Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

+++Announcement on Referendum/Presidency+++

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:37:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I was sitting at home looking at the referendum thread and was concerned about this clear attempt to nullify the decision of the voters. I had started gaming things. I Pmed every single voter in the election and was asking them their thoughts on abolition. I did lie in a recent thread about the raw numbers because I was already beginning to electioneer. I said abolitionists would win about 75-15, when the reality was that I wanted to keep them cocky so they would just rest on their laurels. By my numbers the referendum would have ended about 60-40 on the side of the pro presidency people. A good little lead, but close enough to be concerned about.

However after reading F-16's exchanges with Airmax I realized something. The president is a community leader, voted on by the community. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, he really does not have any special abilities to end a community appointed position. In fact him modding elections is a conflict of interest for a moderator. The person doing that should be appointed by the community. We'll get to election reform later.

This referendum which is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the will of the people, cannot be authorized by Airmax. That's like Airmax coming into a mafia game and trying to dictate the rules to the mafia mod. It is unacceptable and oversteps his authority.

--------------------------------------

A good analogy for our respective roles, is that the community are the employees of a car plant, Airmax is the CEO, and I am the union boss. The CEO does not get to control the election process or the initiatives of the employees and their union leader.

This is almost the same thing. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, you guys are the community of DDO, and I am your union boss. The president. The agent of Juggle does not decide who the community chooses as president, what referendums on these community appointed positions that get voted on. That's for us to decide.

------------------------------------

I am certain that Airmax will post that referendum thread some point soon. I'd advise you just to ignore it. Whether you are pro president or abolitionist, just ignore the thread. We will have a vote on abolition at some point, but not now. We don't answer to Airmax or the people in his ear begging him to undermine the community's decision to elect me, and frankly it is sad that he is listening to a few immature loudmouths over the community.

Airmax seems to be a bit power hungry and enjoys stepping into areas he has no authority over, but it ends here. It ends now. I am the president of DDO, I release referendums on the presidency, not Airmax.

----------------------------------------------

Beginning a new era of the presidency may not be easy, there will be bumps in the road and kinks to work out, but it is something that needs to stand on it's own, separate from the authority of Agents of Juggle, and standing under the authority of the community.

I would like some advise from you guys, my constituents on how to structure the presidency now. How to appoint trustworthy moderators for elections. How to make community decisions. I may be your chosen leader, but we will work on this new presidency together.

sincerely,
your new founding father
Wylted
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:40:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Ummm...

Are you trolling or serious?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:43:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:40:23 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Ummm...

Are you trolling or serious?

Serious, it is a community appointed position, not a Juggle appointed or moderator appointed one. It needs to act like it.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:39:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:37:53 AM, Wylted wrote:
I was sitting at home looking at the referendum thread and was concerned about this clear attempt to nullify the decision of the voters. I had started gaming things. I Pmed every single voter in the election and was asking them their thoughts on abolition. I did lie in a recent thread about the raw numbers because I was already beginning to electioneer. I said abolitionists would win about 75-15, when the reality was that I wanted to keep them cocky so they would just rest on their laurels. By my numbers the referendum would have ended about 60-40 on the side of the pro presidency people. A good little lead, but close enough to be concerned about.

However after reading F-16's exchanges with Airmax I realized something. The president is a community leader, voted on by the community. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, he really does not have any special abilities to end a community appointed position. In fact him modding elections is a conflict of interest for a moderator. The person doing that should be appointed by the community. We'll get to election reform later.

This referendum which is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the will of the people, cannot be authorized by Airmax. That's like Airmax coming into a mafia game and trying to dictate the rules to the mafia mod. It is unacceptable and oversteps his authority.

--------------------------------------

A good analogy for our respective roles, is that the community are the employees of a car plant, Airmax is the CEO, and I am the union boss. The CEO does not get to control the election process or the initiatives of the employees and their union leader.

This is almost the same thing. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, you guys are the community of DDO, and I am your union boss. The president. The agent of Juggle does not decide who the community chooses as president, what referendums on these community appointed positions that get voted on. That's for us to decide.

------------------------------------

I am certain that Airmax will post that referendum thread some point soon. I'd advise you just to ignore it. Whether you are pro president or abolitionist, just ignore the thread. We will have a vote on abolition at some point, but not now. We don't answer to Airmax or the people in his ear begging him to undermine the community's decision to elect me, and frankly it is sad that he is listening to a few immature loudmouths over the community.

Airmax seems to be a bit power hungry and enjoys stepping into areas he has no authority over, but it ends here. It ends now. I am the president of DDO, I release referendums on the presidency, not Airmax.

----------------------------------------------

Beginning a new era of the presidency may not be easy, there will be bumps in the road and kinks to work out, but it is something that needs to stand on it's own, separate from the authority of Agents of Juggle, and standing under the authority of the community.

I would like some advise from you guys, my constituents on how to structure the presidency now. How to appoint trustworthy moderators for elections. How to make community decisions. I may be your chosen leader, but we will work on this new presidency together.

sincerely,
your new founding father
Wylted

Trustworthy moderators yes , but points for the time they spend on this site should be awarded greatly .

How to make community decisions.
I would say , pretty much the same way this is being done. Number 1 rule being don't do "Big" things unannounced. Ask the community, get the feel of it. And act accordingly , but ultimately your decision.
We all will judge you on your decision making skills. That I assure you
Let us post threads if we don't like any decisions made .
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 4:05:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:40:23 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Ummm...

Are you trolling or serious?

He's serious, just incredibly stupid and butthurt
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 6:44:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Let me offer a proper TLDR of this thread

He got elected by spamming people who do not use the site that often, or have any idea of what is happening on the site. It's called "ground game", and it started with my election. He did this without running a platform or announcing that he was running at all, all while destroying the election. The reason this is particularly nefarious is that this election was to serve the purpose of acting as the referendum. Now due to his unethical , unprecedented, and overall douchery we are having the actual referendum because he broke the premise behind the election.

