Savant

People's votes on Remy have been pretty consistent with the surveys though.

Code of conduct is gonna be updated to match survey results and trial verdict. We did have surveys a while back on Debby that said to ban, but mods showed leniency and just took her copy and paste abilities.

The free voting badges expire after a few days. I think ppl are just busy, but I'll try to spur them along.

I spoke with the other mods, and we are planning to make the CoC a lot more clear based on the outcome of this vote.

Thanks for voting!

When you get the chance to read the article, please do. And ask chatgpt to explain to you how the writer of the article would respond to your questions. I don't think your assumptions about the typical AI doom argument are accurate.

Interesting article for getting up to speed on the AI doom argument:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities

Was it the "X should be legal" one? The offending posts are removed I think so not sure if you'd be able to see them.

I know but you made a few different posts on that subject. You changed your view on all of them?

Out of curiosity, which post are you referring to and what changed? Cause you made a lot of them. (Obv not saying you gotta repeat anything that got you banned, you don't have to say verbatim.)

If you vote on the other ultrarated debates, it will make it more likely future voters are assigned to this debate.

Now I'm curious, what sites have you moderated?

They can vote in the comments and we can count it. (I mean, I guess all mods have to decide what's okay, but I'm fine with Remy and them voting.)

I don't mean anyone in particular wants "all or nothing" and temp bans are on the table. What I'm saying is, I don't think anyone voting no has said they wanted a temp ban. Everyone has either said they want a permaban, or said Remy's free speech should be protected.

If you are wanting to change your vote to a temp ban, we can account for that and then do the "median" punishment out of all votes. Similarly to how surveys work.

"What exactly happens assuming the vote goes as expected and there is no perma ban."

We could go with median option if people specify in their vote that they want a lesser penalty. But I think people so far have all indicated they want permanent or nothing.

"That doesnt change the fact that the reasoning for a RB vote is also applicable to the debaters."

I mean I'm fine with them voting if it makes a difference, I just assumed they defended the side they agreed with so it wouldn't. I know Kohai defended the side he agrees with, I believe WF didn't want a permaban but could be wrong.

I assume their votes would cancel out. Really voting is how it is cause the site code restricts debaters from voting, but we could get around that.

"If I argued to ban everyone else except me, surely I wouldn't be the only one allowed to vote"

That's kind of how I see it. Cause we're trying to weigh everyone's interests here, and Remy is someone. The question is whether other people's interests outweigh his.

Also bias doesn't seem like an issue when we're literally telling people to just vote for what they want to happen.

I mean if they're both biased, prosecution and defense would cancel each other out, right?

Russia has a firewall, punishes ppl for going around it, and criminalizes organized dissent.

Also censorship laws make people afraid to say they don't approve, but when journalists ask open-ended questions like what politician ppl trust, he doesn't make the list. Obviously he doesn't trust his approval to carry him in a democracy or he would make the country democratic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Russian_legislative_election

"All politicians lie."

Sure but Russia has fewer ways for people to figure out he's lying. See articles I linked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia

https://cpj.org/reports/2006/11/russia-murders/

"Putin quite perfectly represents the majority"

Cause other groups aren't allowed to campaign against him, due to him undemocratically influencing the law. And he can't rely on that number for long and he knows it, or he wouldn't be killing political opponents. I've also mentioned how I'd want different factions to debate in front of a random pool of citizens to get a more informed version of the median voter, so that would counteract propaganda. His actions don't represent the median voter either, he just lies about what they are.

"Germany before Hitler was a democracy"

So the failure of democracy was in becoming undemocratic. And it was worse with Hitler than when it was a democracy right? Also Hitler didn't represent the median voter, he gained power because of how coalitions in parliament work and I think I have already mentioned to you how I would improve that.

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/om/best-form-of-democracy

"Right now, yes. If it ran out of dictatorships to invade, it would invade democracies."

If wars were started due to demand for wars, they would not have decreased over human history. And we would expect the US to just invade targets at random chance.

"People in Russia have ability to vote. So did people in Yugoslavia, and war happened there too...Even people in Ukraine had ability to vote, and civil war happened there."

Again, wars are happening in places with very limited democracy, where leaders don't represent the median voter. This isn't an argument against democracy as much as an argument that it's hard to implement in practice. Which would be fine if your argument was against its feasibility, but governments that more effectively represent the median voter have been implemented in practice, and they rarely start wars with each other.

"this is irrelevant. If its democracies starting most wars, why would it matter against who is that war fought?"

Because autocracies create conflicts and problems that make reasonable discussion less feasible. The US is more likely to invade a dictatorship than a democracy.

"this sounds like assumption"

We can observe that democracies rarely fight each other. Kind of indicates that for conflict one of the sides needs to be an autocracy.

"Are you saying ability to vote gives person immunity from being slaughtered? If that were the case, Russia and Ukraine would never go to war. they both have voting."

Russia isn't democratic though, it's clearly a front.

"Even today, democracies are on a one way path into chaos by all measurements. Biggest debt, population which is increasingly mentally ill, birth rates which are non-existent, and insane amount of retarded laws such as UK's lifetime ban on smoking."

Yet quality of life is much better in democracies. And autocracies have much more draconian bans than bans on smoking lol.

I mean I thought I was responding to that. None of the complaints I've seen about Remy have been that the responses to him were offending them. Never seen someone say "I blocked Remy, but from the responses to his comments, people keep saying that I (thin-skinned person) got owned." Probably (a) because if his posts are marked offensive they won't see the comments on them in the first place, and (b) because he's not really targeting people who don't interact with him.

Additionally, if someone did make a response like "wow, Remy owned [thin-skinned person]" then that comment would be marked as offensive, so thin-skinned person wouldn't see it.

I don't think there's anyone using the "hide offensive posts" feature who is still involuntarily being harmed by Remy's posts. It's all voluntary from what I can tell.

"If we count USA, Ukraine and Israel as democracy, then I am afraid its democracies starting most wars."

Against who? It's almost always a nondemocratic country. If both countries were democratic, they would likely just bargain with each other instead of fighting wars, which are inefficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
https://gametheory101.com/courses/international-relations-101/wars-inefficiency-puzzle/

"history of human race is that of wars, witch trials and slaughter"

Yes, slaughter of groups that couldn't vote.

"Decline of democracies shows that over time, democracy becomes oppressive or just dies because masses are oppressive wolves."

At worst, it turns into something that's not a democracy. Also this "long term" is hypothetical, because democracies today do better than autocracies.

Forgot to tag, see below.

"Sure, you have to choose to see exactly what offensive thing is said by one account but you are now still dealing with other people responding to bad faith behavior, getting upset, and very likely starting to cross lines themselves"

I don't think ppl are complaining about people's responses to remy, just remy himself. If those responders cross lines, they'll be marked as offensive too.

"But as far as I know, humans are predators throughout their evolution."

Yeah, pack animals who look out for other humans. The other animals lose, but it's cause they can't vote.

"democracies world wide are getting worse"

An yet democracies have the least oppression of any governmental system and every time two countries go to war, it almost always involves one of them being non-democratic.