CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why was Dana let back?
Why was she let back? Because Andy likes the traffic even if its just her telling us about her views and telling everyone else to shut up or... is she actually not that bad?
I've asked myself this very question more than once. Either Andy's compassion and kindness caused him to feel compelled to give Dana another chance, or he's a glutton for punishment? Not sure which is most likely the case? Bad new is she was allowed back, good news is she's banned yet again. Yay, She's Out Of My Life and hopefully this time she'll really Beat It for good, LOL
During the time she wasn't here? (A week was it?) The number of debates and arguments seemed to fall drastically. I think to Andy it doesn't really matter about the quality of the debates, and whether you can actual engage in debates with the people in them (this is impossible with Dana due to her mental health problems). Traffic is all that matters. Its quite sad.
You think anything is going to stop because you say so? You're banned. You have no say on what I say or do here. And yes you do support Satanists and you do kill puppies (and kittens, but only on the full moon). You have proof.
Actually, I do. Liberal, slander and other things are not a right. I serve Jesus, and I do not kill puppies. You have two choices: knock it the fuck off, or I sue you for libel. You have been warned. Do not fuck with me.
Sitara and slander is not a right. It is not okay to lie and say that someone kills puppies and kittens when they do not. Some of my very best friends have been cats and dogs, and I would rather take my own life than ever take the life of an animal, no I am not suicidal. Just making a point.
Please please try and sue. I'd so love you to stand in court and say how your reputation has been damaged for me saying you kill puppies. You can't sue for libel if you had no reputation to start with. You know?
That's besides the fact that I'd just show them the video of you killing the puppies while screaming Ava Satan!
How much will you sue me for? How much can your reputation be damaged? You're living in Danaland where everything is about you. The courts aren't. Sorry!
Just remember that karma is a mother fucker. May your abuse come back on you 100 times. I have documented proof of the abuse on here and how Andy plays favorites. Prod and Dana forever!
Being that Andy is the owner of the site, I would assume that he has the right to ban whoever he wants... I'd also assume that he has proof of everything you've ever said on this site and the multiple troll accounts you made.
You and VB have been banned from sites all over the internet but you're the victim. The world is against you... you are right and everyone else is wrong! LOL. At least Prod doesn't try to blame everyone except his self.
That is not true. I have been banned from here, SodaHead, and some con site back when I was a con. Hardly all over the internet, and stop acting like you respect Prod. Prod is a fucking genious, that is why I respect him, not that you know what respect is, being the typical con.
I don't think it's fair to accuse andy of having "let" Dana back.
Regardless of whether we're talking an account ban, an IP ban, or both, it's only a temporary solution. An account ban will only ban that account, and would not prevent creation of and use of additional accounts. An IP ban will only ban the IP or block of IPs in question. Unless Dana is paying extra for a static IP, the IP address is likely to change intermittently, ranging from a matter of hours to a matter of weeks depending on the service provider. So blocking a single IP isn't likely to do more than serve as a temporary delay, and potentially block a different, innocent user or potential user in the future. Blocking a large block of IPs might be more effective, but would significantly increase the possibility of inadvertently blocking innocent users or potential users.
Well..what people like Dana get from this site is recognition and attention. If Andy consistently blocked new accounts that she made she would eventually get bored. It is like dealing with a child. You just have to be consistent and not give too much attention to her through the action you take to deal with the unwanted behaviour. Just quietly keep blocking and that's it.
Also about the IP address... He has only blocked her IP address once. This kept her away for a few weeks. I guess blocking her IP once every few weeks isn't so much work...?
It is like dealing with a child- but Andy didn't get a roll in the hay with Dana's mom (I don't think), didn't create Dana, and holds no legal responsibilities or obligations regarding parenting her.
What you're expecting of Andy is a bit ridiculous here.
Blocking a new account requires first identifying that it is a new account that Dana created. This requires a bit of time and reading to confirm. Once the account is identified, it can be banned. Ultimately, new accounts can be created MUCH faster than the accounts can be identified and banned.
You're also massively oversimplifying the IP block. It is not simply "blocking her IP every few weeks." With a dynamic IP, each time Dana comes back the entire process of identifying a new account as hers is required (as above). Then, the IP address(es) that the account is posting from is/are identified, and blocked. Until it changes again.
Does Andy have a responsibility to monitor all newly created accounts, and review each one's first few dozen posts to look for clues that it might be another Dana account? That seems an awful lot to expect from him, doesn't it?
Dana types using well reversed catchphrases and everything she types relates to her personal labels (I'm prolife so.. I'm minianarchist so...). It is very easy to identify her and isn't nearly as much effort you'd think. Also it is not like Andy has to search.. I'm sure many people have reported her profile now.
Dana types using well reversed catchphrases and everything she types relates to her personal labels (I'm prolife so.. I'm minianarchist so...). It is very easy to identify her and isn't nearly as much effort you'd think. Also it is not like Andy has to search.. I'm sure many people have reported her profile now.
It's more effort than you think. I'm aware of the catchphrases and labels- it still requires reading to identify it. You actually hit a good point without realizing it- you're right, many people have probably reported her. And many others have reported many others. Just how long is the list of reports that Andy receives, and how quickly does it increase in size? Trolls here do everything from spam to flame to up and downvote, you really don't think any of them spam frivolous reports? Reports may well come in as fast or faster than Andy can possibly deal with them. If a profile is reported, he can't just click and block it- he has to follow through, read the postings of the profile, confirm it's worthy of a ban, and ban it. That process isn't nearly as quick as you seem to give it credit for.
Given the free pricetag and level of traffic at this site, it's a safe bet that Andy isn't living on income from CD alone, so he can't possibly devote all of his time to policing the site either. If there was a surefire way to get rid of trolls permanently without continuous large sinks of time, we'd all know about it. The fact that more or less every forum has trolls is because of the difference in the amount of effort required to troll vs. the amount of effort required to silence trolls.
Good question. I was surfing way later than I should have been. I thought I got here from the waterfall, but it doesnt look like theres any recent posts but ours. Maybe someone else was viewing it and I clicked on their jump link?