It's so bad that moderation stepped in, which has never happened. That speaks volumes about his character.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:50:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:37:53 AM, Wylted wrote:
I was sitting at home looking at the referendum thread and was concerned about this clear attempt to nullify the decision of the voters. I had started gaming things. I Pmed every single voter in the election and was asking them their thoughts on abolition. I did lie in a recent thread about the raw numbers because I was already beginning to electioneer. I said abolitionists would win about 75-15, when the reality was that I wanted to keep them cocky so they would just rest on their laurels. By my numbers the referendum would have ended about 60-40 on the side of the pro presidency people. A good little lead, but close enough to be concerned about.

However after reading F-16's exchanges with Airmax I realized something. The president is a community leader, voted on by the community. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, he really does not have any special abilities to end a community appointed position. In fact him modding elections is a conflict of interest for a moderator. The person doing that should be appointed by the community. We'll get to election reform later.

This referendum which is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the will of the people, cannot be authorized by Airmax. That's like Airmax coming into a mafia game and trying to dictate the rules to the mafia mod. It is unacceptable and oversteps his authority.

--------------------------------------

A good analogy for our respective roles, is that the community are the employees of a car plant, Airmax is the CEO, and I am the union boss. The CEO does not get to control the election process or the initiatives of the employees and their union leader.

This is almost the same thing. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, you guys are the community of DDO, and I am your union boss. The president. The agent of Juggle does not decide who the community chooses as president, what referendums on these community appointed positions that get voted on. That's for us to decide.

------------------------------------

I am certain that Airmax will post that referendum thread some point soon. I'd advise you just to ignore it. Whether you are pro president or abolitionist, just ignore the thread. We will have a vote on abolition at some point, but not now. We don't answer to Airmax or the people in his ear begging him to undermine the community's decision to elect me, and frankly it is sad that he is listening to a few immature loudmouths over the community.

Airmax seems to be a bit power hungry and enjoys stepping into areas he has no authority over, but it ends here. It ends now. I am the president of DDO, I release referendums on the presidency, not Airmax.

----------------------------------------------

Beginning a new era of the presidency may not be easy, there will be bumps in the road and kinks to work out, but it is something that needs to stand on it's own, separate from the authority of Agents of Juggle, and standing under the authority of the community.

I would like some advise from you guys, my constituents on how to structure the presidency now. How to appoint trustworthy moderators for elections. How to make community decisions. I may be your chosen leader, but we will work on this new presidency together.

sincerely,
your new founding father
Wylted

Excellent job Wylted! You hit the nail on the coffin!
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:54:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:48:42 AM, Torton wrote:
lol

+1
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Kreakin
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:04:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
So why when he did this spamming was he not countered, where are the messages from other candidates? As soon as he did this where was the reaction, so obvious he would win if he was reaching out and asking against a backdrop of silence.

He won, we just have to respect democracy can stiff us if we take things for granted.
The president most call the shots on referendums or it is a attack on site democracy.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:07:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:37:53 AM, Wylted wrote:
B R I D G E
R
I
D
G
E

T H E
H
E

D I V I D E
I
V
I
D
E
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:11:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 6:44:44 PM, Mikal wrote:
Let me offer a proper TLDR of this thread

He got elected by spamming people who do not use the site that often, or have any idea of what is happening on the site. It's called "ground game", and it started with my election. He did this without running a platform or announcing that he was running at all, all while destroying the election. The reason this is particularly nefarious is that this election was to serve the purpose of acting as the referendum. Now due to his unethical , unprecedented, and overall douchery we are having the actual referendum because he broke the premise behind the election.

It's so bad that moderation stepped in, which has never happened. That speaks volumes about his character.

Pardon me for being blunt, but it seems like you are insulting the character of Wylted supporters. You're classifying them as inexperienced, ignorant people who do not use the site often. Have you checked to see who voted for Wylted, and looked at their acheivement list, or when they last were onsite?

Let's remember, the people who only use the site occasionally aren't usually allowed to vote, since they in all likelyhood don't have enough posts and non-forfeited debates to qualify. Thus, most people who vote at all are usually fairly active. But there again, you haven't named any Wylted supporters who back up your claim of not using the site often, or being ignorant of the general going-ons, so to speak.

Then again, what do you consider as active enough to be informed? Must we check into the site and do a minimum of one activity per day to keep from becoming "ignorant"?

As for another thing, what is "unethical" about sending someone a PM requesting a vote while providing the link? This is somewhat helpful, especially if you don't know where the voting is being held. And no, typing "president voting forum" in the search bar is not the option reserved for "ethical voters", mainly because you are3 quite unlikely to get a relevent result.

In conclusion, I must say that you make several claims about Wylted's campaign, his character, and the demographic of his supporters without offering any real evidence to back up your claims. That isn't to say that the claims are not unfounded, only that you have not, as far as I can see, offered in evidence for why they are true. That would be rather unconvincing in a debate format, but then again, who am I to argue with the one who is at the top of the debate leaderboard in rank?

I will say this though: Through his PM campaign pitches, and abolition poll questions, Wylted has demonstrated not only an interest in connecting with the very people he would represent if elected, but also those who came from any paticular site background. In other words, he wasn't only catering to the site "elites", who consider themselves so big that they decline to accept friend requests and debate challenges, but to everyone and anyone who has proved that he wishes to be a part of the site and not just a "tire kicker". I would consider this about as democratic as one can be, and also the characteristic that would beset a proper gentlemen.
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:13:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:37:53 AM, Wylted wrote:
I was sitting at home looking at the referendum thread and was concerned about this clear attempt to nullify the decision of the voters. I had started gaming things. I Pmed every single voter in the election and was asking them their thoughts on abolition. I did lie in a recent thread about the raw numbers because I was already beginning to electioneer. I said abolitionists would win about 75-15, when the reality was that I wanted to keep them cocky so they would just rest on their laurels. By my numbers the referendum would have ended about 60-40 on the side of the pro presidency people. A good little lead, but close enough to be concerned about.

