Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Liberals supprees bronto free speech

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:07:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Bronto is being banned for supporting donald Trump. Spread the word.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,766
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:07:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Bronto is being banned for supporting donald Trump. Spread the word.

You are being banned because it has been confirmed that you are a Clinton staff member paid to make Trump supporters look deplorable.
Lynx_N
Posts: 280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:14:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
My uneducated guess is that the concept of SPAM has got a whole lot to do with your timeout Bronto.
Bronto?
Congrats.

poet
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:18:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:13:47 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:07:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Bronto is being banned for supporting donald Trump. Spread the word.

You are being banned because it has been confirmed that you are a Clinton staff member paid to make Trump supporters look deplorable.

Haha! If only the truth were such measures are entirely unnecessary. Trump and his supporters are beyond satire and they break Poe's Law.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:07:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Bronto is being banned for supporting donald Trump. Spread the word.

Not politics. Flagging.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:14:05 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
My uneducated guess is that the concept of SPAM has got a whole lot to do with your timeout Bronto.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:42:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
*suppress

Account Closed means banned? I predict 1. Bronto will return under another alias and we will all be able to tell it's him. 2. Bronto is and will be monitoring this thread and all responses.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:07:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Bronto is being banned for supporting donald Trump. Spread the word.
"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 -
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:38:30 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:14:05 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
My uneducated guess is that the concept of SPAM has got a whole lot to do with your timeout Bronto.
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
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:50:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Well, Airmax limitted his threads to two a week to cut back on spam. They really didn't have much content to it and he dubbed it as Brontoism. Bronto told Max to go ef himself, so it is quite obvious what happened there. Now we need to get a new spammer to make things more interesting.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:55:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Thanks Max! :)
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:46:39 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 5:06:57 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:38:30 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:14:05 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
My uneducated guess is that the concept of SPAM has got a whole lot to do with your timeout Bronto.

This is obviously the correct explanation.
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 4:51:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
This is almost correct, though some of the details aren't entirely accurate, and the catalyst for the actual ban happened after the thread creation limitation thing I mentioned on G+, which you are referencing.

At 10/10/2016 5:50:36 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Well, Airmax limitted his threads to two a week to cut back on spam.

This is correct. Bronto's forum activity got to such a point that something had to be done, and merely explaining it to him wasn't sufficient.

One of the best examples of this is actually reflected in this thread:

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

Bronto attempts to pursue his ideological agenda by using my statements against what he did in posting a dozen separate threads on the subject matter he mentioned, and spin it in the way you can see. It should be obvious to almost anyone that it doesn't really matter what the subject matter is, posting a dozen separate threads within a short period of time on anything is a problem. Common sense would tell us that if posting an exhaustive list of something really is necessary for reference material, then doing so within one thread , and probably within the misc forum, is more reasonable (Instead of the dozen separate threads he posted in the politics forum). Instead the basic common sense is dismissed, and we got Bronto's propaganda instead.

I mention this because the context of what I was dealing with here is important. Being any kind of ideologue to the extent that common sense is replaced with a personal agenda, makes complying with expected norms almost impossible in some cases, and this just happens to be one example.

The bottom line is that I tried to explain to Bronto what my expectations were, and as expressed in this thread, and elsewhere, Bronto didn't understand or didn't care.

They really didn't have much content to it and he dubbed it as Brontoism.

Well this is kind of two different things. The "spam" issue is exactly that though, his types of posts did lack content. Member's occasionally post a thread with minimal content, but when that becomes your MO, and to the volume that Bronto did it, whereby he would post a thread, and the only content was a utube link with no explanation, opinion or other content whatsoever, then this is just spam. Doing it once or twice is something I can overlook, doing it constantly, as your main means of contributions, is naturally a problem.

As I explained in the G+ hangout, this is the type of thing that makes someone appear to just be a propagandist. It's like putting up posters or graffiti around a neighborhood saying whatever, and that's the equivalent of what Bronto engaged in.

My reference to "brontoism" was essentially that he had particular beliefs, and those beliefs are fine, but you can't spam the site to that degree constantly without it eventually becoming a problem. I think we all know what Brontism is, and while I don't care one way or another about his beliefs, there is an appropriate way to contribute and a way not to contribute. Unfortunately he did more of the latter at the end than the former.

Bronto told Max to go ef himself, so it is quite obvious what happened there.

This isn't what happened, and I was referencing something else when I used the terminology, though in a round about way I suppose it's all the same.

So as I mentioned above, Bronto got to the point where he was flooding the forum with threads, and didn't seem to understand what the expectation was. For anyone who thinks he posted too much, consider that I was deleting these spammy threads constantly. The average person only saw a fraction of what was being posted.

