reply to this but trying to make sense of it (both the grammar and content) is actually giving me a headache... and I'm not even saying that to insult you this time... but to be fair, you called yourself delusional and I just confirmed it, hahaha.

I accept your concession. Have a nice day.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:16:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:15:50 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:14:53 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:08:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:01:44 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:58:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?

I think "everything" is a massive, massive overstatement. I actually prefer avoiding him because usually when I don't I get attacked. Where did you even get this from? Are you trying to mock me or something? What's your goal here exactly besides to make a baseless and somewhat random statement? Maybe I'm just delusional though. Point out where I responded to each of YYW's last 30 posts (I'm being generous here since "everything" is a lot) .

You prefer avoiding him so much that you took the time to dredge up 50 quotes of his to use against him? I think that really redefines what avoidance means. I would have to say based on the facts you are being pretty delusional, yes. Furthermore, I would like to return the question and ask what it is you were trying to accomplish by posting on this very thread.

One, it was no where near 50 quotes. Stop exaggerating things. Two, hard evidence needed to be presented, especially with an ultimatum like that. And I don't see how that "redefines" what avoidance is. I mean, it's still only one post and I think the last time I posted in response to him before that was when he said that I was "out of my league" when I made a thread about killing civilians in war, which was quite some time ago and it was him initiating it. Three, it's very odd that the "facts" always seem to favor those who decide to insult me (yes, calling someone delusional is an insult). I don't see any facts weighed against me here, but I guess according to you I'm delusional so it doesn't matter. What I hoped to accomplish is that some sense would be knocked into him. Although, I shouldn't have to explain why I post in a thread. For example, why did you respond to me with your false statement that you failed to prove?

I would reply to this but trying to make sense of it (both the grammar and content) is actually giving me a headache... and I'm not even saying that to insult you this time... but to be fair, you called yourself delusional and I just confirmed it, hahaha.

I accept your concession. Have a nice day.

I could actually comprehend what you said this time, we're getting somewhere.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?
She responded to the issue of YYW being banned 10 times, not to mention the first response to his OP that recalls his behavior towards other members. It appears she is on a quest to get him banned.
[http://www.debate.org...]
[http://www.debate.org...]
[http://www.debate.org...]

YYW is a threat to the site not because his behavior is over the top (although sometimes it is, but no worse than other members I've witnessed). YYW is a threat because many members love him for being himself. He irks me at times, but whenever he is off the site members cease to engage in the type of dialog that they do when he is active. For this reason I think his behavior is dealt with unfairly and I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:21:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?
She responded to the issue of YYW being banned 10 times, not to mention the first response to his OP that recalls his behavior towards other members. It appears she is on a quest to get him banned.
[http://www.debate.org...]
[http://www.debate.org...]
[http://www.debate.org...]

YYW is a threat to the site not because his behavior is over the top (although sometimes it is, but no worse than other members I've witnessed). YYW is a threat because many members love him for being himself. He irks me at times, but whenever he is off the site members cease to engage in the type of dialog that they do when he is active. For this reason I think his behavior is dealt with unfairly and I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

I mean her the incoherence of her reply was self evident, but this only further proves the extent to which she is either a liar or lacks self awareness.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:26:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:21:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:54:32 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:44:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

Max is banning you for reasons he stated (persistent insulting behavior). It's odd you can't comprehend that. And you already "countered" what he said by just repeating yourself, which is an argument that Max already refuted. Continued discussion would just waste time.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

Max clearly displayed his reasoning for this. There is complete transparency and no dishonesty. And you don't "call whiteflame out" you randomly insult him and try to pretend you have support.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

If it does then you deserved it.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

I would like a site where people don't randomly insult other people and then try to justify themselves. Where you can express your views without being excessively personally attacked. A site where people can reform after facing consequences. Max has never made an "objectively" stupid call, and you aren't qualified to determine objectivity.

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

Why not post it publicly? A lot seems to happen in PMs sent to you. They're so mysterious.

In sum, own up to your banning and grow up.

im really curious why you feel the need to comment on everything YYW says. seems as if you are his biggest fan, perhaps?
She responded to the issue of YYW being banned 10 times, not to mention the first response to his OP that recalls his behavior towards other members. It appears she is on a quest to get him banned.
[http://www.debate.org...]
[http://www.debate.org...]
[http://www.debate.org...]

YYW is a threat to the site not because his behavior is over the top (although sometimes it is, but no worse than other members I've witnessed). YYW is a threat because many members love him for being himself. He irks me at times, but whenever he is off the site members cease to engage in the type of dialog that they do when he is active. For this reason I think his behavior is dealt with unfairly and I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

I mean her the incoherence of her reply was self evident, but this only further proves the extent to which she is either a liar or lacks self awareness.
She is definitely skilled in deception. No RFD needed if you vote on this debate. "Peters Smith works for Juggle" [http://www.debate.org...]

I screwed up but would appreciate a read. Her deceptiveness is apparent in the info I posted in R4.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:35:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:

I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

Not everything has shady conspiratorial underpinnings. YYW has been temp-banned for the reasons I spoke about at length in the other thread, and nothing else. If you would like to discuss those reasons, that is perfectly reasonable.

I don't even know what "being influential" in this context in terms of DDO means, unless you mean capable of making an argument, in which case you are talking about a lot of people - though most might not be as vocal as YYW, but that doesn't mean YYW is able to effect anything more than anyone else.

YYW can certainly make valid points, and he is certainly passionate about things and creates lots of decent content. But I don't know how that extends to the type of influence you may be implying.

I'm not sure what the "approval of the moderators" means either. I disapprove of him constantly insulting people. That's all there is to it, and I have had to reply to every deflection of this issue that exists. "What about problem B?", the conduct strawman, and now this conspiracy that I or any other moderator (and that would only be Whiteflame) have some personal stake in this, or have the least bit of concern about YYW's "influence". I certainly don't, and I don't think Whiteflame cares that much about it either - even though WF has been called stupid by YYW at every chance YYW has to just throw it in there, and yet, WF just ignores it because he has more important things to do.

This is one of the simplest issues imaginable (don't constantly insult people) and doesn't need to be made more complex with theories that simply have no evidence for them whatsoever.
Debate.org Moderator
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:45:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
This is ABSOLUTE UTTER BULLSH!T. Airmax and his gang of fascist sh!theads continue to exert their UTTERLY IDIOTIC SJW totalitarianism. Airmax and his gang of fascists continue to be total control-freaks and exert their power to increase censorship and loose their mind over people having hurt feelings. PetersSmith had always censored polls she dislikes because she is an UTTER CONTROL FREAK. And the same fascism can be seen with whiteflame, who has the most STUPID voting policy the site has ever had. More debates would have more votes if whiteflame's degenerative voting policy wouldn't have forced people to type up novels for their votes, which BASICALLY DOES NOTHING WHAT SO EVER! Do you know how easy it is to speak like an idiot and spew out logical fallacies everywhere in your RFD, and still not get caught by whiteflame? I have seen plenty of examples of "strategic voting," and because they fit all of whiteflame's SUBHUMAN REQUIREMENTS, the vote passes through. It's quite evident whiteflame's voting policy does NOTHING AT ALL to increase the quality of votes, but it DECREASES THE GOD DAMN QUANTITY!