However after reading F-16's exchanges with Airmax I realized something. The president is a community leader, voted on by the community. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, he really does not have any special abilities to end a community appointed position. In fact him modding elections is a conflict of interest for a moderator. The person doing that should be appointed by the community. We'll get to election reform later.

This referendum which is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the will of the people, cannot be authorized by Airmax. That's like Airmax coming into a mafia game and trying to dictate the rules to the mafia mod. It is unacceptable and oversteps his authority.

--------------------------------------

A good analogy for our respective roles, is that the community are the employees of a car plant, Airmax is the CEO, and I am the union boss. The CEO does not get to control the election process or the initiatives of the employees and their union leader.

This is almost the same thing. Airmax is an agent of Juggle, you guys are the community of DDO, and I am your union boss. The president. The agent of Juggle does not decide who the community chooses as president, what referendums on these community appointed positions that get voted on. That's for us to decide.

------------------------------------

I am certain that Airmax will post that referendum thread some point soon. I'd advise you just to ignore it. Whether you are pro president or abolitionist, just ignore the thread. We will have a vote on abolition at some point, but not now. We don't answer to Airmax or the people in his ear begging him to undermine the community's decision to elect me, and frankly it is sad that he is listening to a few immature loudmouths over the community.

Airmax seems to be a bit power hungry and enjoys stepping into areas he has no authority over, but it ends here. It ends now. I am the president of DDO, I release referendums on the presidency, not Airmax.

----------------------------------------------

Beginning a new era of the presidency may not be easy, there will be bumps in the road and kinks to work out, but it is something that needs to stand on it's own, separate from the authority of Agents of Juggle, and standing under the authority of the community.

I would like some advise from you guys, my constituents on how to structure the presidency now. How to appoint trustworthy moderators for elections. How to make community decisions. I may be your chosen leader, but we will work on this new presidency together.

sincerely,
your new founding father
Wylted

Nice post Wylted. Very sane.

Now lets talk about whats wrong with this. One - Airmax, by his authority with Juggle, gets to do as he pleases. He can do a referendum, he can say all posts mentioning a president will be deleted. He could lock your account for no reason at all. That is simply fact. Two - you are not the king savior, you are a twit that did everything nasty to win what is a moronic stage-play. Nasty tactics may not be "illegal" in real live politicking and don't break the TSO on this site. That does not make them anything other than the moves of a d**khead who deserves NO respect. That would be you. Three - the referendum will happen with or without your support, so live with it.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am with you. Not the outcome of the election, I am disappointed with YOU as a person/user. Watching some people celebrate your crap is like people celebrating Nixons CREPs.
Kreakin
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:20:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'm not celebrating his win, but I celebrate the win for democracy. If you are looking to over ride it, shame on you it makes the site a joke.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:47:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:20:50 PM, Kreakin wrote:
I'm not celebrating his win, but I celebrate the win for democracy.

Rigging an election through underhanded and borderline illegal means isn't a 'win' for democracy. It's literally the exact opposite.

If you are looking to over ride it, shame on you it makes the site a joke.

And hijacking an election somehow doesn't? Lol.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

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

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Murdoc
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:58:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
'Two wolves and a sheep sitting down for dinner.' Democracy needs a Constitution. That's plainly clear; DDO just needs to elect a few authors. I'm also still pushing the idea that presidents (future state, why not all officials) should be elected based on a debate over who will be more useful.

A Constitution balances the wild imbalances inevitable in a democracy.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 2:05:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:11:57 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

The crux of that argument is centered around people who voted for him meeting a set criteria. It's an assumption that because those people that criteria they are informed about site issues. That's not at all how that works, not even in the least. I say that for a variety of reasons. People could simply use the site over a 2 year span, never interacting with anyone, but posting and doing debates infrequently and fall within that criteria. It's realistically a way shorter period than that. What wylted did (I was the one who found this out and used it during my election), is use the online user page. He does not care about the people he messages, he just went through everyone who was online, or people that were in his inbox from my election and just messaged them something like this

"Would you mind voting for me in this thread. Make sure to bold your vote"

I'm aware of this because Wylted being the bright guy that he is accidentally tagged me in like 3 of those messages because he went through his pms from when I was elected and simply just bumped them in order to find noobs to vote for him.

The criteria for who participates in the election is entirely jacked up. Just because someone falls under that criteria does not mean they understand or grasp the gravity of what they are doing by voting for him. Most of those people have never even been engaged with him to know anything about him.

Ask half of those people why they voted for him and they could not even name one part of a platform, or why he was running. They voted for him because he asked them too.

People who vote in this upcoming referendum or in future elections should have a basic understanding for how the site is functioning, and the problems it's goings through. Its a similar issue you see with real life elections, and why Trump is elected now. A uninformed voter base that just votes to vote without acknowledging the consequences of their actions.

You ask for proof, go through that list and ask people about wylted, his platform, and his goals. Half of them could not tell you one thing. I know this because half of them voted for me for the same reasons they voted for him.

He used my work to summon the same army of noobs that I did to get him a boost in the office. The difference is hes not just going to abolish the presidency, hes going to mock it and abuse it to the point its damaging to the site.
minddrag
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:36:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 2:05:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:11:57 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

The crux of that argument is centered around people who voted for him meeting a set criteria. It's an assumption that because those people that criteria they are informed about site issues. That's not at all how that works, not even in the least. I say that for a variety of reasons. People could simply use the site over a 2 year span, never interacting with anyone, but posting and doing debates infrequently and fall within that criteria. It's realistically a way shorter period than that. What wylted did (I was the one who found this out and used it during my election), is use the online user page. He does not care about the people he messages, he just went through everyone who was online, or people that were in his inbox from my election and just messaged them something like this

"Would you mind voting for me in this thread. Make sure to bold your vote"

I'm aware of this because Wylted being the bright guy that he is accidentally tagged me in like 3 of those messages because he went through his pms from when I was elected and simply just bumped them in order to find noobs to vote for him.


