TRP Debate - Debrief Thread | PurplePillDebate

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory21 points22 points23 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I Checked our modmail.

You titled your thread there “Purge week twist”. You stated you wanted to copy our purge week idea on an individual sticky thread. You made no mention of it being one day long at all.

We agreed on this basis. We added the caveat that you should link PPD in the OP (you agreed to do so, then did not do so). We asked you to unban our members (you agreed to do so, and did this for us. Thanks).

We agreed on this basis. That was the handshake there. You had only ever mentioned it as a week and there was no mention of it being a day long.

It is true that later... after this handshake agreement you said it was just for 1 day.

We were disappointed and said so, considering the previous agreement was for a week.

You said at that point “I’ll keep it open as long as it’s active”. We agreed that at that point.

Then, a little later, with the thread still active... you locked it.

You didn’t warn us you were going to do so. You didn’t consult with us. You unilaterally ended a multi lateral agreement. You didn’t message us again until today.

With no explanation given by you at all, we assumed you had flounced. That’s certainly what it looked like after our initial handshake based on your mentioning “week” 2 or 3 times, but no mention of “day”.

Especially after you later on agreed directly with us to keep the threads open as we’d initially agreed.

We can’t answer for your behaviour RPS, only you can.

I did not lie above, although I may have been deceived.

Care to explain why?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It is true that later... after this handshake agreement you said it was just for 1 day.

Later in the same thread, which you tacitly agreed to when you announced it. You had a whole week to ask me why I said AMA DAY, and you didn't.

I'm sorry you misunderstood but I can't be more clear than "AMA DAY" Feb 13th.

I didn't say Feb 13 thru 20th. I didn't say AMA Week.

although I may have been deceived.

Ah yes, with that time machine I have. I went back and changed time itself!

You know why we called your arguments bad faith- because of this right here. You won't even acknowledge what is written in black and white in history. A whole week before the event took place EVERYBODY knew it was an AMA DAY.

I’ll keep it open as long as it’s active

We received fewer than 3 comments over the course of a few hours, so we locked them, so we didn't have to keep scanning over a thousand comments in hundreds of threads for Reddit rule breaking.

It was no longer active.

I'm sorry you didn't get what you wanted, but you're only convincing people here that you've been acting in bad faith with these half-truths and twisted lies.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Later in the same thread, which you tacitly agreed to when you announced it. You had a whole week to ask me why I said AMA DAY, and you didn't.

To be honest we didn’t notice. You initially said week and we agreed.

It’s true that later, you went unilaterally to “day”. I thought we’d sorted this confusion out. When you “called and end to it after 1 day” We explained that at the point we agreed it was to be for a week.

You responded to that modmail by saying you would keep it open for us as long as it was active, but ECs might not be able to participate. I thought we’d sorted it again there.

You then pulled it yourself without consulting with us, or without even the courtesy of telling us you were doing so. We were disappointed and a little sad :(

Ah yes, with that time machine I have. I went back and changed time itself!

If you get in the time machine can you also go back and remove your modmail promising to keep it open.

Also can you remove the comments you made on our announcement thread where you said

Our mod got a little hasty he thought it was only for one day I’ve corrected him and you’re now unbanned and can continue.

It’s right here....

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/aq8dx5/the_burning_strawman_debate_is_open/egj5jmk/

Specifically the mistake was that the mods were under the impression that amnesty was for one day only. But we've made the decision to leave the threads live as long as they're active, and not all of them got this message.

You said this in public and on PPD.

We received fewer than 3 comments over the course of a few hours, so we locked them,

It was the middle of the night!

We don’t have a lot of Australians. How did you think we were going to keep it going 24/7 ?

Our userbase is not that large.

If you’d have let us know, we’d have asked you to keep it open at least till Europe was awake and we’d have happily continued.

I'm sorry you didn't get what you wanted,

I am glad to see you apologise. I think it’s well given and well taken

Accepted.

but you're only convincing people here that you've been acting in bad faith with these half-truths and twisted lies.

Ah, well... Again. I’m being honest here.

I’m interested to be linked the comment that was uncivil you claimed I made. I would lie to know which one it was and ask our users if they’d consider it uncivil so they can make their own minds up about who is lying here.