And with the forums, the moderators are obviously being oversensitive, especially with very controversial topics. What they don't understand is that you can't have a site of controversy and thought-provoking content without having some sort of god d@mn aggressiveness. Do you really think the US Congress, or any political body for that matter just sits back in their chairs and sugar-coats everything they say? No, you see politicians INSULTING EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME, in fact it's probably worse than what goes on in DDO. Debate.org is NOT tumblr, and actual controversy should be permitted. What these moderators want to do is severely limit our speech because they are control freaks, and they are too worried about people's feelings getting hurt. Well you know what? MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD STOP BEING OVERSENSITIVE PERHAPS? If anybody is really offended and hurt by the controversial and argumentative nature of a debating site, then they should GET THE BLOODY HELL OUT! GET THEM OUT OF HERE! Controversial discussion is NOT for the emotional, because of the nature of controversy and human nature. When you try to sugar coat the discussion that goes on in debate.org, what is the result? If you guessed totalitarianism and an obsession over control, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY F*CKING CORRECT! And this is perhaps exactly what the moderators are going to do if they keep trying to defend hurt feelings. MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD TOUGHEN UP PERHAPS? As I said, controversy is not for the easily offended, faintest of hearts, or the emotionally weak.

I would also like to say that I am a victim of airmax's control obsession. Not too long ago, I was banned for a week just for using an ethnic slur. REALLY? BANNED FOR ONE WORD? Just what is one word going to do? If the person I used the ethnic slur against is really hurt emotionally, then they are an UNDESIRABLE, period. If you want to achieve something in life and not be an idiot on the streets living in a box, you have to deal with criticism. This is something that I wish would get through the heads of the DDO moderators, because YOU CAN'T BAN INSULTS ON THIS SITE, especially because it's a DEBATING website in which there is a lot of CONTROVERSY and OPPOSING VIEWS.

And I see YYW going down the same path as I did, being banned over not making his statements tumblr-friendly.

In post 7 of the "previous version" of this thread, just look at PetersSmith's response to YYW. She was complaining about YYW's insults to other members, but she won't realize that controversy IS GOING TO LEAD TO AGGRESSIVENESS, AND IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO INSULTS. And what exactly did PetersSmith complain about? She was saying statements like ""You are what is wrong with America", "ROFLMAO I'll bet you didn't even graduate high school", "You are the most dishonest person I have ever seen...You're a terrorist sympathizer." These statements seem aggressive, but was YYW's posts consisting of 100% of insults? No, he had actually provided some compelling arguments for his cause and shared his sense of reasoning. Honestly if Airmax, F16, whiteflame, bsh1, PetersSmith, etc think this is a problem, then WHAT ARE THEY DOING, ON A DEBATE WEBSITE? Let me repeat this again, "WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING ON A DEBATE WEBSITE?" I would love if any of these fascists could answer the question I have just asked.

And whatever happened to the statement "Sticks and stones can break my bones?" Airmax's gang loves to appeal to having people "getting hurt," BUT HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE HURT? Nearly everybody has people who heavily dislike them, but what is the point in censoring insults? VERBAL INSULTS DON'T HURT, what hurts is the fact that you are very weak emotionally.

I have seen the mods do questionable things in the past, BUT THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL! Day by day on this website, I am only realizing the INCREASING FASCISM that the moderators are exerting over people.

To conclude, THIS IS A DEBATE SITE! THIS IS NOT TUMBLR! PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND INSULT EACH OTHER AT TIMES, F*CKING DEAL WITH IT! I'm not saying there should be no moderation to where people can just spam and insult people left and right while providing no arguments to their cause, but this is stupid to freak out over insults. The forums and likewise can be thought of as "informal debates," where insulting IS GOING TO HAPPEN. The forums do not equate to the debates section on here, because there's a huge difference between informally and formally arguing. Insults aren't acceptable in formal debates, but in back and forths on the forums? COME ON!

I am not going to be surprised if I am banned over this rant I have just posted. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised of airmax deletes this post. You aren't solving the problem by doing this, airmax. What you're doing is being a fascist control-freak, and banning me for saying this will only FIGHT AGAINST YOUR CAUSE, and PROVE ME RIGHT. If airmax wants to prove me right, he can go ahead and ban me for typing this. However looking deep into this, I am complaining about the increasing censorship on here and why we should limit controlling occasional aggressiveness in a website of such sort of nature. I have stated that suppressing insults in informal controversy is simply totalitarian and trying to protect pseudo-emotion of being real hurt over insults, and doing so will only ruin the nature of this website. But by banning me over aggressiveness and insults, you're proving me right that you are a control freak who can't handle "hurt" feelings.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:48:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Lol, what a world it is where the posting facts - LITERAL OBJECTIVE FACTS - is the delusional one.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:56:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:35:22 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:

I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

Not everything has shady conspiratorial underpinnings. YYW has been temp-banned for the reasons I spoke about at length in the other thread, and nothing else. If you would like to discuss those reasons, that is perfectly reasonable.

I don't even know what "being influential" in this context in terms of DDO means, unless you mean capable of making an argument, in which case you are talking about a lot of people - though most might not be as vocal as YYW, but that doesn't mean YYW is able to effect anything more than anyone else.

YYW can certainly make valid points, and he is certainly passionate about things and creates lots of decent content. But I don't know how that extends to the type of influence you may be implying.

I'm not sure what the "approval of the moderators" means either. I disapprove of him constantly insulting people. That's all there is to it, and I have had to reply to every deflection of this issue that exists. "What about problem B?", the conduct strawman, and now this conspiracy that I or any other moderator (and that would only be Whiteflame) have some personal stake in this, or have the least bit of concern about YYW's "influence". I certainly don't, and I don't think Whiteflame cares that much about it either - even though WF has been called stupid by YYW at every chance YYW has to just throw it in there, and yet, WF just ignores it because he has more important things to do.

This is one of the simplest issues imaginable (don't constantly insult people) and doesn't need to be made more complex with theories that simply have no evidence for them whatsoever.
PetersSmith is the moderator that I suspect to be behind his ban. Whiteflame seems to tolerate his behavior. What I'm saying is that I've seen many members personally attack others, and not get banned. I'm not saying they should be banned, but someone is deliberately following YYW's content and keeping tabs on him, to ban him, because like i said, many members love him. I support not banning him because the last time he was banned, I noticed that many members did not engage in dialog as intensely as when he is active.

I think overall, banning a popular member who engages in questionable content that others engage in as well, is used to set an example and cause others to self censor. A more effective approach to dealing with members who insult would be to encourage the receivers of the insults to respond with something like, "I notice you have chosen to personally attack/insult me rather to address the issue I raised. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, I will not respond to anymore of your insults." The way things are, encourages a tattle tale mentality and the reprimanding of members who use insults to derail dialog. I think more encouragement should be given to members to deflect insults in a way similar to what I mentioned.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 5:57:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:45:51 AM, triangle.128k wrote:

I would also like to say that I am a victim of airmax's control obsession. Not too long ago, I was banned for a week just for using an ethnic slur. REALLY? BANNED FOR ONE WORD?

You had just been warned before that about being constantly antagonistic, and then you called someone an ethnic slur.

The former was just a request to tone things down and not likely to lead to any kind of ban, and then you called someone an ethic slur:

Post 378

https://www.debate.org...

This wasn't some type of gray area, and I don't care about the feelings of the person you said it to (in terms of why it is a problem). I care about the fact that you don't know how to act in a civil manner, and your temp-ban was appropriate.