The criteria for who participates in the election is entirely jacked up. Just because someone falls under that criteria does not mean they understand or grasp the gravity of what they are doing by voting for him. Most of those people have never even been engaged with him to know anything about him.

Ask half of those people why they voted for him and they could not even name one part of a platform, or why he was running. They voted for him because he asked them too.

People who vote in this upcoming referendum or in future elections should have a basic understanding for how the site is functioning, and the problems it's goings through. Its a similar issue you see with real life elections, and why Trump is elected now. A uninformed voter base that just votes to vote without acknowledging the consequences of their actions.

You ask for proof, go through that list and ask people about wylted, his platform, and his goals. Half of them could not tell you one thing. I know this because half of them voted for me for the same reasons they voted for him.

He used my work to summon the same army of noobs that I did to get him a boost in the office. The difference is hes not just going to abolish the presidency, hes going to mock it and abuse it to the point its damaging to the site.

I have to say that I am absolutely outraged by your statement. To say that to vote in this election I must be up to date with the "drama" that is going on this site is egregious. I go on the hangout, I do forum posts to an extent and I do debates as much as possible. I am fairly known throughout the community, yet I did not fit the criteria to vote.

I can tell you that even if I fit the criteria to vote, I would not have voted. I can tell you that I have not read the platforms, and the voter base was too diverse for me to actually get a decent summary without somebody jumping in. I can tell you I have heard so much **** on all the candidates that I cannot tell which way is up right now.

I can say that I have only spoken to wylted once, and in that one time he greatly earned my respect. I joined this site 6 months ago, and I was... a little too immature, I can tell you that. When I joined, I thought I was hot ****, and could not lose, because I have never lost an intellectual argument in my entire life. When I joined I mass pmed all the top debaters and asked for debates.

Wylted was the only one who responded out of the whole 100 people I pmed, and he gave me tips and actually agreed to debate me, although I never challenged him because I learned what good debating looked like (and i'm still not even close to most of your level, I'm actually not hot **** at all).

I can actually tell you that Wylted has earned my respect through that action, and I can see the point he is making here. I would like to apply some logic here for a moment. A presidency should never be about 1 topic. To say that this presidential election was supposed to be a vote for or against abolition would be stupid because, for example maybe I just don't like candidate A so I vote B but I'm against b's policies. An election is always subject to personal bias and cannot be based on one issue, therefore the idea that this election was supposed to be whether or not to abolish the presidency is a stupid claim to make.

Second, to say that you should elect a president to abolish the presidency is a stupid claim all together.

I think the point wylted is trying to make is that the presidency is supposed to be a community run and elected position. For the company to abolish a community position, even though the company can do what they like, is not able to happen. The community can continue to elect a president and continue with the president even if it is officially abolished because it was never an official position, just a community position to begin with.

Now back to the main point at hand, because this has been all over the place . I can say that I would not vote in a referendum either because I do not know enough about the issue. What I can say is that everyone on this site that is active, deserves a vote, whether YOU believe they are up to date or not, because we all have a stake in what happens on this site. I do feel like wylted is stepping out of bounds, but again that is not mine to say.

As a semi-disconnected member of the community, I feel that all of us should be able to vote, and that any referendum on a community voted position, should be led by a community member, not a mod, just because it would then look like the mod's and company attempting to control the community. I have spoken to airmax though and he seems to be more community member then mod, as he was asking opinions and other things in the hangout, so I can say that I approve of airmax leading the community referendum because I consider him a member of the community.

I apologize for my long rant and I know it is all over the board. You can take my opinions like a grain of salt for it does not matter much to me. I believe that we ALL should have a say in what is happening, because YOU kind sir, do not get to control the community... good day.
Learn to see what you are looking at. -Glaedr
Use the source JD -Reformist
"I am the victor. In the end nothing else matters." -Galbatorix
"Change is neither good nor bad, but knowledge is always useful."
Applied properly, it [logic] can overcome any lack of wisdom, which one only gains through age and experience. -Ormis
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 5:02:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 1:36:40 PM, minddrag wrote:

I have to say that I am absolutely outraged by your statement. To say that to vote in this election I must be up to date with the "drama" that is going on this site is egregious. I go on the hangout, I do forum posts to an extent and I do debates as much as possible. I am fairly known throughout the community, yet I did not fit the criteria to vote.

I'm not saying you have to be up to date with "drama", I'm saying before you vote on something that it's optimal to understand what you are voting for. Like I said, this is an issue that extends to real life and not just the site. People just voting for the sake to vote, is a horrible idea. People need to understand what they are voting for, because voting for something that is a net detriment to the well being of others, or in this case the site is abhorrent.


I can tell you that even if I fit the criteria to vote, I would not have voted. I can tell you that I have not read the platforms, and the voter base was too diverse for me to actually get a decent summary without somebody jumping in. I can tell you I have heard so much **** on all the candidates that I cannot tell which way is up right now.

That's precisely why you made the right decision. You most certainly should have abstained from voting. If you needed to understand questions about their platforms, then you should have messaged them. All the candidates opened up their inbox, threads, etc. to help answer questions about what they planned to do. This is true of everyone, but Wylted.


I can say that I have only spoken to wylted once, and in that one time he greatly earned my respect. I joined this site 6 months ago, and I was... a little too immature, I can tell you that. When I joined, I thought I was hot ****, and could not lose, because I have never lost an intellectual argument in my entire life. When I joined I mass pmed all the top debaters and asked for debates.

Wylted was the only one who responded out of the whole 100 people I pmed, and he gave me tips and actually agreed to debate me, although I never challenged him because I learned what good debating looked like (and i'm still not even close to most of your level, I'm actually not hot **** at all).