So to combat this, on Saturday I contacted him because I realized leaving him to his own agency in posting wasn't going to resolve the issue, therefore I told him he could only post 2 threads a week, and that if he didn't comply he was going to force me to ban him.

Not long after this, Bronto created 2 new accounts, one called "JessicaRabbit". With the JR account, he posted several threads, and managed to get up to, if I recall correctly, 51 posts. The account was deactivated shorty after I 'friended' it, and though the friending was just coincidence, I thought it kinda odd that an account would be deactivated so shortly after it was created, so I looked into it, and that's how he was caught. So this was his attempt to get beyond the posting limit I set for him, and he did it via blatant multi-accounting and blatantly violating my request.

At this point, a member really has only one way to save their membership. When I confront someone asking them about their activity, I'm generally not asking because I don't already know the answer (in fact the opposite is almost always the case). A member at this point has the option of admitting the truth, being apologetic and making it clear to me that they will comply with the rules, or they can lie, and then I'm left with few options. Bronto chose the latter option, and therefore I permanently banned him.

I want to make it clear that this wasn't done with little evidence. I am 100% certain that Bronto created these 2 new accounts, and used one to post multiple new threads. There are several data points of confirmation on this.

So he was banned for violating my request, multi-accounting to violate my request, and then lying when confronted about his activity related to violating my request.

Now we need to get a new spammer to make things more interesting.

yeah...
Debate.org Moderator
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:08:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 4:51:23 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
This is almost correct, though some of the details aren't entirely accurate, and the catalyst for the actual ban happened after the thread creation limitation thing I mentioned on G+, which you are referencing.


At 10/10/2016 5:50:36 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Well, Airmax limitted his threads to two a week to cut back on spam.

This is correct. Bronto's forum activity got to such a point that something had to be done, and merely explaining it to him wasn't sufficient.

One of the best examples of this is actually reflected in this thread:

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

Bronto attempts to pursue his ideological agenda by using my statements against what he did in posting a dozen separate threads on the subject matter he mentioned, and spin it in the way you can see. It should be obvious to almost anyone that it doesn't really matter what the subject matter is, posting a dozen separate threads within a short period of time on anything is a problem. Common sense would tell us that if posting an exhaustive list of something really is necessary for reference material, then doing so within one thread , and probably within the misc forum, is more reasonable (Instead of the dozen separate threads he posted in the politics forum). Instead the basic common sense is dismissed, and we got Bronto's propaganda instead.

I mention this because the context of what I was dealing with here is important. Being any kind of ideologue to the extent that common sense is replaced with a personal agenda, makes complying with expected norms almost impossible in some cases, and this just happens to be one example.

The bottom line is that I tried to explain to Bronto what my expectations were, and as expressed in this thread, and elsewhere, Bronto didn't understand or didn't care.

They really didn't have much content to it and he dubbed it as Brontoism.

Well this is kind of two different things. The "spam" issue is exactly that though, his types of posts did lack content. Member's occasionally post a thread with minimal content, but when that becomes your MO, and to the volume that Bronto did it, whereby he would post a thread, and the only content was a utube link with no explanation, opinion or other content whatsoever, then this is just spam. Doing it once or twice is something I can overlook, doing it constantly, as your main means of contributions, is naturally a problem.

As I explained in the G+ hangout, this is the type of thing that makes someone appear to just be a propagandist. It's like putting up posters or graffiti around a neighborhood saying whatever, and that's the equivalent of what Bronto engaged in.

My reference to "brontoism" was essentially that he had particular beliefs, and those beliefs are fine, but you can't spam the site to that degree constantly without it eventually becoming a problem. I think we all know what Brontism is, and while I don't care one way or another about his beliefs, there is an appropriate way to contribute and a way not to contribute. Unfortunately he did more of the latter at the end than the former.

Bronto told Max to go ef himself, so it is quite obvious what happened there.

This isn't what happened, and I was referencing something else when I used the terminology, though in a round about way I suppose it's all the same.

So as I mentioned above, Bronto got to the point where he was flooding the forum with threads, and didn't seem to understand what the expectation was. For anyone who thinks he posted too much, consider that I was deleting these spammy threads constantly. The average person only saw a fraction of what was being posted.

So to combat this, on Saturday I contacted him because I realized leaving him to his own agency in posting wasn't going to resolve the issue, therefore I told him he could only post 2 threads a week, and that if he didn't comply he was going to force me to ban him.