As for the rest of your post, if I have time I'll do my best to address it.
Debate.org Moderator
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:01:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:45:51 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
This is ABSOLUTE UTTER BULLSH!T. Airmax and his gang of fascist sh!theads continue to exert their UTTERLY IDIOTIC SJW totalitarianism. Airmax and his gang of fascists continue to be total control-freaks and exert their power to increase censorship and loose their mind over people having hurt feelings. PetersSmith had always censored polls she dislikes because she is an UTTER CONTROL FREAK. And the same fascism can be seen with whiteflame, who has the most STUPID voting policy the site has ever had. More debates would have more votes if whiteflame's degenerative voting policy wouldn't have forced people to type up novels for their votes, which BASICALLY DOES NOTHING WHAT SO EVER! Do you know how easy it is to speak like an idiot and spew out logical fallacies everywhere in your RFD, and still not get caught by whiteflame? I have seen plenty of examples of "strategic voting," and because they fit all of whiteflame's SUBHUMAN REQUIREMENTS, the vote passes through. It's quite evident whiteflame's voting policy does NOTHING AT ALL to increase the quality of votes, but it DECREASES THE GOD DAMN QUANTITY!

And with the forums, the moderators are obviously being oversensitive, especially with very controversial topics. What they don't understand is that you can't have a site of controversy and thought-provoking content without having some sort of god d@mn aggressiveness. Do you really think the US Congress, or any political body for that matter just sits back in their chairs and sugar-coats everything they say? No, you see politicians INSULTING EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME, in fact it's probably worse than what goes on in DDO. Debate.org is NOT tumblr, and actual controversy should be permitted. What these moderators want to do is severely limit our speech because they are control freaks, and they are too worried about people's feelings getting hurt. Well you know what? MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD STOP BEING OVERSENSITIVE PERHAPS? If anybody is really offended and hurt by the controversial and argumentative nature of a debating site, then they should GET THE BLOODY HELL OUT! GET THEM OUT OF HERE! Controversial discussion is NOT for the emotional, because of the nature of controversy and human nature. When you try to sugar coat the discussion that goes on in debate.org, what is the result? If you guessed totalitarianism and an obsession over control, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY F*CKING CORRECT! And this is perhaps exactly what the moderators are going to do if they keep trying to defend hurt feelings. MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD TOUGHEN UP PERHAPS? As I said, controversy is not for the easily offended, faintest of hearts, or the emotionally weak.

I would also like to say that I am a victim of airmax's control obsession. Not too long ago, I was banned for a week just for using an ethnic slur. REALLY? BANNED FOR ONE WORD? Just what is one word going to do? If the person I used the ethnic slur against is really hurt emotionally, then they are an UNDESIRABLE, period. If you want to achieve something in life and not be an idiot on the streets living in a box, you have to deal with criticism. This is something that I wish would get through the heads of the DDO moderators, because YOU CAN'T BAN INSULTS ON THIS SITE, especially because it's a DEBATING website in which there is a lot of CONTROVERSY and OPPOSING VIEWS.

And I see YYW going down the same path as I did, being banned over not making his statements tumblr-friendly.

In post 7 of the "previous version" of this thread, just look at PetersSmith's response to YYW. She was complaining about YYW's insults to other members, but she won't realize that controversy IS GOING TO LEAD TO AGGRESSIVENESS, AND IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO INSULTS. And what exactly did PetersSmith complain about? She was saying statements like ""You are what is wrong with America", "ROFLMAO I'll bet you didn't even graduate high school", "You are the most dishonest person I have ever seen...You're a terrorist sympathizer." These statements seem aggressive, but was YYW's posts consisting of 100% of insults? No, he had actually provided some compelling arguments for his cause and shared his sense of reasoning. Honestly if Airmax, F16, whiteflame, bsh1, PetersSmith, etc think this is a problem, then WHAT ARE THEY DOING, ON A DEBATE WEBSITE? Let me repeat this again, "WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING ON A DEBATE WEBSITE?" I would love if any of these fascists could answer the question I have just asked.

And whatever happened to the statement "Sticks and stones can break my bones?" Airmax's gang loves to appeal to having people "getting hurt," BUT HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE HURT? Nearly everybody has people who heavily dislike them, but what is the point in censoring insults? VERBAL INSULTS DON'T HURT, what hurts is the fact that you are very weak emotionally.

I have seen the mods do questionable things in the past, BUT THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL! Day by day on this website, I am only realizing the INCREASING FASCISM that the moderators are exerting over people.

To conclude, THIS IS A DEBATE SITE! THIS IS NOT TUMBLR! PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND INSULT EACH OTHER AT TIMES, F*CKING DEAL WITH IT! I'm not saying there should be no moderation to where people can just spam and insult people left and right while providing no arguments to their cause, but this is stupid to freak out over insults. The forums and likewise can be thought of as "informal debates," where insulting IS GOING TO HAPPEN. The forums do not equate to the debates section on here, because there's a huge difference between informally and formally arguing. Insults aren't acceptable in formal debates, but in back and forths on the forums? COME ON!


I am not going to be surprised if I am banned over this rant I have just posted. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised of airmax deletes this post. You aren't solving the problem by doing this, airmax. What you're doing is being a fascist control-freak, and banning me for saying this will only FIGHT AGAINST YOUR CAUSE, and PROVE ME RIGHT. If airmax wants to prove me right, he can go ahead and ban me for typing this. However looking deep into this, I am complaining about the increasing censorship on here and why we should limit controlling occasional aggressiveness in a website of such sort of nature. I have stated that suppressing insults in informal controversy is simply totalitarian and trying to protect pseudo-emotion of being real hurt over insults, and doing so will only ruin the nature of this website. But by banning me over aggressiveness and insults, you're proving me right that you are a control freak who can't handle "hurt" feelings.

Hahaha, just saw this

You're trolling right?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:02:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:30:52 AM, YYW wrote:
Fears are confirmed. Max is going to ban me, for what I said in my OP. His banning me proves precisely what I said, and he is intentionally banning me before I have a chance to correct the multifaceted misrepresentations of what he said in my thread.

This is a clear act of dishonesty, which is the natural and proximate result of his being called out on his poor judgment. This is also in retaliation for me calling whiteflame out.

The time will come where I am permanently banned, I am sure.

Think, DDO. What kind of a place do you want to live in? One where Max makes objectively stupid calls like this, or not?

As always, if you want the PMs exchanged between Max and I to prove the truth of what I'm saying, I am happy to furnish them.

I've stayed away from posting in response to YYW for quite some time now, the main reasons being that it wasn't worth the hassle and, as practically anyone can tell by now, the discussion would turn to insults and demeaning rather quickly. That well dried up a while ago, sadly. I had a lot of respect for YYW as a debater, a judge, and a person. After being insulted personally at practically every turn, I don't know what to think anymore.

But I should be clear that none of the insults directed at me are ever going to be subject to a report, nor will they ever result in disciplinary action. Anyone, YYW included, is allowed to attack me all they wish. I'm a moderator, a public figure on the site who has opened himself up to such attacks. I accept that. If this was some kind of retaliatory effort for attacked lobbed at me, it would have happened months ago when he stopped being willing to even talk with me via PMs and started making a public spectacle of his derision for me personally.