That's a very humble attitude to have, and there is nothing wrong it. That in and of itself is not a reason to vote for someone. It's literally saying if someone helps you, that in and of itself is reason enough to elect them into a community position. You're ignoring his platform, what he plans to do, character traits, etc.


I can actually tell you that Wylted has earned my respect through that action, and I can see the point he is making here. I would like to apply some logic here for a moment. A presidency should never be about 1 topic. To say that this presidential election was supposed to be a vote for or against abolition would be stupid because, for example maybe I just don't like candidate A so I vote B but I'm against b's policies. An election is always subject to personal bias and cannot be based on one issue, therefore the idea that this election was supposed to be whether or not to abolish the presidency is a stupid claim to make.

You're misrepresenting the statement that is being made. We are not saying "a general election" should be about abolitionism. We are saying this election was meant to serve this purpose, due to the candidates that announced they were running. DK and Ima were the two front runners, and even harder dropped out in order to make sure the site could get a consensus. Had Wylted announced he was running for the office, this would not have been the case. Actually no one would have been upset. It's the fact that he secretly electioneered votes in order to get an outcome that he desired without even letting others know what he planned to do. It's unethical to the highest level, because he did not really "run". He spammed pms out to people who hardly ever use the site saying "type vote and bold it here please". He did this knowing that those people had no idea what they are voting for, who they are voting for, and anything about the happenings of the site on a day to day basis.


Second, to say that you should elect a president to abolish the presidency is a stupid claim all together.

He was originally running under the platform to abolish it. Then it shifted to people voting for him because they felt he was so incompetent that he would run it into the ground on his own. The idea is not also stupid, it gives a community consensus on the opinion. If a president in support of abolitionism is elected, then you have a general idea for how the community feels. The issue is wylted took people that are not active in the community to skew the results.


I think the point wylted is trying to make is that the presidency is supposed to be a community run and elected position. For the company to abolish a community position, even though the company can do what they like, is not able to happen. The community can continue to elect a president and continue with the president even if it is officially abolished because it was never an official position, just a community position to begin with.

You're right to some minimal degree. The community "could" elect an official to represent them irregardless of what Juggle wants. The issue is that position would hold no power at all, and have even less power than the president has now. The way the office is set up is that juggle recognizes the president, as well as airmax.

Airmax certainly can just abolish the position and how it functions now. That's not to say that anyone could just hold an election and elect someone, but that position would be a literal figurehead with absolutely no say in what happens to the site. At least the way it functions now, the office has *some* pull with the mods. If airmax chose to abolish it outright, then that would not be the case.


Now back to the main point at hand, because this has been all over the place . I can say that I would not vote in a referendum either because I do not know enough about the issue. What I can say is that everyone on this site that is active, deserves a vote, whether YOU believe they are up to date or not, because we all have a stake in what happens on this site. I do feel like wylted is stepping out of bounds, but again that is not mine to say.

Again see my prior statement. Not everyone who uses this site needs a say or deserves a say in what happens. Just because people sometimes use it, does not mean they understand the implications of what they are voting for. If you vote for someone who could damage the site, then its possible to build an entire case around limiting standards for preservation of the sites health. Which is the case here. If it came to that point at a high level, max would just simply abolish the position outright and destroy its credibility.

For example if Wylted were to make a rape week, or maintain his general idiocy with stuff like this

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


As a semi-disconnected member of the community....(ext)You can take my opinions like a grain of salt for it does not matter much to me. I believe that we ALL should have a say in what is happening, because YOU kind sir, do not get to control the community..good day

Se above, this is just ranting at this point and your making the same point over and over. While I do not get to control the community nor want to, I do want to preserve the sanity of this site. As well as max and others. Which is why you saw max step in when he never does. Everyone knows the type of person Wylted is and what he will do with the office. That is why there is a community referendum which again will be skewed because of wylted altering the results unethically. At some point in the future the position is likely to be outright abolished due to w
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 5:12:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 5:02:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
Had Wylted announced he was running for the office, this would not have been the case. Actually no one would have been upset. It's the fact that he secretly electioneered votes in order to get an outcome that he desired without even letting others know what he planned to do. It's unethical to the highest level, because he did not really "run". He spammed pms out to people who hardly ever use the site saying "type vote and bold it here please". He did this knowing that those people had no idea what they are voting for, who they are voting for, and anything about the happenings of the site on a day to day basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the election thread:

At 7/8/2016 12:55:25 AM, Mikal wrote:
This is the literal definition of genius, and probably the most amusing outcome this election could have came too (if wylted wins).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoops. Someone can't keep their story straight. So, when it was happening, it was genius. But because Wylted isn't acting like your pawn and giving you everything you want, suddenly, he's the horrible monster that needs to be deposed of NOW, NOW, NOW!

I voted DK because I trust him. He's a respectable member with a high level of integrity. I don't think that's what the people who encouraged Wylted votes were looking for. They wanted "fun." They wanted "entertainment." They wanted unpredictability. They voted someone who would change his mind on a whim. Tough luck. Wylted changed his mind. Live with it.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 5:19:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 5:12:15 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:02:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
Had Wylted announced he was running for the office, this would not have been the case. Actually no one would have been upset. It's the fact that he secretly electioneered votes in order to get an outcome that he desired without even letting others know what he planned to do. It's unethical to the highest level, because he did not really "run". He spammed pms out to people who hardly ever use the site saying "type vote and bold it here please". He did this knowing that those people had no idea what they are voting for, who they are voting for, and anything about the happenings of the site on a day to day basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the election thread:

At 7/8/2016 12:55:25 AM, Mikal wrote:
This is the literal definition of genius, and probably the most amusing outcome this election could have came too (if wylted wins).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoops. Someone can't keep their story straight. So, when it was happening, it was genius. But because Wylted isn't acting like your pawn and giving you everything you want, suddenly, he's the horrible monster that needs to be deposed of NOW, NOW, NOW!