Not long after this, Bronto created 2 new accounts, one called "JessicaRabbit". With the JR account, he posted several threads, and managed to get up to, if I recall correctly, 51 posts. The account was deactivated shorty after I 'friended' it, and though the friending was just coincidence, I thought it kinda odd that an account would be deactivated so shortly after it was created, so I looked into it, and that's how he was caught. So this was his attempt to get beyond the posting limit I set for him, and he did it via blatant multi-accounting and blatantly violating my request.

At this point, a member really has only one way to save their membership. When I confront someone asking them about their activity, I'm generally not asking because I don't already know the answer (in fact the opposite is almost always the case). A member at this point has the option of admitting the truth, being apologetic and making it clear to me that they will comply with the rules, or they can lie, and then I'm left with few options. Bronto chose the latter option, and therefore I permanently banned him.

I want to make it clear that this wasn't done with little evidence. I am 100% certain that Bronto created these 2 new accounts, and used one to post multiple new threads. There are several data points of confirmation on this.

So he was banned for violating my request, multi-accounting to violate my request, and then lying when confronted about his activity related to violating my request.

Now we need to get a new spammer to make things more interesting.

yeah...

I thank you, and agree. It was the spam more that the content.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 5:37:31 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:52:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:07:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Bronto is being banned for [being an a$$hat]. Spread the word.



+1
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 8:08:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 6:32:23 AM, desmac wrote:
Who will we have to laugh at now?

Graceofgod is running for that honor now.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:54:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 2:25:46 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:32:23 AM, desmac wrote:
Who will we have to laugh at now?

your mom?

Your usual level of informed debate, craptor.
WizardOfSnakes
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 2:54:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:25:46 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:32:23 AM, desmac wrote:
Who will we have to laugh at now?

your mom?

Your usual level of informed debate, craptor.

wat?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 2:54:32 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:54:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:25:46 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:32:23 AM, desmac wrote:
Who will we have to laugh at now?

your mom?

Your usual level of informed debate, craptor.

wat?

You are being a very silly wabbit, gritty.
WizardOfSnakes
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:07:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 3:05:17 PM, desmac wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:54:32 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:54:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:25:46 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:32:23 AM, desmac wrote:
Who will we have to laugh at now?

your mom?

Your usual level of informed debate, craptor.

wat?

You are being a very silly wabbit, gritty.

does anyone on this site make arguments or just act weird.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 3:07:01 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 3:05:17 PM, desmac wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:54:32 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:54:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 10/11/2016 2:25:46 PM, WizardOfSnakes wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:32:23 AM, desmac wrote:
Who will we have to laugh at now?

your mom?

Your usual level of informed debate, craptor.

wat?

You are being a very silly wabbit, gritty.

does anyone on this site make arguments or just act weird.

The really weird ones like you, craptor, get banned and have to come back as sock-puppet rabbits or snakes.
idoubtit
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 9:44:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Well I guess this answers my question of "where's Bronto?".

I wish this hadn't happened. I liked him. He was funny. Mischievious but not in a malevolent way.

Not faulting airmax, I've read what he said. I didn't know there was that discussion between them. Still...

Couldn't another section just be created? The "bronto" section? He could have posted everything there, and no one would have been there unless they wanted to be.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 10:11:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 9:44:07 PM, idoubtit wrote:
Well I guess this answers my question of "where's Bronto?".

I wish this hadn't happened. I liked him. He was funny. Mischievious but not in a malevolent way.

Not faulting airmax, I've read what he said. I didn't know there was that discussion between them. Still...

Couldn't another section just be created? The "bronto" section? He could have posted everything there, and no one would have been there unless they wanted to be.

That is/was a great suggestion.
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 10:45:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 4:51:23 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

What was the name of the other account?
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 10:47:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 10:45:15 PM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/11/2016 4:51:23 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

What was the name of the other account?

Jessica rabbit, wizard of snakes.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 11:12:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 9:44:07 PM, idoubtit wrote:
Well I guess this answers my question of "where's Bronto?".

I wish this hadn't happened. I liked him. He was funny. Mischievious but not in a malevolent way.

Not faulting airmax, I've read what he said. I didn't know there was that discussion between them. Still...

Couldn't another section just be created? The "bronto" section? He could have posted everything there, and no one would have been there unless they wanted to be.

Well said. I actually think brontoraptor contributed significantly to DDO. He was extremely active here and held strong opinions that he would not shy away from defending. His style of posting provocative threads is one I also employ. It's the best way to seek out people with opposing beliefs to engage in discussions.

His ban will likely lead him to become more of a troll as he comes back with various other accounts. I think banning him will be counter productive. He does not deserve a permanent ban in my opinion.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.