People are welcome to view this however they want. The situation between moderation and YYW is a complex one, and while we don't expect anyone to have the full background that informed the temp ban tonight, we do hope that you will make an effort to better understand that situation through the posts Airmax has made clarifying it before they try and add their two cents. And whatever your perception of this temporary ban, I hope that whatever conversation occurs remains civil and constructive.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:04:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:56:29 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:35:22 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:

I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

Not everything has shady conspiratorial underpinnings. YYW has been temp-banned for the reasons I spoke about at length in the other thread, and nothing else. If you would like to discuss those reasons, that is perfectly reasonable.

I don't even know what "being influential" in this context in terms of DDO means, unless you mean capable of making an argument, in which case you are talking about a lot of people - though most might not be as vocal as YYW, but that doesn't mean YYW is able to effect anything more than anyone else.

YYW can certainly make valid points, and he is certainly passionate about things and creates lots of decent content. But I don't know how that extends to the type of influence you may be implying.

I'm not sure what the "approval of the moderators" means either. I disapprove of him constantly insulting people. That's all there is to it, and I have had to reply to every deflection of this issue that exists. "What about problem B?", the conduct strawman, and now this conspiracy that I or any other moderator (and that would only be Whiteflame) have some personal stake in this, or have the least bit of concern about YYW's "influence". I certainly don't, and I don't think Whiteflame cares that much about it either - even though WF has been called stupid by YYW at every chance YYW has to just throw it in there, and yet, WF just ignores it because he has more important things to do.

This is one of the simplest issues imaginable (don't constantly insult people) and doesn't need to be made more complex with theories that simply have no evidence for them whatsoever.

PetersSmith is the moderator that I suspect to be behind his ban.

I am literally the only one behind his ban. The buck starts and stops with me.

Whiteflame seems to tolerate his behavior. What I'm saying is that I've seen many members personally attack others, and not get banned.

So the problem B argument again? Why don't you report those members and let me deal with them (seriously, contact me via PM and I'll resolve the issue with you). Billy being a jerk, doesn't mean it's ok for bobby to be also. Especially if I don't know that Billy is being a jerk, and Bobby is doing it to a degree much worse and much more often.

I'm not saying they should be banned, but someone is deliberately following YYW's content and keeping tabs on him, to ban him, because like i said, many members love him.

You really don't have to follow YYW's posts to notice his attacks on people. It happens all the time.

I support not banning him because the last time he was banned, I noticed that many members did not engage in dialog as intensely as when he is active.

Well, with all due respect, that's just tough. YYW being a good contributor doesn't give him immunity.

I think overall, banning a popular member who engages in questionable content that others engage in as well, is used to set an example and cause others to self censor.

No, YYW happens to be one of the worst offenders. He's not just some example.

A more effective approach to dealing with members who insult would be to encourage the receivers of the insults to respond with something like, "I notice you have chosen to personally attack/insult me rather to address the issue I raised. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, I will not respond to anymore of your insults."

This doesn't stop anyone from meting out insults in the first place, but I certainly encourage people not to retaliate.

The way things are, encourages a tattle tale mentality and the reprimanding of members who use insults to derail dialog. I think more encouragement should be given to members to deflect insults in a way similar to what I mentioned.

So the problem is with the people reporting the personal attacks, and not the people actually posting the personal attacks? I'm sure you can understand the problem with this.

Look, I get it, a lot of people like YYW. I like YYW too. But he's clearly guilty of what I have accused him of, and it's not a gray area, and no manner of strawman, problem B, or deflections onto anything else is going to change that.

He can stop insulting people or he can't, it's that simple.
Debate.org Moderator
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:05:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 6:01:07 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:45:51 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
This is ABSOLUTE UTTER BULLSH!T. Airmax and his gang of fascist sh!theads continue to exert their UTTERLY IDIOTIC SJW totalitarianism. Airmax and his gang of fascists continue to be total control-freaks and exert their power to increase censorship and loose their mind over people having hurt feelings. PetersSmith had always censored polls she dislikes because she is an UTTER CONTROL FREAK. And the same fascism can be seen with whiteflame, who has the most STUPID voting policy the site has ever had. More debates would have more votes if whiteflame's degenerative voting policy wouldn't have forced people to type up novels for their votes, which BASICALLY DOES NOTHING WHAT SO EVER! Do you know how easy it is to speak like an idiot and spew out logical fallacies everywhere in your RFD, and still not get caught by whiteflame? I have seen plenty of examples of "strategic voting," and because they fit all of whiteflame's SUBHUMAN REQUIREMENTS, the vote passes through. It's quite evident whiteflame's voting policy does NOTHING AT ALL to increase the quality of votes, but it DECREASES THE GOD DAMN QUANTITY!

And with the forums, the moderators are obviously being oversensitive, especially with very controversial topics. What they don't understand is that you can't have a site of controversy and thought-provoking content without having some sort of god d@mn aggressiveness. Do you really think the US Congress, or any political body for that matter just sits back in their chairs and sugar-coats everything they say? No, you see politicians INSULTING EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME, in fact it's probably worse than what goes on in DDO. Debate.org is NOT tumblr, and actual controversy should be permitted. What these moderators want to do is severely limit our speech because they are control freaks, and they are too worried about people's feelings getting hurt. Well you know what? MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD STOP BEING OVERSENSITIVE PERHAPS? If anybody is really offended and hurt by the controversial and argumentative nature of a debating site, then they should GET THE BLOODY HELL OUT! GET THEM OUT OF HERE! Controversial discussion is NOT for the emotional, because of the nature of controversy and human nature. When you try to sugar coat the discussion that goes on in debate.org, what is the result? If you guessed totalitarianism and an obsession over control, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY F*CKING CORRECT! And this is perhaps exactly what the moderators are going to do if they keep trying to defend hurt feelings. MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD TOUGHEN UP PERHAPS? As I said, controversy is not for the easily offended, faintest of hearts, or the emotionally weak.

I would also like to say that I am a victim of airmax's control obsession. Not too long ago, I was banned for a week just for using an ethnic slur. REALLY? BANNED FOR ONE WORD? Just what is one word going to do? If the person I used the ethnic slur against is really hurt emotionally, then they are an UNDESIRABLE, period. If you want to achieve something in life and not be an idiot on the streets living in a box, you have to deal with criticism. This is something that I wish would get through the heads of the DDO moderators, because YOU CAN'T BAN INSULTS ON THIS SITE, especially because it's a DEBATING website in which there is a lot of CONTROVERSY and OPPOSING VIEWS.

And I see YYW going down the same path as I did, being banned over not making his statements tumblr-friendly.

In post 7 of the "previous version" of this thread, just look at PetersSmith's response to YYW. She was complaining about YYW's insults to other members, but she won't realize that controversy IS GOING TO LEAD TO AGGRESSIVENESS, AND IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO INSULTS. And what exactly did PetersSmith complain about? She was saying statements like ""You are what is wrong with America", "ROFLMAO I'll bet you didn't even graduate high school", "You are the most dishonest person I have ever seen...You're a terrorist sympathizer." These statements seem aggressive, but was YYW's posts consisting of 100% of insults? No, he had actually provided some compelling arguments for his cause and shared his sense of reasoning. Honestly if Airmax, F16, whiteflame, bsh1, PetersSmith, etc think this is a problem, then WHAT ARE THEY DOING, ON A DEBATE WEBSITE? Let me repeat this again, "WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING ON A DEBATE WEBSITE?" I would love if any of these fascists could answer the question I have just asked.

