Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:31-41|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abolitionists: what do you really want?

imabench
Posts: 20,541
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:34:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2016 3:17:56 PM, TUF wrote:
At 6/23/2016 2:11:13 PM, imabench wrote:
At 6/23/2016 1:23:55 PM, TUF wrote:

Sounds like it's everyone's problem, really, if you get elected and drama isn't decreased. Which will undoubtedly be the case.

Youre already jumping to conclusions regarding Conventions simply because of your own bias in favor of the presidency. Typical....

Well you are not demonstrating properly that these will in fact work with my arguments that the presidency does better

I have, you just refuse to accept it, as usual.

The question was about elections AFTER Juggle became non-existent on the site, which happened well after all three of the Airmax elections.... Try to stay on topic

And after Juggle went inactive we've had clean elections.

The Airmax elections didnt happen until after Juggle went inactive.

Is that how you remember it? lol. It appears you are distorting history. What ACTUALLY happened is that both sides were spamming threads daily, not just Mikal's side. It got bad enough to the point that I myself had to step in and make a thread apologizing for the spamming going on by both campaigns, which all the other major candidates then agreed to chill out with.....

Sure both sides spammed threads

Thank you for your concession.

Not only are you barely even answering the question in the first place, youre flat out lying about what actually happened in elections themselves now

That drama stems from personal beef

Its funny how you conveniently label any drama that does happen in elections as 'personal beef' as if that somehow means it doesnt count when it does....

Another lie... You completely skip over the fact that when Mikal tried to hand the presidency to someone outside his administration because he didnt want to be president anymore, users on the site went so crazy that Airmax himself had to step in and hold an emergency election, where Ore_Ele came out on top..... Ore_Ele himself then stepped down after rage-quitting from the position he found to be useless, making him the second president in a row to resign from the job maybe half-way through his term....

That isn't "drama" so your still off topic.

In what world do you live in where that doesnt count as 'drama'? You still refuse to accept reality and now are flat out denying the very existence of evidence that shoot holes in your claims like some common creationist.

To claim there was no drama or deny the existence of any drama around the Presidency during the most turbulent time in the history of the presidency only shows how youre pushing a heavily edited/biased idea of how the presidency functions.

I am denying the claim that most elections were dramatic

By denying all evidence that most of them were.

Thats because you seem to have a different version of history compared to what actually happened.

I've been here and been involved with most of the history of these elections, and I simply don't think that the presidency is as big as a plague as abolitionism makes it sound.

Probably because you refuse to see the flaws of the presidential system due to your own bias in favor of it. When youre not refusing to acknowledge that drama takes place at all, you reclassify it under some sub-category of drama to cowardly try to separate it from the presidency.

Presidents themselves have quit from the job as president, while others take on so many tasks as president that they spread themselves too thin to be able to run an event like a DDO Convention.

This is why they have an administration to help them.

^ This is what alcoholism does to the mind.

If someone wants to make and run a program, they are allowed to do so, and the Convention system even allows them to have their program be voted as 'official' to incentivize people to keep running their own program.... If however they tire of the program and dont want to run it anymore, they can hand it off to whoever they want, or they can end the program itself, and someone later could restart the same version of the program if they see some sort of value in it......

That's all fine and dandy, but this already exists with the presidency.

And the Convention system preserves that, meaning my system preserves the best qualities of the presidency and improves on the lesser parts, a fact that routinely goes over your head.

Ive already made two 'walkthrough' threads about how conventions work, you just continue to ignore them as you do with any argument you dont agree with.

Understanding what conventions are and how they work doesn't demonstrate in realistic terms how they will work better than the presidency.

Realistically it wont be possible to definitively compare Conventions and the Presidency until both of them have been tried, which Conventions have not.

Alternatively I am not hating on conventions. If abolitionism is accepted during this election, I am glad that programs can continue, it's more that I don't see it as a proper method of replacement.

A majority of people voting to implement Conventions over the Presidency isnt proper in your book, yet you arent 'hating' on conventions.... XD

I am probably the 3rd person this week counting zmike and f-16 that you've mentioned living in a different reality.

Zmike just now figured out that voting is an issue on the site and that people dont like the swearing filter, F-16 was retarded enough to say that Abolitionists and Pro-Presidency supporters can have their own systems of government co-exist at the same time (a statement then mercilessly parodied) and here you, an admitted alcoholic, flat out denying evidence that the presidency causes drama despite boatloads of evidence of drama in presidential elections..... So yeah, you are living in a different reality than the rest of us... If youre not smart enough to realize it then it just makes winning the election that much easier for me
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
TUF
Posts: 23,816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 7:18:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2016 6:34:17 PM, imabench wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:17:56 PM, TUF wrote:
And after Juggle went inactive we've had clean elections.