I voted DK because I trust him. He's a respectable member with a high level of integrity. I don't think that's what the people who encouraged Wylted votes were looking for. They wanted "fun." They wanted "entertainment." They wanted unpredictability. They voted someone who would change his mind on a whim. Tough luck. Wylted changed his mind. Live with it.

What are you ranting about. I have never supported Wylted.....ever. I even voted for BSH over him in the last election, and that is while I supported the abolitionist movement. Wylted has never wanted to outright abolish the office, he wants to make a mockery of it and do things like rape week in order to destroy its legitimacy while harming the site because he thinks its fun. There is a fundamental dichotomy between doing that and outright abolishing it.

Because I said it's amusing and genius does not mean I support him nor condone it. It was an interesting turn of events. (and it was genius). He electioneered people privately without any of the major parties being aware of it until the last minute. He played ground game to a new level. That does not separate it from being unethical and appalling.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 6:36:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 5:19:32 PM, Mikal wrote:
What are you ranting about. I have never supported Wylted.....ever. I even voted for BSH over him in the last election, and that is while I supported the abolitionist movement. Wylted has never wanted to outright abolish the office, he wants to make a mockery of it and do things like rape week in order to destroy its legitimacy while harming the site because he thinks its fun. There is a fundamental dichotomy between doing that and outright abolishing it.


How does doing Rape week harm the website? Would it make prominent users leave the website? Would it decrease the profit the site is making? I'm not sure I follow.

Because I said it's amusing and genius does not mean I support him nor condone it. It was an interesting turn of events. (and it was genius). He electioneered people privately without any of the major parties being aware of it until the last minute. He played ground game to a new level. That does not separate it from being unethical and appalling.

The fact that Bench and DK had a contrary agreement only concerns them, it's an agreement just between the two of them, and so this can't be called "unethical" unless ethics are decided by two people here. I also don't buy the argument that this election was supposed to be a referendum. Who decided that? Why should Imabench's or Airmax's vision be forced upon us? If the voters wanted a referendum, Wylted wouldn't have been the president.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:24:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 6:36:39 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:19:32 PM, Mikal wrote:
What are you ranting about. I have never supported Wylted.....ever. I even voted for BSH over him in the last election, and that is while I supported the abolitionist movement. Wylted has never wanted to outright abolish the office, he wants to make a mockery of it and do things like rape week in order to destroy its legitimacy while harming the site because he thinks its fun. There is a fundamental dichotomy between doing that and outright abolishing it.


How does doing Rape week harm the website? Would it make prominent users leave the website? Would it decrease the profit the site is making? I'm not sure I follow.

It's a deterrent for most new members who would join. People that contribute substantial quality are not going to be okay with joining a site that is meant for intellectual discourse, only to see a "rape week". Yes i'm quite sure some people would leave, if you would have saw the response to his rape battle thread and debate it was by plurality very negative. It's not even about it being a controversial topic, it's about the new "figure head" of the community engaging in idiocy. Abolishing the office is one thing, partaking in activities that are a objectively a net detriment to the site is fundamentally different.


Because I said it's amusing and genius does not mean I support him nor condone it. It was an interesting turn of events. (and it was genius). He electioneered people privately without any of the major parties being aware of it until the last minute. He played ground game to a new level. That does not separate it from being unethical and appalling.

The fact that Bench and DK had a contrary agreement only concerns them, it's an agreement just between the two of them, and so this can't be called "unethical" unless ethics are decided by two people here. I also don't buy the argument that this election was supposed to be a referendum. Who decided that? Why should Imabench's or Airmax's vision be forced upon us? If the voters wanted a referendum, Wylted wouldn't have been the president.

It was a general consensus among the community so it was suppose to be referendum. That was not their vision, but the entire communities vision with how the election was shaping. It was pro vs con on abolitionism .

the ethics of it would constitute a debate, but ethics is synonymous with moral behavior. That then extends to morality and the divergence of moral principles. What is right and wrong hard line to draw, but I would assume that its a pretty common consensus that he acted in a way that was out of the norm in order to produce a negative result. That could be associated with bad ethics
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:52:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:24:17 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:36:39 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:19:32 PM, Mikal wrote:
What are you ranting about. I have never supported Wylted.....ever. I even voted for BSH over him in the last election, and that is while I supported the abolitionist movement. Wylted has never wanted to outright abolish the office, he wants to make a mockery of it and do things like rape week in order to destroy its legitimacy while harming the site because he thinks its fun. There is a fundamental dichotomy between doing that and outright abolishing it.


How does doing Rape week harm the website? Would it make prominent users leave the website? Would it decrease the profit the site is making? I'm not sure I follow.

It's a deterrent for most new members who would join. People that contribute substantial quality are not going to be okay with joining a site that is meant for intellectual discourse, only to see a "rape week". Yes i'm quite sure some people would leave, if you would have saw the response to his rape battle thread and debate it was by plurality very negative. It's not even about it being a controversial topic, it's about the new "figure head" of the community engaging in idiocy. Abolishing the office is one thing, partaking in activities that are a objectively a net detriment to the site is fundamentally different.


It's just a week. The likelihood that a significant number of users would see that is far-fetched. I also think it would attract users who are looking for less censorship, perhaps alt-conservatives like the followers of Milo Yiannopoulos?

Because I said it's amusing and genius does not mean I support him nor condone it. It was an interesting turn of events. (and it was genius). He electioneered people privately without any of the major parties being aware of it until the last minute. He played ground game to a new level. That does not separate it from being unethical and appalling.

The fact that Bench and DK had a contrary agreement only concerns them, it's an agreement just between the two of them, and so this can't be called "unethical" unless ethics are decided by two people here. I also don't buy the argument that this election was supposed to be a referendum. Who decided that? Why should Imabench's or Airmax's vision be forced upon us? If the voters wanted a referendum, Wylted wouldn't have been the president.