And whatever happened to the statement "Sticks and stones can break my bones?" Airmax's gang loves to appeal to having people "getting hurt," BUT HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE HURT? Nearly everybody has people who heavily dislike them, but what is the point in censoring insults? VERBAL INSULTS DON'T HURT, what hurts is the fact that you are very weak emotionally.

I have seen the mods do questionable things in the past, BUT THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL! Day by day on this website, I am only realizing the INCREASING FASCISM that the moderators are exerting over people.

To conclude, THIS IS A DEBATE SITE! THIS IS NOT TUMBLR! PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND INSULT EACH OTHER AT TIMES, F*CKING DEAL WITH IT! I'm not saying there should be no moderation to where people can just spam and insult people left and right while providing no arguments to their cause, but this is stupid to freak out over insults. The forums and likewise can be thought of as "informal debates," where insulting IS GOING TO HAPPEN. The forums do not equate to the debates section on here, because there's a huge difference between informally and formally arguing. Insults aren't acceptable in formal debates, but in back and forths on the forums? COME ON!


I am not going to be surprised if I am banned over this rant I have just posted. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised of airmax deletes this post. You aren't solving the problem by doing this, airmax. What you're doing is being a fascist control-freak, and banning me for saying this will only FIGHT AGAINST YOUR CAUSE, and PROVE ME RIGHT. If airmax wants to prove me right, he can go ahead and ban me for typing this. However looking deep into this, I am complaining about the increasing censorship on here and why we should limit controlling occasional aggressiveness in a website of such sort of nature. I have stated that suppressing insults in informal controversy is simply totalitarian and trying to protect pseudo-emotion of being real hurt over insults, and doing so will only ruin the nature of this website. But by banning me over aggressiveness and insults, you're proving me right that you are a control freak who can't handle "hurt" feelings.

Hahaha, just saw this

You're trolling right?

whats a troll?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:17:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 5:45:51 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
This is ABSOLUTE UTTER BULLSH!T. Airmax and his gang of fascist sh!theads continue to exert their UTTERLY IDIOTIC SJW totalitarianism. Airmax and his gang of fascists continue to be total control-freaks and exert their power to increase censorship and loose their mind over people having hurt feelings. PetersSmith had always censored polls she dislikes because she is an UTTER CONTROL FREAK. And the same fascism can be seen with whiteflame, who has the most STUPID voting policy the site has ever had. More debates would have more votes if whiteflame's degenerative voting policy wouldn't have forced people to type up novels for their votes, which BASICALLY DOES NOTHING WHAT SO EVER! Do you know how easy it is to speak like an idiot and spew out logical fallacies everywhere in your RFD, and still not get caught by whiteflame? I have seen plenty of examples of "strategic voting," and because they fit all of whiteflame's SUBHUMAN REQUIREMENTS, the vote passes through. It's quite evident whiteflame's voting policy does NOTHING AT ALL to increase the quality of votes, but it DECREASES THE GOD DAMN QUANTITY!

And with the forums, the moderators are obviously being oversensitive, especially with very controversial topics. What they don't understand is that you can't have a site of controversy and thought-provoking content without having some sort of god d@mn aggressiveness. Do you really think the US Congress, or any political body for that matter just sits back in their chairs and sugar-coats everything they say? No, you see politicians INSULTING EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME, in fact it's probably worse than what goes on in DDO. Debate.org is NOT tumblr, and actual controversy should be permitted. What these moderators want to do is severely limit our speech because they are control freaks, and they are too worried about people's feelings getting hurt. Well you know what? MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD STOP BEING OVERSENSITIVE PERHAPS? If anybody is really offended and hurt by the controversial and argumentative nature of a debating site, then they should GET THE BLOODY HELL OUT! GET THEM OUT OF HERE! Controversial discussion is NOT for the emotional, because of the nature of controversy and human nature. When you try to sugar coat the discussion that goes on in debate.org, what is the result? If you guessed totalitarianism and an obsession over control, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY F*CKING CORRECT! And this is perhaps exactly what the moderators are going to do if they keep trying to defend hurt feelings. MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD TOUGHEN UP PERHAPS? As I said, controversy is not for the easily offended, faintest of hearts, or the emotionally weak.

I would also like to say that I am a victim of airmax's control obsession. Not too long ago, I was banned for a week just for using an ethnic slur. REALLY? BANNED FOR ONE WORD? Just what is one word going to do? If the person I used the ethnic slur against is really hurt emotionally, then they are an UNDESIRABLE, period. If you want to achieve something in life and not be an idiot on the streets living in a box, you have to deal with criticism. This is something that I wish would get through the heads of the DDO moderators, because YOU CAN'T BAN INSULTS ON THIS SITE, especially because it's a DEBATING website in which there is a lot of CONTROVERSY and OPPOSING VIEWS.

And I see YYW going down the same path as I did, being banned over not making his statements tumblr-friendly.

In post 7 of the "previous version" of this thread, just look at PetersSmith's response to YYW. She was complaining about YYW's insults to other members, but she won't realize that controversy IS GOING TO LEAD TO AGGRESSIVENESS, AND IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO INSULTS. And what exactly did PetersSmith complain about? She was saying statements like ""You are what is wrong with America", "ROFLMAO I'll bet you didn't even graduate high school", "You are the most dishonest person I have ever seen...You're a terrorist sympathizer." These statements seem aggressive, but was YYW's posts consisting of 100% of insults? No, he had actually provided some compelling arguments for his cause and shared his sense of reasoning. Honestly if Airmax, F16, whiteflame, bsh1, PetersSmith, etc think this is a problem, then WHAT ARE THEY DOING, ON A DEBATE WEBSITE? Let me repeat this again, "WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING ON A DEBATE WEBSITE?" I would love if any of these fascists could answer the question I have just asked.

And whatever happened to the statement "Sticks and stones can break my bones?" Airmax's gang loves to appeal to having people "getting hurt," BUT HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE HURT? Nearly everybody has people who heavily dislike them, but what is the point in censoring insults? VERBAL INSULTS DON'T HURT, what hurts is the fact that you are very weak emotionally.

I have seen the mods do questionable things in the past, BUT THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL! Day by day on this website, I am only realizing the INCREASING FASCISM that the moderators are exerting over people.

To conclude, THIS IS A DEBATE SITE! THIS IS NOT TUMBLR! PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND INSULT EACH OTHER AT TIMES, F*CKING DEAL WITH IT! I'm not saying there should be no moderation to where people can just spam and insult people left and right while providing no arguments to their cause, but this is stupid to freak out over insults. The forums and likewise can be thought of as "informal debates," where insulting IS GOING TO HAPPEN. The forums do not equate to the debates section on here, because there's a huge difference between informally and formally arguing. Insults aren't acceptable in formal debates, but in back and forths on the forums? COME ON!


I am not going to be surprised if I am banned over this rant I have just posted. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised of airmax deletes this post. You aren't solving the problem by doing this, airmax. What you're doing is being a fascist control-freak, and banning me for saying this will only FIGHT AGAINST YOUR CAUSE, and PROVE ME RIGHT. If airmax wants to prove me right, he can go ahead and ban me for typing this. However looking deep into this, I am complaining about the increasing censorship on here and why we should limit controlling occasional aggressiveness in a website of such sort of nature. I have stated that suppressing insults in informal controversy is simply totalitarian and trying to protect pseudo-emotion of being real hurt over insults, and doing so will only ruin the nature of this website. But by banning me over aggressiveness and insults, you're proving me right that you are a control freak who can't handle "hurt" feelings.