The Airmax elections didnt happen until after Juggle went inactive.

Yep. I am not talking about just the airmax elections, and Juggle as far as I am aware (codyfranklin said this) never had a communicative relationship with the presidency prior to innomen, so the same still applies to the presidents prior to him. And I've also pointed out elections after the airmax election that were clean, but you've dropped those.

Sure both sides spammed threads

Thank you for your concession.

It's not a concession if I never said anything to the contrary, and if I did, please quote me. I pointed out that Mikal had spammed most of the threads. If I wasn't lazy, I would fish up all the threads dished up during that time, but that sounds like an utter pain in the @ss. You were there though, so I am sure you've seen it. I never said blade didn't make plenty of threads too. When you are running an election and just one side is making threads, the candidate gets worried that their voice is getting drowned out, which is another reason I'm sure you DK and harder have all been occasionally posting threads over the course of the weeks. This isn't really spammy to me, as compared to the sometimes 2-3 threads a day started by Mikal during that election.

That drama stems from personal beef

Its funny how you conveniently label any drama that does happen in elections as 'personal beef' as if that somehow means it doesnt count when it does....

LMAO wtf are you talking about "count"? Your the one saying the drama is relevant in the first place. My point is that drama for personal beef will happen regardless of the presidency, and just because some people abuse the elections as an excuse to get out their personal beef, doesn't mean you should take responsibility away from that person and blame the "institution" (if you can call it that) of the presidency.

That isn't "drama" so your still off topic.

In what world do you live in where that doesnt count as 'drama'? You still refuse to accept reality and now are flat out denying the very existence of evidence that shoot holes in your claims like some common creationist.

One person saying "F Juggle, F the site" and peacing out isn't drama that nix'ing presidency would solve lol. I don't recall many significant if any people making a huge dispute over that at any rate.

Also I am a proud atheist, don't relate me to those creationist scum! (JK creationists. <3)

I am denying the claim that most elections were dramatic

By denying all evidence that most of them were.

Not evidence you've shown me. I have provided more evidence than you that the majority of elections haven't been dramatic, yet you refuse to address any of that and stick to your guns on this false idea that you've spread that presidency is a plague of drama.

I've been here and been involved with most of the history of these elections, and I simply don't think that the presidency is as big as a plague as abolitionism makes it sound.

Probably because you refuse to see the flaws of the presidential system due to your own bias in favor of it. When youre not refusing to acknowledge that drama takes place at all, you reclassify it under some sub-category of drama to cowardly try to separate it from the presidency.

You dropped the distinction I made last post about "refusing to acknowledge drama" and "refusing to acknowledge that drama will be lessened by removing the presidency". Seems to me like a cop out of making a real argument here, so you can stick to your guns and continue to repeat sh1t you've said that I've already refuted to get out of a losing argument. I understand bro. Being proven wrong sucks, and sometimes it's just too hard to admit, but I'll let it go this time for the sake of your pride.

This is why they have an administration to help them.

^ This is what alcoholism does to the mind.

Nice rebuttal. I sense that your a post away from 7th grader insults you throw around usually when you've been stumped on an argument, so this is about the point where I am getting dis-interested. On a side note, I wish I could drink at work. Would make the day go by much faster, and work much more fun.

That's all fine and dandy, but this already exists with the presidency.

And the Convention system preserves that, meaning my system preserves the best qualities of the presidency and improves on the lesser parts, a fact that routinely goes over your head.

What goes over your head is that the presidency also preserves that and conventions are just a less effective means of satisfying programs, all for the pointless aspect of "lessening" drama, from the keyboard of an individual who loves drama more than anyone on the site.

Understanding what conventions are and how they work doesn't demonstrate in realistic terms how they will work better than the presidency.

Realistically it wont be possible to definitively compare Conventions and the Presidency until both of them have been tried, which Conventions have not.

I have personally seen members pitch ideas to the site just to often times have them swept under the rug because no one wants to put in the work for them. After the presidency started becoming more rampant with programs, users now have an avenue to have something done about these program ideas that doesn't require these program rot because the user in question is underwhelming, new, or unpopular. For example, kescarte's voter group went largely swept under the rug probably because he was a new member, and a voters group already exists, but had the VU not existed, the idea would probably be mostly ignored as it is now. Presidency can make a program for it, and make it popular and effective the way conventions seems likely to just sweep it under the rug.

Alternatively I am not hating on conventions. If abolitionism is accepted during this election, I am glad that programs can continue, it's more that I don't see it as a proper method of replacement.

A majority of people voting to implement Conventions over the Presidency isnt proper in your book, yet you arent 'hating' on conventions.... XD

Because its not just about the conventions, is about removing the presidency to implement them.

I am probably the 3rd person this week counting zmike and f-16 that you've mentioned living in a different reality.

Zmike just now figured out that voting is an issue on the site and that people dont like the swearing filter, F-16 was retarded enough to say that Abolitionists and Pro-Presidency supporters can have their own systems of government co-exist at the same time (a statement then mercilessly parodied) and here you, an admitted alcoholic, flat out denying evidence that the presidency causes drama despite boatloads of evidence of drama in presidential elections..... So yeah, you are living in a different reality than the rest of us... If youre not smart enough to realize it then it just makes winning the election that much easier for me

First of all your insults grow old when you constantly re-use them. Different realities, your an alcoholic, blah blah, whatever. They aren't even particularly good insults. It gives off more of a "butthurt about someone dis-agreeing with you" vibe then it does a logical premise. Your are arguing under the impression that your right, rather than trying to convince people you are right, or at least that's the vibe you give off when you replace logical argument for a cheap jab. If you want to make up for who you are in real life by being a bad@ss on the internet, go for it. I don't think anyone buys it, but if it makes you feel big, more power to you. ;-)
imabench
Posts: 20,541
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 9:39:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Im just going to delete the parts of the convo you were too stupid to stay on topic or continue to not answer the question.

At 6/23/2016 7:18:22 PM, TUF wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:34:17 PM, imabench wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:17:56 PM, TUF wrote:
And after Juggle went inactive we've had clean elections.

The Airmax elections didnt happen until after Juggle went inactive.

Yep. I am not talking about just the airmax elections

Yet you still mention irrelevent elections, and thats to try to paint the false picture that presidential elections are not dramatic, when a majority of those after Juggle became inactive have been dramatic.

You were there though, so I am sure you've seen it. I never said blade didn't make plenty of threads too.

Yeah I was was there, and what actually happened is different from how you mis-remember them.

I am denying the claim that most elections were dramatic

By denying all evidence that most of them were.

Not evidence you've shown me. I have provided more evidence than you that the majority of elections haven't been dramatic

You cited elections that didnt take place when Juggle became inactive and flat out dismiss other elections that did feature drama by mislabeling it as 'personal beef' between candidates.... You have not only ignored my evidence, you yourself have failed to provide relevant evidence, and rather than try to actually partake in the conversation and achieve some rudimentary understanding of the situation, you keep dancing in circles or willfully ignore the point.

Probably because you refuse to see the flaws of the presidential system due to your own bias in favor of it. When youre not refusing to acknowledge that drama takes place at all, you reclassify it under some sub-category of drama to cowardly try to separate it from the presidency.

You dropped the distinction I made last post about "refusing to acknowledge drama" and "refusing to acknowledge that drama will be lessened by removing the presidency".

You moving the goalposts because youre too incapable to prove the original claim isnt making an argument..... I proved that several presidential elections have caused drama, now you're scrambling to dismiss the evidence rather than admit that youre wrong (as usual)

And the Convention system preserves that, meaning my system preserves the best qualities of the presidency and improves on the lesser parts, a fact that routinely goes over your head.

What goes over your head is that the presidency also preserves that and conventions are just a less effective means of satisfying programs, all for the pointless aspect of "lessening" drama, from the keyboard of an individual who loves drama more than anyone on the site.

Its not 'all' for the point of lessoning drama, its also because conventions provide a more effective means for creating an environment for users themselves to push reforms, rather than rely on the inept presidency to do it for them..... Youd know that if you actually could understand the meaning of words and actually read peoples arguments rather than live with your head perpetually up your own a**.

Understanding what conventions are and how they work doesn't demonstrate in realistic terms how they will work better than the presidency.

Realistically it wont be possible to definitively compare Conventions and the Presidency until both of them have been tried, which Conventions have not.

The Presidency can make a program for it, and make it popular and effective the way conventions seems likely to just sweep it under the rug.

Conventions provide means for people to have their programs recognized for what their worth and incentivize them to keep running them. Your belief conventions try to sweep programs under the rug are, just like every other argument youve ever made, baseless and disproven.

I am probably the 3rd person this week counting zmike and f-16 that you've mentioned living in a different reality.

Zmike just now figured out that voting is an issue on the site and that people dont like the swearing filter, F-16 was retarded enough to say that Abolitionists and Pro-Presidency supporters can have their own systems of government co-exist at the same time (a statement then mercilessly parodied) and here you, an admitted alcoholic, flat out denying evidence that the presidency causes drama despite boatloads of evidence of drama in presidential elections..... So yeah, you are living in a different reality than the rest of us... If youre not smart enough to realize it then it just makes winning the election that much easier for me

First of all your insults grow old when you constantly re-use them. Different realities, your an alcoholic, blah blah, whatever. They aren't even particularly good insults. It gives off more of a "butthurt about someone dis-agreeing with you" vibe then it does a logical premise. Your are arguing under the impression that your right, rather than trying to convince people you are right.

i HAVE been convincing people that I am right. Some people like you and F-16 though either refuse to acknowledge the evidence or are too stupid to realize it even after having someone explain it to them. In your case you have committed to both strategies, probably since stupidity and stubbornness are the two things you have going for you in life.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 9:52:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This turned into a 1v1 where not one person other than bench demonstrated an ability to understand this "convention system" or showed any strong preference to it.

Without digging into bench's response, let's see what the non-bench people have to say:

At 6/23/2016 4:17:15 PM, Romanii wrote:
Copy/pasted from the other thread...

1: There are zero harms involved in abolishing the presidency
2: Abolishing the presidency is fun & interesting
3: I have some reason to abolish the presidency, and no reason not to

Simple, no?

It can also be argued that Imabench's DDO Convention system is more productive than the presidency at doing... whatever the hell the presidency is supposed to do. Implement site initiatives that have the word "Official" in their names? Idk.

1. Already went over this with drafter but #1 is untrue. This is also not an analogous scenario which Drafter pretended it was until I showed him otherwise so repeating my questions back at me by substituting "abolition" in favor of presidency isn't a meaningful argument.

2. This is where I think it's harder for adults to relate to teenagers. Teenagers want "fun" and to "fvck the system" because they feel there is some big outside force controlling them. Once grown up, people see that there's no such thing as "sticking it to the man." You are only hurting yourself by creating chaos from order. Going to a restaurant for dinner for example is "fun" for me. Wrecking all the tables there and destroying the bar, isn't.
sadolite
Posts: 10,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 9:54:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Abolitionists: what do you really want?" There is no underlying conspiracy, it isn't rocket science, it doesn't require complex studies. It's simple, to abolish the concept of a President on an entertainment/social media/debate site. We don't need governing only foul language censoring.
Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.
philochristos
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 11:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason I want to abolish the presidency is because I want to Airmax the king or emperor. I think that would create more stability on the site, it would make more people happy, it would reduce drama, it would be more efficient, and everything that could be better would be better. I want Airmax to be the sovereign ruler and decision maker on this site.

A while back, I put myself forward as a presidential candidate with the platform that I would do nothing. I would not make any changes. In reality, I was going to use my authority to install Airmax as king; then I was going to abrogate. That was going to be my gift to Debate.org. I intended to use deception because that's just how strongly I felt about it.
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Hayd
Posts: 4,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 11:40:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 6:26:35 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

I thought you were for abolitionism before? Did you change? Who are you supporting for president then, DK or harder?
Romanii
Posts: 5,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:41:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2016 9:52:53 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
1. Already went over this with drafter but #1 is untrue.

Name one harm of the presidency being abolished.

2. This is where I think it's harder for adults to relate to teenagers. Teenagers want "fun" and to "fvck the system" because they feel there is some big outside force controlling them.

No, lol... I'm under no such delusion.

Trolling around and demolishing useless junk (like the DDO presidency) is just inherently fun.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 3:34:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 6:12:58 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
More a question than an argument. I see a lot of conflicting viewpoints about abolition. I'm more interested in how you think abolishing the presidency will make life better for you on this site.

1. Is it lesser drama? For some people, this seems to be the reason to support abolition while others say that's not the reason. If yes, how does having elections every six months on whether the presidency should stay or go bring lesser drama than elections about who should be president? This election cycle is an example of the same thing happening every six months (unless you propose electing bench as a "permanent" president who does nothing) which I don't think most people would accept.

2. Is it the programs that the president runs? You don't want the president to post updates, or reach out to new members or do anything the president does? Okay. But how does that hurt you? In what way does the bsh1 posting an "update" make you so upset that you feel it absolutely should never happen?

3. Is it because you think the presidency is useless? So, what? How is this hurting you to the point where ignoring it isn't enough?


Yep. It's #3. And it's not hurting me, but I like to have a say in how this website is run, so I choose to vote.

4. Insert reasons here. I want to know how exactly the presidency is hurting you and how your life will improve if it's gone.
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 1:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 6:30:07 PM, TUF wrote:
Good thread, I am equally interested in seeing these questions answered.

I agree.