It was a general consensus among the community so it was suppose to be referendum. That was not their vision, but the entire communities vision with how the election was shaping. It was pro vs con on abolitionism .

the ethics of it would constitute a debate, but ethics is synonymous with moral behavior. That then extends to morality and the divergence of moral principles. What is right and wrong hard line to draw, but I would assume that its a pretty common consensus that he acted in a way that was out of the norm in order to produce a negative result. That could be associated with bad ethics

There was no public consensus as in people asking that the election must be pro vs con vs abolition, the runner-ups aligned in such formations before Wylted got involved. But it was clear that the people or the voters didn't want that, and so supported Wylted instead. In a sense, Wylted is not to blame for this as he had more than 50 voters backing him.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:06:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:52:11 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:24:17 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:36:39 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 5:19:32 PM, Mikal wrote:
What are you ranting about. I have never supported Wylted.....ever. I even voted for BSH over him in the last election, and that is while I supported the abolitionist movement. Wylted has never wanted to outright abolish the office, he wants to make a mockery of it and do things like rape week in order to destroy its legitimacy while harming the site because he thinks its fun. There is a fundamental dichotomy between doing that and outright abolishing it.


How does doing Rape week harm the website? Would it make prominent users leave the website? Would it decrease the profit the site is making? I'm not sure I follow.

It's a deterrent for most new members who would join. People that contribute substantial quality are not going to be okay with joining a site that is meant for intellectual discourse, only to see a "rape week". Yes i'm quite sure some people would leave, if you would have saw the response to his rape battle thread and debate it was by plurality very negative. It's not even about it being a controversial topic, it's about the new "figure head" of the community engaging in idiocy. Abolishing the office is one thing, partaking in activities that are a objectively a net detriment to the site is fundamentally different.


It's just a week. The likelihood that a significant number of users would see that is far-fetched. I also think it would attract users who are looking for less censorship, perhaps alt-conservatives like the followers of Milo Yiannopoulos?

You realize that you can view this stuff after it's up right? Google Rape and DDO, or rape and debate dot org

http://imgur.com...'

His aptitude for stupidity is the first thing to be highlighted. It shows up from the wiki which then leaks it to back pages. A rape weak is not negative because of the time frame, it's negative because it goes down as a lasting part of history that occurred on the site (hosted by it's elected official)

it's a net detriment to the well being of the site when it happens, and also in the future when people join and find fatuity like that on the site at all.


Because I said it's amusing and genius does not mean I support him nor condone it. It was an interesting turn of events. (and it was genius). He electioneered people privately without any of the major parties being aware of it until the last minute. He played ground game to a new level. That does not separate it from being unethical and appalling.

The fact that Bench and DK had a contrary agreement only concerns them, it's an agreement just between the two of them, and so this can't be called "unethical" unless ethics are decided by two people here. I also don't buy the argument that this election was supposed to be a referendum. Who decided that? Why should Imabench's or Airmax's vision be forced upon us? If the voters wanted a referendum, Wylted wouldn't have been the president.

It was a general consensus among the community so it was suppose to be referendum. That was not their vision, but the entire communities vision with how the election was shaping. It was pro vs con on abolitionism .

the ethics of it would constitute a debate, but ethics is synonymous with moral behavior. That then extends to morality and the divergence of moral principles. What is right and wrong hard line to draw, but I would assume that its a pretty common consensus that he acted in a way that was out of the norm in order to produce a negative result. That could be associated with bad ethics

There was no public consensus as in people asking that the election must be pro vs con vs abolition, the runner-ups aligned in such formations before Wylted got involved. But it was clear that the people or the voters didn't want that, and so supported Wylted instead. In a sense, Wylted is not to blame for this as he had more than 50 voters backing him.

Your representing a false dichotomy. The majority of voters who voted for wylted would not have even voted at all had he not messaged them. So the initial canditates who were suppose to participate in this election (along with the voters) had it outlined that way. The dynamic changed when he started messaging noobs and people that probably didn't even know the election was going to happen. So yes there was a public consensus, re read the threads. The majority of major members, and people who actively use this site were anticipating for it to happen that way.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:42:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 2:05:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:11:57 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

The crux of that argument is centered around people who voted for him meeting a set criteria. It's an assumption that because those people that criteria they are informed about site issues. That's not at all how that works, not even in the least. I say that for a variety of reasons. People could simply use the site over a 2 year span, never interacting with anyone, but posting and doing debates infrequently and fall within that criteria. It's realistically a way shorter period than that. What wylted did (I was the one who found this out and used it during my election), is use the online user page. He does not care about the people he messages, he just went through everyone who was online, or people that were in his inbox from my election and just messaged them something like this

"Would you mind voting for me in this thread. Make sure to bold your vote"

I'm aware of this because Wylted being the bright guy that he is accidentally tagged me in like 3 of those messages because he went through his pms from when I was elected and simply just bumped them in order to find noobs to vote for him.


The criteria for who participates in the election is entirely jacked up. Just because someone falls under that criteria does not mean they understand or grasp the gravity of what they are doing by voting for him. Most of those people have never even been engaged with him to know anything about him.

Ask half of those people why they voted for him and they could not even name one part of a platform, or why he was running. They voted for him because he asked them too.

People who vote in this upcoming referendum or in future elections should have a basic understanding for how the site is functioning, and the problems it's goings through. Its a similar issue you see with real life elections, and why Trump is elected now. A uninformed voter base that just votes to vote without acknowledging the consequences of their actions.

You ask for proof, go through that list and ask people about wylted, his platform, and his goals. Half of them could not tell you one thing. I know this because half of them voted for me for the same reasons they voted for him.

He used my work to summon the same army of noobs that I did to get him a boost in the office. The difference is hes not just going to abolish the presidency, hes going to mock it and abuse it to the point its damaging to the site.