Most of this is either irrelevant, strawmanning, or just an over-reaction. I was thinking of correcting each problematic point here, but there's just too many of them, and you posited it in such a way that makes clear you don't want to have a reasoned and calm discussion about it.

To your censorship point, no discussion topics are being censored. The only thing being reigned in are constant personal attacks. That you equate this with censorship, I believe, really displays the level of discourse being demanded by some these days. 'We can't make a genuine argument about freedom of speech here, so we'll take some imaginary moral high ground on our demand to be able to insult people'. Even dignifying these types of arguments with a response is getting tedious.

Furthermore, it's not the feelings of others I take into account. I don't go and ask them how the comment made them feel. I can determine if your comment was something that is appropriate or not without the need for that, and there's certainly no need for constant insults or racial slurs being slung at people - regardless of how the person it was directed at felt about it.
Debate.org Moderator
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:31:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 6:04:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:56:29 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:35:22 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:

I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

Not everything has shady conspiratorial underpinnings. YYW has been temp-banned for the reasons I spoke about at length in the other thread, and nothing else. If you would like to discuss those reasons, that is perfectly reasonable.

I don't even know what "being influential" in this context in terms of DDO means, unless you mean capable of making an argument, in which case you are talking about a lot of people - though most might not be as vocal as YYW, but that doesn't mean YYW is able to effect anything more than anyone else.
Last time he was banned I could hear crickets on the forums, just saying.

YYW can certainly make valid points, and he is certainly passionate about things and creates lots of decent content. But I don't know how that extends to the type of influence you may be implying.

I'm not sure what the "approval of the moderators" means either. I disapprove of him constantly insulting people. That's all there is to it, and I have had to reply to every deflection of this issue that exists. "What about problem B?", the conduct strawman, and now this conspiracy that I or any other moderator (and that would only be Whiteflame) have some personal stake in this, or have the least bit of concern about YYW's "influence". I certainly don't, and I don't think Whiteflame cares that much about it either - even though WF has been called stupid by YYW at every chance YYW has to just throw it in there, and yet, WF just ignores it because he has more important things to do.

This is one of the simplest issues imaginable (don't constantly insult people) and doesn't need to be made more complex with theories that simply have no evidence for them whatsoever.

PetersSmith is the moderator that I suspect to be behind his ban.

I am literally the only one behind his ban. The buck starts and stops with me.
Maybe the buck stops with you - but I suspect that it didn't start with you.

Whiteflame seems to tolerate his behavior. What I'm saying is that I've seen many members personally attack others, and not get banned.

So the problem B argument again? Why don't you report those members and let me deal with them (seriously, contact me via PM and I'll resolve the issue with you). Billy being a jerk, doesn't mean it's ok for bobby to be also. Especially if I don't know that Billy is being a jerk, and Bobby is doing it to a degree much worse and much more often.
I'm not the type to report every little refraction. Serious threats - of course - or content / spam that could cause serious consequences I report. I suspected that you made an example of the most abrasive member of DDO, to cause other members to censor their content, and I still feel this is the case. This way you don't have to monitor the site for offensive content that doesn't get reported because of members like me. It's a lazy way of moderating in my opinion.

I'm not saying they should be banned, but someone is deliberately following YYW's content and keeping tabs on him, to ban him, because like i said, many members love him.

You really don't have to follow YYW's posts to notice his attacks on people. It happens all the time.
He's harsh at times, I agree, but Smith pulled several links which shows a deliberate attempt to get him banned.

I support not banning him because the last time he was banned, I noticed that many members did not engage in dialog as intensely as when he is active.

Well, with all due respect, that's just tough. YYW being a good contributor doesn't give him immunity.
It shouldn't. What bothers me is that he seems free to express himself for months and then all of a sudden his behavior is called into question, when he disagrees with Peters on a few of her posts, that he didn't insult her. So "someone" digs up all the posts where he used questionable language that didn't get reported, to silence him on threads where he wasn't insulting. That is what I have a problem with!

I think overall, banning a popular member who engages in questionable content that others engage in as well, is used to set an example and cause others to self censor.

No, YYW happens to be one of the worst offenders. He's not just some example.
He gets away with it until his comments on a thread that aren't insulting disagree with the OP, is what I suspect.

A more effective approach to dealing with members who insult would be to encourage the receivers of the insults to respond with something like, "I notice you have chosen to personally attack/insult me rather to address the issue I raised. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, I will not respond to anymore of your insults."

This doesn't stop anyone from meting out insults in the first place, but I certainly encourage people not to retaliate.
Let them show their personality. Responding effectively isn't retaliating it's being assertive.

The way things are, encourages a tattle tale mentality and the reprimanding of members who use insults to derail dialog. I think more encouragement should be given to members to deflect insults in a way similar to what I mentioned.

So the problem is with the people reporting the personal attacks, and not the people actually posting the personal attacks? I'm sure you can understand the problem with this.
Tattle tales over petty shit should be called out. You should encourage the reporting of serious offences though.

Look, I get it, a lot of people like YYW. I like YYW too. But he's clearly guilty of what I have accused him of, and it's not a gray area, and no manner of strawman, problem B, or deflections onto anything else is going to change that.
The timing of it causes me to question the sequence that led to his ban.

He can stop insulting people or he can't, it's that simple.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 6:52:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 6:31:21 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:04:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:56:29 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:35:22 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:

I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

Not everything has shady conspiratorial underpinnings. YYW has been temp-banned for the reasons I spoke about at length in the other thread, and nothing else. If you would like to discuss those reasons, that is perfectly reasonable.

I don't even know what "being influential" in this context in terms of DDO means, unless you mean capable of making an argument, in which case you are talking about a lot of people - though most might not be as vocal as YYW, but that doesn't mean YYW is able to effect anything more than anyone else.

Last time he was banned I could hear crickets on the forums, just saying.

So what is the point of what you are "just saying"? Are you saying that good contributors should get immunity for objectively bad behavior?

I am literally the only one behind his ban. The buck starts and stops with me.

Maybe the buck stops with you - but I suspect that it didn't start with you.

And what difference does it make? If Jimmy sends me some info, and that info is correct, does it matter that the info was sent by Jimmy? And really this is besides the point anyway.

I'm not the type to report every little refraction.

And yet, you are saying YYW's poor behavior shouldn't have consequences because someone else did something bad at some point. You aren't even arguing that YYW is innocent of wrong-doing, just that he's a good contributor and others are guilty as well, but that the other bad stuff shouldn't necessarily be brought to my attention.

Serious threats - of course - or content / spam that could cause serious consequences I report. I suspected that you made an example of the most abrasive member of DDO, to cause other members to censor their content, and I still feel this is the case.

Well you are wrong. As I already mentioned, YYW is among the worst offenders if not the worst offender. But if others are more cognizant to be more civil because they recognize a pattern of that behavior will lead to consequences, then that's not a bad thing. But I don't ban member's to set an example. The reasons for YYW's ban have been stated over and over again, and deflecting to other things doesn't change that fact.

This way you don't have to monitor the site for offensive content that doesn't get reported because of members like me. It's a lazy way of moderating in my opinion.

