I think people who want Remy and Debby banned are really just childlish.
Is it really that difficult to just... ignore someone?
Like, why would you even care what they post. They aren't affecting your posts.
"Given the names of the people on that list, I consider it a badge of honor."
So you blame Remy for pissing people off, yet when you do it, it's some imaginary honor.
Lmao
Yeah, compared to Tik Tok, Remy Brown is a moderate. I mean, there are literally women on Tik Tok spamming hate against men constantly. "It's always men!!!", "I hate men!!!"
You piss off a lot of people too. You would be amazed.
I was just quoting Stalin. Whoever agreed with quote supports Stalin.
Words are stronger than weapons. We dont let our enemies have weapons, so why would we let them have words.
Whiteflame isn't the only moderator. And if posts were truly bad, other moderators would remove them, or our owner would remove them.
I really thought Whiteflame will lose after Con's round 2, but thank Zeus Whiteflame found a way. I really like the argument of post removals. If his posts are so bad, why are they still there then and not removed? It is as if posts aren't bad enough to be removed, but Remy is? Also, I like that both are focusing on Code of Conduct.
I am guessing majority of those agree, while majority of adults disagree.
"I'm a true Christian Conservative"
You should become a Taoist conservative.
"Throughout his posting he has personally attacked users across multiple threads and accuses one person of pedophilia.
BestKorea admitted to it 2 posts down"
Oh I don't care for being personally attacked. I don't think it counts as reason for ban if person who was personally attacked was cool with it.
Ideal human is the one who doesnt think at all. He is one with tao.
thinking is the source of all evil.
GreatGoy thinks too much. thinking too much is harmful.
Someone is spamming my debate with votes which are obviously also multiaccounting. I dont have part in this.
Spam voters
Also follow my weekly taoist for more tao wisdom.
Its great that you accepted this debate. that was my goal.
Now I wonder how Bones will respond. tho this topic is truism on Pro's side anyway.
If this will be what I think it is, Mal wins easily.
Fun debate, will be reading this one, tho I cant promise to be voting.
"SatanLucy (you) are a bit weird"
Bit weird? I am the weirdest guy in existence. there is no weirder person on the whole planet. I cant say for whole universe yet cuz aliens could beat me in weirdness, even tho I severely doubt it.
Whiteflame is a Jew too, but he is defending your side. It's probably best, cuz you ain't gonna get a better debater than Whiteflame to defend your case. I mean, he is top in ultrarated leaderboard, which is a much bigger achievement than merely being top in rated. One can climb on top in rated by severe cherry pick of topics, but in ultrarated, there is no such thing.
Mal doesnt usually make mistakes in typing.
I like when Muslims say Islam is true and then make bunch of non sequitur arguments for it.
That is a very good round from Whiteflame. I like the use of famous quote on free speech.
This is sure slow to get votes.
I like the funny.
I still think this debate should have at least 10 votes for decision to be made. I mean, site has way more than 10 users. Just the moderation team is like more than 5 users. I just don't see the point in making a decision based on vote of 3 or 4 users. I don't think democracy works if only 10% of people vote.
"But it's them CHOOSING to be neutral."
I think a more reasonable explanation is that a lot of people dont wanna bother with voting. they arent truly neutral. I dont think a lot of people are truly neutral on this issue, other than people not familiar with it at all.
I dont think not voting is a vote, especially not in cases where if people voted, they wouldnt vote neutrally. Not vote is at best neutral, at worst its not a democratic will. this is an important question, because it concerns with banning someone permanently, which is arguably the worst formal punishment moderators can give to a user. And I know there is a loud minority on this site who gets some weird entertainment out of banning people. the problem is that if enough people dont vote, that minority becomes majority of vote. Maybe someone who if voted, would vote against ban, but if he doesnt vote at all, he doesnt get represented. the only thing which no vote represents is a neutral opinion. It doesnt represent non neutral opinions of people who dont vote. In my opinion, if we are already relying on majority decision, we should make sure people actually vote. If enough users dont vote, then its not really a true majority decision. If this debate gets only few votes, then its obviously not up to standard.
Its why I suggest to increase minimum number of votes for this debate to at least 10. Also, because Remy Brown is a user on this site, does he get to vote as well?