If what you say is true, that too many voters who meet qualifications are uninformed, then why isn't there a test in place that potential voters must take before they vote? To show whether or not they really are "informed" or lack thereof? Would that help to clear up the problem?

And if there was a voting test in place in the federal elections, would that keep Donald Trump from being the nominee? And what about Hilliary Clinton?
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:44:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:42:17 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 7/12/2016 2:05:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:11:57 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

The crux of that argument is centered around people who voted for him meeting a set criteria. It's an assumption that because those people that criteria they are informed about site issues. That's not at all how that works, not even in the least. I say that for a variety of reasons. People could simply use the site over a 2 year span, never interacting with anyone, but posting and doing debates infrequently and fall within that criteria. It's realistically a way shorter period than that. What wylted did (I was the one who found this out and used it during my election), is use the online user page. He does not care about the people he messages, he just went through everyone who was online, or people that were in his inbox from my election and just messaged them something like this

"Would you mind voting for me in this thread. Make sure to bold your vote"

I'm aware of this because Wylted being the bright guy that he is accidentally tagged me in like 3 of those messages because he went through his pms from when I was elected and simply just bumped them in order to find noobs to vote for him.


The criteria for who participates in the election is entirely jacked up. Just because someone falls under that criteria does not mean they understand or grasp the gravity of what they are doing by voting for him. Most of those people have never even been engaged with him to know anything about him.

Ask half of those people why they voted for him and they could not even name one part of a platform, or why he was running. They voted for him because he asked them too.

People who vote in this upcoming referendum or in future elections should have a basic understanding for how the site is functioning, and the problems it's goings through. Its a similar issue you see with real life elections, and why Trump is elected now. A uninformed voter base that just votes to vote without acknowledging the consequences of their actions.

You ask for proof, go through that list and ask people about wylted, his platform, and his goals. Half of them could not tell you one thing. I know this because half of them voted for me for the same reasons they voted for him.

He used my work to summon the same army of noobs that I did to get him a boost in the office. The difference is hes not just going to abolish the presidency, hes going to mock it and abuse it to the point its damaging to the site.

If what you say is true, that too many voters who meet qualifications are uninformed, then why isn't there a test in place that potential voters must take before they vote? To show whether or not they really are "informed" or lack thereof? Would that help to clear up the problem?

And if there was a voting test in place in the federal elections, would that keep Donald Trump from being the nominee? And what about Hilliary Clinton?

Because Americans have a fundamental flawed perception of the word "democracy" and hold to that ideal even it it means running a country into a ground in order to uphold it.

The point being that informed votes are preferred voters because they are aware of the policies the person is pushing. The same is more true and more relevant on this site because it's not America. It's a privately owned website where that type of agenda could be pushed.
Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:54:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:44:53 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:42:17 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:
At 7/12/2016 2:05:37 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:11:57 PM, Kescarte_DeJudica wrote:

The crux of that argument is centered around people who voted for him meeting a set criteria. It's an assumption that because those people that criteria they are informed about site issues. That's not at all how that works, not even in the least. I say that for a variety of reasons. People could simply use the site over a 2 year span, never interacting with anyone, but posting and doing debates infrequently and fall within that criteria. It's realistically a way shorter period than that. What wylted did (I was the one who found this out and used it during my election), is use the online user page. He does not care about the people he messages, he just went through everyone who was online, or people that were in his inbox from my election and just messaged them something like this

"Would you mind voting for me in this thread. Make sure to bold your vote"

I'm aware of this because Wylted being the bright guy that he is accidentally tagged me in like 3 of those messages because he went through his pms from when I was elected and simply just bumped them in order to find noobs to vote for him.


The criteria for who participates in the election is entirely jacked up. Just because someone falls under that criteria does not mean they understand or grasp the gravity of what they are doing by voting for him. Most of those people have never even been engaged with him to know anything about him.

Ask half of those people why they voted for him and they could not even name one part of a platform, or why he was running. They voted for him because he asked them too.

People who vote in this upcoming referendum or in future elections should have a basic understanding for how the site is functioning, and the problems it's goings through. Its a similar issue you see with real life elections, and why Trump is elected now. A uninformed voter base that just votes to vote without acknowledging the consequences of their actions.

You ask for proof, go through that list and ask people about wylted, his platform, and his goals. Half of them could not tell you one thing. I know this because half of them voted for me for the same reasons they voted for him.

He used my work to summon the same army of noobs that I did to get him a boost in the office. The difference is hes not just going to abolish the presidency, hes going to mock it and abuse it to the point its damaging to the site.

If what you say is true, that too many voters who meet qualifications are uninformed, then why isn't there a test in place that potential voters must take before they vote? To show whether or not they really are "informed" or lack thereof? Would that help to clear up the problem?

And if there was a voting test in place in the federal elections, would that keep Donald Trump from being the nominee? And what about Hilliary Clinton?

Because Americans have a fundamental flawed perception of the word "democracy" and hold to that ideal even it it means running a country into a ground in order to uphold it.

The point being that informed votes are preferred voters because they are aware of the policies the person is pushing. The same is more true and more relevant on this site because it's not America. It's a privately owned website where that type of agenda could be pushed.

You've got a point. The whole concept of democracy is generally a much confused topic and people in general seem to be very ignorant about what it truely is, and what it means for everyone. Several people don't understand that if two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner, the sheep becomes the food everytime. This is perhaps one of the most basic examples, but many people come just short of worshipping democracy, as if it is sacred. Even history teachers and government scholars often refer to the United States as a democracy, when the word never even appeared in our founding documents.

All that being said, I still ask the question: Would creating a voting test help solve the problem, either onsite or in America? Perhaps that might not work well in the "real world", but for the purposes of site elections, would a voting test be a legitimate solution?
I'm not sure what to put here yet. Someone please give me some suggestions.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 9:35:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I don't care if the Abolitionists will win the referedum, even though I hope they don't - Wylted will always be my President.
"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

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW