CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
89
FOR AGAINST
Debate Score:98
Arguments:36
Total Votes:114
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 FOR (4)
 
 AGAINST (30)

Debate Creator

Reacquink(4) pic



WE NEED A REAL ADMINISTRATOR OR LEADER

this debate site is not as fun as it used to be because of some users that ruins it. and andy is out of control and can't get the job done.

 

why?

three users (newlee,meer,cuaroc) are fighting all the time and create fake accounts but andy seems to do nothing about it

yeah sure he can't just ban them right away but he should give them warnnings and if they did not stop (witch they didn't) he should ban them

 

 

FOR

Side Score: 9
VS.

AGAINST

Side Score: 89
0 points

I have not forsaken thee. Behold, the return of Judas. Your prayers for a mighty leader are answered.

Soon, I shall lead my people out of their slavery and into the holy land of reason and enlightenment. The mighty rhetoric of my chosen people shall ring loud throughout the land.

Come my children, shed yourselves of your half truths and deceptive fuckery. A wave of truth is rising on the horizon, soon it will crash down around you. Straw men and red herring will fall under the crushing boot of our logic.

The infidels mentioned above (newlee,meer,cuaroc) shall convert to our ways or feel our holy wrath. Their cuntiness will not be tolerated.

Side: FOR
judas(295) Clarified
1 point

Just an FYI, downvoting your holy leader does not rid you of your sin.

But you are forgiven, for you know not what you do.

Side: FOR
9 points

Dear Reacquink,

Let me try to explain something that you may not understand.

1. I believe in and support free speech

2. I would love to have an army of moderators...the only problem is that having an army of moderators requires that they all think alike. If not, you will end up with distinctly different approaches to the handling of situations and right now that is not good.

3. I DON'T LIKE WHEN PEOPLE FIGHT LIKE CHILDREN ON THE SITE! But there is a problem if you don't let them work it out and just Ban people. First, they come back under a new username and everybody has to decide is that the person we just banned and Second They get more pissed of and become even more disruptive.

4. Often, the best advice I can give anyone is to IGNORE when the stupidity starts. It happens about once every 2-3 months like clock work.

5. I try to follow my own rules...often I receive encouraging words (positive and negative) on how things are being managed. The constructive criticism is just that CONSTRUCTIVE.

6. I generally don't talk about things I don't know something about or feel passionate about.

7. I am learning as I go...I hope everyone does.

8. Your viewpoint is exactly that YOURS. Feel free to share it. I read it, think about it and if appropriate act on it. I do the same thing with the feedback I receive from everyone...trust me, I get plenty of it...and by the way, I find it valuable.

That is probably enough. If you prefer a more moderated site, I will license you the code and you can start up a very restricted site that doesn't allow people to speak their mind, fight over issues, get mad, laugh, or any of the other things people do when they are here. Believe it or not, but the site gets over 450,000 page views / month....may voyeurs out there.

I hope you remain an active member and understand the challenges of operating the site.

Andy

Side: AGAINST

2. I would love to have an army of moderators...the only problem is that having an army of moderators requires that they all think alike. If not, you will end up with distinctly different approaches to the handling of situations and right now that is not good.

Perhaps just a handful :P. You could start off with like 2 or 3 people who visit the site daily, of which there are quite a few. Of course, make sure you pick trust worthy people who have shown themselves to be reasonable people.

And a quick question, what did you ever do to SunialPani's extra accounts? Were they banned, and did my down votes from him get erased and returned back to the up votes they originally were?

Side: AGAINST
1 point

OK, I have been pondering this question for quite some time. While I would need to create a new security level just for moderation, that really isn't my big issue. My big issue is fairness. I often wait to take a specific action (like banning) until I have a really good feel for the situation. Often that includes feedback from other members. One thing I have been considering is the concept that has been suggested if a newer user receives a certain amount of negative feedback, then maybe they are temporarily shut down for review. I am not sure if that makes sense. I am open to other ideas as well.

Andy

Side: AGAINST

Believe it or not, but the site gets over 450,000 page views / month....may voyeurs out there.

I knew my botnet would come in handy one day. :)

Side: AGAINST
8 points

I'll admit that lately CD has been somewhat slow, though that happens sometimes because people have lives, but Andy is a great moderator in my opinion. He is the ONLY moderator who makes it clear that he cares about the users. I have an insane amount of respect for him and I don't care for those who talk poorly about him.

If you don't like how something is done then send him a message, he will talk to you and explain why he does or doesn't do something. And if you still don't like it then the "log out" button is up in the right corner, you're more than welcome to click that and never return.

Side: AGAINST
3 points

I think we need more than 1 moderator and someone who is trustworthy like maybe you could be one of the moderators because a lot of people trust you and it doesn't have to be just Andy who does all the work.

Side: AGAINST
4 points

I agree that Andy does maybe need some help, but we shouldn't force him to pick someone.

Andy works on this site as a hobby, he enjoys talking to us, seeing us use the site, and helping it grow. It is not a burden for him to moderate I'd imagine, seeing as he does it by choice.

If he ever feels that the workload gt to be too much, then he will let us know and HE will pick who will help him. Be it someone already using the site, or a friend in his life that maybe shares his interest.

Side: AGAINST
3 points

Yeah Saurbaby would probably be one of the best choices.

Side: AGAINST

Yes, it would probably be best if Andy started asking regular users to volunteer to moderate the site.

Preferably someone who has been here for a while, has a good chunk of posts, and has shown themselves to be a reasonable debater who understands the meaning of free speech.

Side: AGAINST
6 points

You would rather a hierarchy of moderators? Which ruins the equality of members that a debate site needs to sustain good debates. If a new member is debating with a moderator and it comes down to a battle of opinions, people are likely to side with the moderator.

While Andy may hold this site in a sort of Monarchy, he rarely feels strongly about a position in a debate without providing a strong amount of evidence or reasoning. The fact that he is the only one in a administrative position means that everyone else is entirely equal on this site, I personally have never seen anything wrong with such a system and in all fairness he does own the site.

Side: AGAINST
5 points

I HAVE NO COMMENTS BUT ONE.........................FUCK YOU..............................

Side: AGAINST
Reacquink(4) Disputed
2 points

bitch... you and cuaroc are always fight dont you? this is a debate site not war

Side: FOR

Sure, then this can be like every other debate site, where there are millions of rules and disagreeing with an administrator will get you banned. Freedom and lack of structure made this site great.

Side: AGAINST
2 points

Amen and hallelujah to that sir!

Side: AGAINST
4 points

You've been here for one day and six hours.

Side: AGAINST
6 points

this debate site is not as fun as it used to be

Yeah, you're right... it was soooo much more fun yesterday morning.

Side: AGAINST
Reacquink(4) Disputed
1 point

SO? THAT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING...................................

Side: FOR
3 points

Andy does a fine job. And if there is need for an administrator or leader separate from himself, he'd be the one to know, not you.

Side: AGAINST
3 points

What if the site had different debate rule types. Basically you could create a debate where profanity and name calling were not aloud and other "types" where anything goes. This way the rude bullies can have their debates and the serious, considerate debaters can have theirs.

Side: AGAINST
2 points

this debate site is not as fun as it used to be

Hahaha wat? But your account says you just made it yesterday.?

Side: AGAINST
1 point

Technically it was made 18 days ago because the account that created this debate is a DV account.

Side: AGAINST

Hahaha i know right. .

Side: AGAINST

Some of us have lives dude, including Andy, we can't be on here 24/7.

Side: AGAINST

Absolutely not, we can only assume that users have multiple accounts it's an assumption not fact. IF we do in fact acquire a leader what will happen to other open positions that consists with that choice? Exactly. Let's all stick to the guidelines and be logical.

Side: AGAINST