Star Of Free Speech Coalition

If you support free speech, you can enter this coalition.

I'm in the coalition. Restrict Mod power to voting moderation. Other than that, abolish the COC.

Forgot to tag.

I'm in the coalition. Restrict Mod power to voting moderation. Other than that, abolish the COC

The coalition is about voting in support of free speech on all trials.

Mods are gonna do whatever they want, but this coalition is about countering anti-free speech trials.

I agree with many of your views on free speech, but I'm not sure how a coalition will help.

Coalition helps because I noticed those against free speech tend to be loudest, while those supporting free speech tend to go silent.

Everyone gets a vote anyway, and with the way the questions are structured, the median voter is going to be represented.

This coalition works in two ways:

It reminds people to vote in favor of free speech, in case they forget or can't bother.

It is a defensive alliance. Maybe someone values their own free speech but won't bother to protect another's.

This coalition is a mutually beneficial alliance. It guarantees that everyone in it protects speech of everyone else. So if someone values their own free speech and wants to protect it, they can enter this coalition, to increase chances of their own speech being protected while protecting others as well.

Otherwise, those who value their own free speech but don't care to protect another's, might not be voting to protect them or voting at all.

There's not really a danger of vote-splitting or an advantage of forming "parties." If your goal is just to encourage people to support free speech, just making arguments along those lines is probably more productive than playing politics.

I plan to do politics and make arguments. I think this alliance is beneficial, because it is anyway necessary for anyone who values own free speech to enter this form of alliance to increase own protection.

I'm in the coalition.

Good. I will see if coalition gains more members, but any number is beneficial because it guarantees more votes for free speech on this site. I think for start, we might need about 2 or 3 more members to ensure more protection for free speech in future.

Also, if anyone wants to debate on why free speech is important, I can debate them. I dont really think I am losing any debate on importance of free speech on a debate site.

Alright. Can you vote on debates?

This debate is RemyBrown's trial, but it doesn't affect just RemyBrown. It sets a future policy. So vote on it to protect free speech. There are no voting requirements, so it's an easy vote.

Coalition will protect your free speech too.

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/cd/the-official-remybrown-trial-resolved-remybrown-ought-to-be-permanently-banned-from-debatecraft

Free to speak.

Free to ignore.

Yeah, anyone can ignore anyone, and that's a good solution for most disagreements. There is no need to push for a ban of someone one dislikes. It's much easier and takes less energy to just ignore them.

Savant is right. You gotta vote for your opinion to count. I mean, our side probably wins anyway, but more votes are most welcome.

The official RemyBrown Trial | Resolved: RemyBrown ought to be permanently banned from debatecraft | DebateCraft.

Please vote.

I think you should report the votes of Wylted and Grateful Goy. Their votes don't address both sides of the debate on my trial.

Votes are not moderated on that debate, so nothing will happen even if I report them. I expected them to vote that way, especially grateful.

Soon. There is still time for you to cast vote on that debate if you want. I think it's safe to say Con won at this point. But more votes is better because it creates greater majority and affects future mod decisions more.

Yeah, first victory goes to coalition.