This Site is better off dead

How much stupid is that

This line right here, should tell you everything you need to know about this user.

Both are low activity members.

Two debates, 14 total comments, and he's quit twice.

That says expert to me.

Random matchmaking online whether in video games, dates, or debating, is risky.

You might have more luck by challenging specific users to debates.

Possibly users who have shown education in a subject you are interested in, or a style of debate you appreciate.

I think I've voted a fair bit, though I suppose I could vote more.

You could try asking people to vote on your debates through a forum thread dedicated towards such.

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/debatecraft/posts/48/vote-requests

Some people 'do think that the qualifications for votes are a bit high,

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric

But there 'are users who like a high standard for votes in debates.

You need well informed debaters to vote to raise the standards.

To get better opponents I have always made the debate impossible to accept and make a note to DM me before accepting. I can filter out a lot of low quality opponents that way

It is what it is Gaj, don't take it to heart.

Yeah dude, you got it right. 2 whole debates, 6 long paragraphs, and all of you getting pissed off underneath, all of you guys were absent at the time of voting. I was fully active for a week or 2, and I was fully active in that duration. On debate art, I had a different name and I won 3 out of 4 of my debates, with 1 debate being a draw, because apparently nobody voted !

Not taking anything seriously

I don't take anything online seriously

Everything is just text, I am anonymous

You are anonymous

People are just a bunch of stupid lines online

That's why I am writing all this, If it were in offline setting I wouldn't give a f, and move on. But it's online so I am just calling it out, cause it needs to be called out.

Ad-Hominem on a site meant for intellectual debating

👏👏👏

The mods are very biased, they would remove a vote if it doesn't please them, but they will keep a radical person on this site, if he pleases them enough

I have read

1. God Delusion, and Sapiens

2. Bible(selective verses)

3. Quran(Selective verses)

4. Gita, RamcharitManas (Complete)

5. Vedas(selective)

6. Torah, starting chapters and some other selective verses

7. Lesser and Higher key of solomons(selecrive)

8. Buddhism(complete book on it, by a monk)

I have watched

1. 15+ Alex O Connor Videos

2. Many Indian Atheists, Logical Aayam(PhD in Biomolecules), The Indian Atheist(Business Man), The Englishator(PhD holder, and teacher)

3. Long Biology Lectures on Reproduction, Life Processes, genetics and a lot more

4. Despite being of maths background, I have studied evolution till senior secondary grade through lectures.

5. I have attended the philosophy course from MIT, which was available for free online.

I casted my votes on Biological, and phil

Sir if I am missing something which I need to earn a PhD in Voting Certificate from you then please enlighten me !!

The mods are very biased, they would remove a vote if it doesn't please them, but they will keep a radical person on this site, if he pleases them enough

The voting rubric is pretty clear and I think the mods generally do a good job of abiding by it consistently. Radicals are allowed on the site because we polled the community and that was the majority response. I don't see how this is the mods behaving in a tyrannical way, it would be more tyrannical if we didn't abide by the community results.

You're free to argue the voting rubric is too harsh, but as one of the people who helped write it, I think it's the only way of setting consistent expectations for debaters, and the mods are applying it pretty consistently.

When a highly informed member complains about radicalism, his information must come from books and not the real world.

People who don't meet the standards, yes.

We could have more votes, sure, but if they don't actually analyze debate arguments they are just noise. At least now the problem is visible, we can't pretend there are more high quality votes than there are. So if we find a fix to get more high quality votes we will know whether it works.

The success of the site cannot be measured by the moderators integrity but by the integrity of the voters.

We have some good votes, and it's better to have those without noise.

You know, we could always keep insufficient votes and just not include them in the final calculation.

They can comment in the comment section saying they think a user won. Also the existing rules resulted in this thread being created, so you could say it's a net positive.

GajarMooli wrote:

Ad-Hominem on a site meant for intellectual debating

👏👏👏

Is "Some stupid moderator from Israeli , or whatever" not an ad-homenem? And also kind of racist since you are clearly mentioning the nationality in a derogatory tone?

Or instead make a post insulting the mods that increases activity, apparently.

That reads like an original idea.