I deal with members who have a pattern of this type of behavior, which YYW certainly does. One or two offenses don't lead to anything, and further infractions lead to a warning. If problems persist further, then actions are taken. This is obviously pretty rare since temp-bans don't happen too often. But when they do, they are certainly for valid reasons, and there are valid reasons in this case.

I'm not saying they should be banned, but someone is deliberately following YYW's content and keeping tabs on him, to ban him, because like i said, many members love him.

You really don't have to follow YYW's posts to notice his attacks on people. It happens all the time.

He's harsh at times, I agree, but Smith pulled several links which shows a deliberate attempt to get him banned.

"Harsh at times" is minimizing a tendency to attack people constantly. No one can make anyone have this pattern of behavior. They either are ok with doing this type of thing, or they aren't. This is again an attempt to blame someone else for the what is clearly only the fault of one person.

I support not banning him because the last time he was banned, I noticed that many members did not engage in dialog as intensely as when he is active.

Well, with all due respect, that's just tough. YYW being a good contributor doesn't give him immunity.

It shouldn't.

Yet, you've been making the argument that it should.

What bothers me is that he seems free to express himself for months and then all of a sudden his behavior is called into question, when he disagrees with Peters on a few of her posts, that he didn't insult her. So "someone" digs up all the posts where he used questionable language that didn't get reported, to silence him on threads where he wasn't insulting. That is what I have a problem with!

You are drawing conclusions and putting things together that just aren't there. This has nothing to do with anyone else but YYW. YYW is responsible for his own behavior. Are you trying to deny the agency of YYW? He either posted insults or he didn't. How that was brought to my attention is irrelevant.

I think overall, banning a popular member who engages in questionable content that others engage in as well, is used to set an example and cause others to self censor.

No, YYW happens to be one of the worst offenders. He's not just some example.

He gets away with it until his comments on a thread that aren't insulting disagree with the OP, is what I suspect.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying I'm "taking him down" for disagreeing with someone in particular?

A more effective approach to dealing with members who insult would be to encourage the receivers of the insults to respond with something like, "I notice you have chosen to personally attack/insult me rather to address the issue I raised. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, I will not respond to anymore of your insults."

This doesn't stop anyone from meting out insults in the first place, but I certainly encourage people not to retaliate.

Let them show their personality. Responding effectively isn't retaliating it's being assertive.

Replying to an insult with an insult is retaliating. That's all I meant. But it's also irrelevant since telling people how to reply to insults doesn't stop the initial insult, which was your point.

The way things are, encourages a tattle tale mentality and the reprimanding of members who use insults to derail dialog. I think more encouragement should be given to members to deflect insults in a way similar to what I mentioned.

So the problem is with the people reporting the personal attacks, and not the people actually posting the personal attacks? I'm sure you can understand the problem with this.

Tattle tales over petty shit should be called out. You should encourage the reporting of serious offences though.

So again, the tattle tale is the bad person, and the person responsible for the insult has no responsibility for that?

Look, I get it, a lot of people like YYW. I like YYW too. But he's clearly guilty of what I have accused him of, and it's not a gray area, and no manner of strawman, problem B, or deflections onto anything else is going to change that.

The timing of it causes me to question the sequence that led to his ban.

I think you are reading too much into this.

....And really it doesn't even matter. Either YYW has appropriate conduct or he doesn't (and you don't seem to be arguing this point), none of these conspiracy theories change that.
Debate.org Moderator
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:27:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 6:52:25 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:31:21 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:04:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:56:29 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:35:22 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:
I don't support him being banned just for being influential without the approval of the moderators.

Not everything has shady conspiratorial underpinnings. YYW has been temp-banned for the reasons I spoke about at length in the other thread, and nothing else. If you would like to discuss those reasons, that is perfectly reasonable.

I don't even know what "being influential" in this context in terms of DDO means, unless you mean capable of making an argument, in which case you are talking about a lot of people - though most might not be as vocal as YYW, but that doesn't mean YYW is able to effect anything more than anyone else.

Last time he was banned I could hear crickets on the forums, just saying.

So what is the point of what you are "just saying"? Are you saying that good contributors should get immunity for objectively bad behavior?
No, I"m saying that YYW has more influence than you care to admit.

I am literally the only one behind his ban. The buck starts and stops with me.

Maybe the buck stops with you - but I suspect that it didn't start with you.

And what difference does it make? If Jimmy sends me some info, and that info is correct, does it matter that the info was sent by Jimmy? And really this is besides the point anyway.
No, it is the point. The point is that you are a moderator who doesn't seek reasons to moderate content. You allow members to control the site by encouraging them to report infractions. I realize you may be between a rock and a hard place, concerning your personal approach to moderation, and the TOS of DDO, but it's annoying to know that content is being moderated due to tattle tales rather than direct moderation attempts by you.

I'm not the type to report every little refraction.

And yet, you are saying YYW's poor behavior shouldn't have consequences because someone else did something bad at some point. You aren't even arguing that YYW is innocent of wrong-doing, just that he's a good contributor and others are guilty as well, but that the other bad stuff shouldn't necessarily be brought to my attention.
You mentioned that YYW"s behavior is easily observable, that someone wouldn"t need to go out of their way to find objectionable behavior by him, right? Than why don"t you ever publicly respond directly to him when you witness his objectionable behavior, is what I"m questioning. Why wait until it is brought to your attention?
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:27:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 6:52:25 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:31:21 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:04:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:56:29 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:35:22 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:19:11 AM, Emmarie wrote:

Serious threats - of course - or content / spam that could cause serious consequences I report. I suspected that you made an example of the most abrasive member of DDO, to cause other members to censor their content, and I still feel this is the case.

Well you are wrong. As I already mentioned, YYW is among the worst offenders if not the worst offender. But if others are more cognizant to be more civil because they recognize a pattern of that behavior will lead to consequences, then that's not a bad thing. But I don't ban member's to set an example. The reasons for YYW's ban have been stated over and over again, and deflecting to other things doesn't change that fact.
I"m not deflection anything, I"m wondering why if you witness his offences directly, there are no consequences until it is brought to your attention.

This way you don't have to monitor the site for offensive content that doesn't get reported because of members like me. It's a lazy way of moderating in my opinion.

I deal with members who have a pattern of this type of behavior, which YYW certainly does. One or two offenses don't lead to anything, and further infractions lead to a warning. If problems persist further, then actions are taken. This is obviously pretty rare since temp-bans don't happen too often. But when they do, they are certainly for valid reasons, and there are valid reasons in this case.
Reasons may be valid, but the means to which those reasons were exposed are arbitrary.

I'm not saying they should be banned, but someone is deliberately following YYW's content and keeping tabs on him, to ban him, because like i said, many members love him.

You really don't have to follow YYW's posts to notice his attacks on people. It happens all the time.
Then address him directly when YOU witness it. Why wait for a tattle tale to force your hand?

He's harsh at times, I agree, but Smith pulled several links which shows a deliberate attempt to get him banned.

"Harsh at times" is minimizing a tendency to attack people constantly. No one can make anyone have this pattern of behavior. They either are ok with doing this type of thing, or they aren't. This is again an attempt to blame someone else for the what is clearly only the fault of one person.

I support not banning him because the last time he was banned, I noticed that many members did not engage in dialog as intensely as when he is active.

Well, with all due respect, that's just tough. YYW being a good contributor doesn't give him immunity.

It shouldn't.
Yet, you've been making the argument that it should.
No, I"m simply pointing out he is a popular member who is known to be abrasive and am questioning why he is banned at "random".

What bothers me is that he seems free to express himself for months and then all of a sudden his behavior is called into question, when he disagrees with Peters on a few of her posts, that he didn't insult her. So "someone" digs up all the posts where he used questionable language that didn't get reported, to silence him on threads where he wasn't insulting. That is what I have a problem with!

You are drawing conclusions and putting things together that just aren't there. This has nothing to do with anyone else but YYW. YYW is responsible for his own behavior. Are you trying to deny the agency of YYW? He either posted insults or he didn't. How that was brought to my attention is irrelevant.
This has more to do with YYW"s behavior whether you recognize it or not.

I think overall, banning a popular member who engages in questionable content that others engage in as well, is used to set an example and cause others to self censor.

No, YYW happens to be one of the worst offenders. He's not just some example.

He gets away with it until his comments on a thread that aren't insulting disagree with the OP, is what I suspect.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying I'm "taking him down" for disagreeing with someone in particular?
I"m saying she reported him when it was convenient to do so, knowing you wouldn"t take the initiative without the behavior being officially reported.

A more effective approach to dealing with members who insult would be to encourage the receivers of the insults to respond with something like, "I notice you have chosen to personally attack/insult me rather to address the issue I raised. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, I will not respond to anymore of your insults."

This doesn't stop anyone from meting out insults in the first place, but I certainly encourage people not to retaliate.

Let them show their personality. Responding effectively isn't retaliating it's being assertive.

Replying to an insult with an insult is retaliating. That's all I meant. But it's also irrelevant since telling people how to reply to insults doesn't stop the initial insult, which was your point.
It stops further insults, if assertiveness is demonstrated.

The way things are, encourages a tattle tale mentality and the reprimanding of members who use insults to derail dialog. I think more encouragement should be given to members to deflect insults in a way similar to what I mentioned.

So the problem is with the people reporting the personal attacks, and not the people actually posting the personal attacks? I'm sure you can understand the problem with this.

Tattle tales over petty shit should be called out. You should encourage the reporting of serious offences though.

So again, the tattle tale is the bad person, and the person responsible for the insult has no responsibility for that?
The tattle tales harm dialog on DDO more than abrasive members, is my opinion.

Look, I get it, a lot of people like YYW. I like YYW too. But he's clearly guilty of what I have accused him of, and it's not a gray area, and no manner of strawman, problem B, or deflections onto anything else is going to change that.

The timing of it causes me to question the sequence that led to his ban.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:49:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 7:27:03 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:52:25 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:31:21 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 6/27/2016 6:04:45 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2016 5:56:29 AM, Emmarie wrote:

Well you are wrong. As I already mentioned, YYW is among the worst offenders if not the worst offender. But if others are more cognizant to be more civil because they recognize a pattern of that behavior will lead to consequences, then that's not a bad thing. But I don't ban member's to set an example. The reasons for YYW's ban have been stated over and over again, and deflecting to other things doesn't change that fact.

I"m not deflection anything, I"m wondering why if you witness his offences directly, there are no consequences until it is brought to your attention.

Firstly, yes you are deflecting. Whether it's because he's a good contributor, or because problem B, or because PetersSmith might have had something to do with it, you are deflecting from the only actual problem here, and that is YYW's conduct.

As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what you mean. I often don't know of an offense if it isn't brought to my attention, but if I do notice it, then there are consequences for it. I'm not sure what the confusion is here about that.

I deal with members who have a pattern of this type of behavior, which YYW certainly does. One or two offenses don't lead to anything, and further infractions lead to a warning. If problems persist further, then actions are taken. This is obviously pretty rare since temp-bans don't happen too often. But when they do, they are certainly for valid reasons, and there are valid reasons in this case.

Reasons may be valid, but the means to which those reasons were exposed are arbitrary.

So the reasons for the action take a step back to the methods in which I am made aware of them? I'm not sure what your point is anymore on this. I suppose it's unfortunate if in one case, a member gets a warning from me because they were reported, and in another case a member isn't because I never knew about it. But we are dealing with reality, and sometimes that's just the way things go. In the case of the member who just happened to get caught, there is very little consequence. In YYW's case, this wasn't some "single report" thing. This was a pattern of behavior over a lengthy period of time, so this entire point you are making - whatever it actually is - seems mostly moot.

You really don't have to follow YYW's posts to notice his attacks on people. It happens all the time.

Then address him directly when YOU witness it. Why wait for a tattle tale to force your hand?

Again, this is irrelevant and another deflection, and a general blame the victim argument. No one forced my hand to do anything. I've been aware of YYW's conduct since the volume of it makes me pay attention, and recently it compelled me to do something about it. The only two people that matter in this instance is YYW and myself, this imaginary "tattle tale" doesn't matter.

It shouldn't.

Yet, you've been making the argument that it should.

No, I"m simply pointing out he is a popular member who is known to be abrasive and am questioning why he is banned at "random".

So this is another deflection, mixed with a strawman. This isn't random, the pattern of behavior has been made very clear. Whatever time I decided to take some actions could have been theorized as "convenient or random" but tonight is when I decided to have a conversation with him - which he then turned into a spectacle.

If you think it's not random, but the result of something or someone else, please very clearly make the argument and what the agenda is here.

You are drawing conclusions and putting things together that just aren't there. This has nothing to do with anyone else but YYW. YYW is responsible for his own behavior. Are you trying to deny the agency of YYW? He either posted insults or he didn't. How that was brought to my attention is irrelevant.

This has more to do with YYW"s behavior whether you recognize it or not.

No, it really doesn't. If you are attributing actions on my part that I am completely unaware of, then make it very clear to me what you are accusing me of.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying I'm "taking him down" for disagreeing with someone in particular?

I"m saying she reported him when it was convenient to do so, knowing you wouldn"t take the initiative without the behavior being officially reported.

I'll humor this for the moment. Why is it suddenly convenient? What makes tonight special versus all other nights?

More importantly, what difference does it make? His behavior is either ok or not. Why are you deflecting this into an issue about PetersSmith? Or anyone else?

Replying to an insult with an insult is retaliating. That's all I meant. But it's also irrelevant since telling people how to reply to insults doesn't stop the initial insult, which was your point.

It stops further insults, if assertiveness is demonstrated.

I don't understand the point of this, but again, this is a deflection of the issue since you are saying that there is some responsibility on the victim for being insulted. Perhaps there is some validity to this, and I don't care to discuss it at length here, but it's certainly a deflection from the real issue.

So again, the tattle tale is the bad person, and the person responsible for the insult has no responsibility for that?

The tattle tales harm dialog on DDO more than abrasive members, is my opinion.

We aren't just talking about people who are abrasive, we are talking about someone who has a pattern of insulting behavior... and again, you are blaming the victim and deflecting from the actual guilty party here.

So my understanding is that in your opinion YYW shouldn't be banned for a week because he's a good contributor, someone tattled on him, there are others that do bad things, and some conspiratorial argument about how I don't understand my own motivations and/or I have some hidden agenda.

I guess that's fair, but that would mean that no standards could ever be enforced on this site, that all poor behavior could be ignored because problem B, and that good contributors get immunity. In addition, I can't be trusted to make this judgement because I have ulterior motives that may or may not be known to myself.
Debate.org Moderator