I would also like you to explain why I was not banned when I made it, but only banned many hours after the exchange referenced, and after I had posted another question.... and why I was banned at the same time your mod deigned to reply to that question....almost as though he wanted to reply, but not get a rebuttal, and used the previous “incivility” as an excuse to put his thumb on the scale of the debate.

Because the timing is awful suspicious.

I’d be interested to see your explanation there.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

To be honest we didn’t notice. You initially said week and we agreed.

I didn't. I said a twist on your purge week. That you took it that was is on you. You will never find me say anything explicit about a time frame that isn't one day.

We explained that at the point we agreed it was to be for a week.

We didn't, as evidenced by exactly what I've written here.

If you get in the time machine can you also go back and remove your modmail promising to keep it open.

I'll post it publicly here for all to see your lies:

[–]to -TheGreasyPole- via /r/PurplePillDebate sent 4 days ago

We had only really planned a day, but I'll leave both up as long as they're active.

It was the middle of the night!

They stopped being active, and it was around 8 pm EST.

I’d be interested to see your explanation there.

You can't even admit when you're wrong on this simple point of fact -- which is documented. I won't move forward on anything else until you do.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No, What you've described above is exactly what I described too.

He had a handshake agreement on a week.

You later started unilaterally declaring Day.

When you told us "times up" we said we we're disappointed as we'd expected a week.

You promised us to keep it up as long as it remained active, we agreed.

Later you unilaterally pulled declaring it prematurely "inactive" as you only had 3 coments (aren't 3 comments activity?) in the middle of both the US and European Night.

You still haven't answered me on what you deemed "uncivil" I'd still like you to link that comment.

You still haven't answered me on why your mod didn't ban me when I made the comment, didn't ban me the next day, waited until I asked a second question, then replied to that question, then immediately banned me after that so I could not reply.

Was that moderating an open and fair debate ? Or was that your team trying to put their thumbs on the scale ?

Finally, why did your ECs delete loads of their own comments ? Is that the activity people engaged in an open and fair debate ? To delete replies they had already made to hide them from others ?

Please stop projecting your desire for a "debate where you could 'win'" onto us.

We wanted an open and fair debate. You failed to provide one.

Wherever possible making "creative" modding decisions in order to weight it your way... banning... deleting your own comments... deleting others.

Your "civil debate thread" is a wasteland of all the actions your mod team took in order to attempt to unabalnce the debate to "win".

Please stop projecting your desire to do so onto me.

As my OP makes clear that was not my win condition. I was interested in answers, and the open debate, and perhaps to learn something or teach others something along the way. It is according to these conditions (which are my standard "win" conditions) for debate that I freely concede I lost.

Care to explain why your team put their thumbs on the scale wherever they could to win a "Danths Law" debate ?

Couldn't you "beat" the opposition in a Danths Law race without also having to weight the playing field in your favour ?

My objectives here were not yours. Stop assuming they were.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, at that point we were still working on a handshake agreement assuming good faith on both sides. They hadn't banned me yet. They hadn't deleted their ECs comments yet. They hadn't started deleting others comments for "bad faith" yet.

It seemed fair to only keep going whilst they were active. RPS then waited until the dead of night.. and pulled the threads, without asking us, informing us, or giving us any indication of why he did so.

It was only 3 days later here that he said it was because "they'd had 3 comments in 3 hours" in the dead of US/European night between roughly 2-5am. He waited for that slack period to give him his excuse. In hindsight, we should have expected bad faith and defined a limit... but it was still on RPS's word and our mutual collegial agreement.

It was another example of him thinking he was clever by rules lawyering... and NOT offering the fair moderation he had promised.

fair moderators do not rules lawyer to get what their "team" wants to happen to happen.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't childish so far as I can see, although it could look that way.

They had a particular objective to achieve with this debate.

That objective was not to have an open and fair debate on RP where they might get shown to be wrong and/or foolish ... and where they could therfore correct those views/ways of expressing them so as to be better in future. Although they told everyone else the objective was an open and fair debate.

They closed the threads when they could see they were failing to achieve their real objective ... whatever that was.

It only looks childish if you took them at their word that the stated objective was their real one.

From the viewpoint of their un-declared and real objective (whatever that was) I am sure closing it down looked like the only way they could salvage something or stop this actively working against that "real" and undeclared objective.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 5 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Oh I think they were prepared for THAT. They can handle THAT by just saying "Oh look, you're speaking to the laity here. I am a big important high priest of RP. Look at the big shiny hat they've given me that says so. Only my replies correctly describe the orthodox position of our doctrine." (while also saying elsewhere they're basically a science... because everyone knows science has priests, orthodoxy and doctrine" /s)

What they couldn't handle was their appointed priests being made to look foolish. That encourages people to lose confidence in the doctrine. Might even enourage people to be unorthodox and even to become heretics. Can't have that.

Any Swiss patent clerk turning up and saying "Um, that ~~Newton~~ RPS fellah might be wrong... Care to explain this special theory I've got here. I call it relativity" wouldn't be welcome as offering a chance to correct errors, and so to be more correct in future.

He'd be unwelcome, as he'd encourage some form of heresy and thats a very bad thing in their eyes, as I'm sure you know.

Did you get a chance to join in ?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

It's funny how these kind of people who demand respect based on arbitrary titles can be seen throughout life. I was having a discussion with /u/concacanca just the other day about how I had an old boss who was full of himself just because he was the head IT guy. He literally said "I am [company name] and when I say jump you say how high because I demand respect."

Man is so fucking delusional and full of himself he probably sucks his own dick on the way home every day.

But it never ceases to amuse me how people who demand "respect" for arbitrary shit will cling to anything. Whether you think you're the most important person in the whole company because you do their IT or you expect to have your arse kissed because you are a store manager for Tesco, the same mindset is fucking everywhere.

And it's bad enough when you base it on your shitty corporate job, but when you base it on a self-appointed internet title that's just a new level of tragic.

And nah I didn't join in myself because I didn't see much to be gained from it. I already know what TRP's views are and already have a fairly neutral space to debate them. The fact they deleted most of the posts after two days kinda proves me right.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

Ah, well what you've met there is an "Authoritarian". Someone who believes "Big Hat Systems" are "the way to go".

They get very upset when you question that authority. From what I've read on the matter lots of people are instinctively this way. Those kind of people tend to join right-wing political parties, incidentally. These people identify what they think is right, and if "their hat is bigger than yours" they think thats the end of the matter. You have to bow down to the impressiveness of their hat unless someone "in authority" gives you an even bigger one. It's only then they'll listen. I'm guessing your "Head of IT" was perfectly happy to be told he was wrong, and correct what he was doing, so long as someone with a hat that said "Director" or "CIO" or "CEO" said so.

There is another kind of person. I think the official scientific term is a "Liberal" or "Libertarian" or at least a "Non-Authoritarian". They don't get their backs up when you "question" their "authority". Even if you have a very small and non-shiny hat.... or no hat at all.

When a "no hat" says to them "I think you're wrong". They tend to say something like "OK, maybe I've got it wrong. Can you explain to me what you think the error is here ?" and then they'll listen to you and (based on their own judgement of whether your explanation is valid) then go on to say either "OK, I see what you're saying but I still think the original way is better because of reason X. Is there anything you want to say about X not being right ? " OR "OK, thats very persuasive. You seem to have identified a problem there. Thanks. Shall we try it your way ? I'm keen to see if it works".

I think the "original" RP guys were of the second type (they became RP by being convinced another way, RP, was better than what they currently thought). I think a lot of the guys out on the blogs and eslewhere are still of this type.

Unfortunately, TRP seems to have been taken over by the first type, the "authoritarians".... and so TRP the sub has moved away from RPs original "error correction" and "always getting better and more accurate than I was before" and towards using priests, to spread a doctrine, where the priests get to define what is orthodox and where they ban people they deem to be not sufficiently orthodox if they won't "shut up about it" and "accept the orthodoxy our priests define".

They get declared heretics and banned from TRP. And all the priests tell themselves "he was not real RP, because he didn't sign up to our orthodoxy".

I can only hope they go elsewhere in RP.... to the blogs... to the other forums.... rather than giving up and assuming we're all authoritarian idiots.

I fear most give up on RP.... and so RP is losing all the new "Einsteins" or (in an RP example) all the "Pook's" who are people able to promote new unorthodox ideas and, where those ideas are reflective of reality, by so doing "make RP better than it was yesterday".

Such is life. It's their site. They can do what they want with it.

I just hope RP in general can survive what they've done to the biggest RP forum..... because RP in general really is reflective of reality, very useful as is, and is something that deserves to be represented better than it appears the TRP ECs can do .... even if there are still plenty of ways it can still be made "better than it was yesterday".

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

You put this really well, and funnily enough your descriptions of authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian in the workplace describe my experiences perfectly. I'm sure a bajillion business books have already been written about that, but as someone who cba to read them, I'm happy to have learnt about that concept.

It's very true, I was happy to listen to what he had to say, but if I even asked a question about why he does X a certain way he immediately assumed I was questioning his authority. It was fucking weird. I think he just spends so much time around the yes men he hired to be around him he couldn't even conceive of someone "below" him thinking differently to himself.

I can only imagine that someone so angry and bitter will never live a happy life no matter what his title is. I mean how does he handle someone questioning him outside of work where he can't pull out his hat? Having known similar personalities outside of work in the past, my sincere guess is essentially throw a tantrum like a child.

Anyway what you say about TRP is true. I remember the original TRP opening post was far more mild than the crap that fills the sub today. If you read this, which was posted by pk when the sub was brand new, even the bloops of PPD wouldn't find that too objectionable. And you're right it seemed far more open to new ideas as well.

Nowadays the whole thing has gone to shit and only cares about its arbitrary hierarchy and is full of nothing but anger inducing clickbait.

This is why I haven't even lurked there for years. It used to be I didn't agree with all of it but found parts helpful. Now the whole thing is just utter shite.

Ironically I think PPD does a better job of being the new TRP than TRP. It certainly allows for far more free thought.

Oh and do actually listen to that Cas track I linked you, it samples an 80's track and has an 80's arcade style video, I reckon you will like it.

[–]Salty-Bastard2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CainPrice0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

If more people, including terps, read the first year or two of TRP posts they would understand it's origins better.

This, hands down.

I think it's a generational thing. TRP started out with guys in their late 20s, early to mid 30s, who grew up in the 80s and 90s. Guys who were out of their parents' home, out of school, out of college, out of grad school, and out in the working world, trying to date in their spare time and getting nowhere. They had girlfriends in high school, even college, but something wasn't working in the 201X decade. It had even been kind of harder for them in the 200X decade. Something changed, and they had been left behind.

What changed was the internet, which wasn't a thing in most households until around 1997, and the casual sex culture, which has existed since the hippie days but became much more public after 2000. The Sex and the City years. Sex and the City, which aired from 1998-2004, was a sign of how the times were changing with regard to women and casual sex.

TRP started out as a group of guys who were average dudes that an average woman in the 80s or 90s would have wanted, but were having a hard time with dating, sex, and relationships in 2012. Some of them couldn't get laid or find dates. Some of them had wives who were waking up to the new world and divorcing them. Or girlfriends who were dumping them to join the new culture. Some of them had unhappy marriages.

It's been 7 or so years since The Red Pill subreddit was created, and the guys who started it are in their late 30s, early 40s now, give or take. Most of them have moved on to do other things with their lives. They're having casual sex with multiple partners, they've settled down with a girlfriend, maybe a few have even gotten married, maybe some failed at life. A few of the old guard remains, but most of them just stick around for entertainment or to make some attempt to monetize the manosphere.

The audience has changed. The Red Pill is millennial guys now, who were born and grew up with the internet and the casual sex culture their entire lives. These aren't guys who were okay by the normal standards of their times and just missed the shift when things changed without them and had to learn the new game. These are guys living in the internet casual sex age who are deliberately being passed over because they have serious problems with their appearance, personality, and social skills that are far beyond the scope of the original Red Pill subreddit.

And these guys are logging into Reddit hoping for an easy fix or cheap trick to get laid, but their problems are much bigger than the original problems of decent-looking 30 year olds in 2012 figuring out how to slay at Tinder after a bad divorce. And it's not working, so they just sit around online all day posting pseudo philosophy and woman-hate to each other and feeling good when they get upvotes and belong to the community hoping one day they might be recognized as being super smart and inducted into the illustrious inner circle. Enough of the old guard has gone their separate ways that this new breed of Red Pill subscriber far outnumbers and drowns out any logical voice from the early 201Xs.

The Red Pill audience changed, so the entire tone changed. Now it's a bunch of socially challenged millennials and a few older guys trying to monetize the situation.

[–]Salty-Bastard0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

You put this really well

I get that a lot. This is not my first rodeo ;)

and funnily enough your descriptions of authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian in the workplace describe my experiences perfectly. I'm sure a bajillion business books have already been written about that, but as someone who cba to read them, I'm happy to have learnt about that concept.

If you want to know more there is a great pdf on this. It's a bit long, but explores this in detail.

https://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

It's very true, I was happy to listen to what he had to say, but if I even asked a question about why he does X a certain way he immediately assumed I was questioning his authority. It was fucking weird. I think he just spends so much time around the yes men he hired to be around him he couldn't even conceive of someone "below" him thinking differently to himself.

It appears "fucking weird" to you as you're an instinctive non-authoritarian.... it appears perfectly normal and unremarkable to him because he's an instinctiv "authoritarian".

He was, right after that exchange, thinking to himself something like "Why can't Benzo see that he was just damaging my authority ? It's fucking weird. As though he couldn;t see thats what he was doing. He knows I need the authority to govern this place properly. Why is he being such an arse to my face about this".

Your understanding of each others mental states was entirely missing on both sides.

Now, personally, I agree with you. I think I made that clear. But, shit, I'm a "non-authoritarian" too, so I would, wouldn't I ?

I think that way of thinking does have it's own benefits (which we have difficulty seeing) as well as its costs (which we see plain as day).

In a certain sense they're not "wrong" and are just different.

And, well, if it's a workplace situation... and he has a bigger hat than you... you're going to have to find a way to get what you want, in such a way that HE also thinks HE is getting what HE wants.

If he doesn't.... you'll never get a bigger hat from him, and the pay rise that goes with it.

This is the cross that non-authoritarians working with authoritarians have to bear.

The cross they have to bear is all us direspectful "no hats" making them look like twats most of the time by going off and making it work (somewhere they can't see we ignored them).

I can only imagine that someone so angry and bitter will never live a happy life no matter what his title is. I mean how does he handle someone questioning him outside of work where he can't pull out his hat? Having known similar personalities outside of work in the past, my sincere guess is essentially throw a tantrum like a child.

Yes, I too get the feeling that most instinctive Authoritarians are deeply unhappy.

I think the only ones that are happy are those that eventually, and definitively, get "the very biggest hat possible" .... and so get the automatic deference they think they deserve because society at large recognises their hat as "being very big and shiny indeed".... CEO's. Pope's. 4-star generals. Those kinds of people.

Anyway what you say about TRP is true. I remember the original TRP opening post was far more mild than the crap that fills the sub today. If you read this, which was posted by pk when the sub was brand new, even the bloops of PPD wouldn't find that too objectionable. And you're right it seemed far more open to new ideas as well.

Yes, I've thought about this a lot. I've also debated it with outside viewpoints saying "Nu-Uh, you're wrong" many times.

I have been wrong whilst doing so many times. I have accepted where I was wrong, and tried to find ways to be more correct in future.

Through a few dozen iterations of this, I've refined it. Now it's finally getting close to something that "Is Right".

This is the benefit of being open to error correction, and admitting you were wrong before, and changing what you think when thats been demonstrated.

We all start out "wrong as fuck". It is only the people who don't admit they're wrong to themselves who stay that way.

People who do, and correct their errors, become progressively "more right" the longer they go on admitting where they are wrong.

Nowadays the whole thing has gone to shit and only cares about its arbitrary hierarchy and is full of nothing but anger inducing clickbait.

Yeah, somewhere along the way RPS made a wrong turn and didn't realise it. I am sure it seemed like the right way to go at the time. I think he did it with the best intentions for RP at heart.

But they've been driving down the wrong road for a while... and now they've got very far away from where they started.... or where they needed to be.

This is why I haven't even lurked there for years. It used to be I didn't agree with all of it but found parts helpful. Now the whole thing is just utter shite. Ironically I think PPD does a better job of being the new TRP than TRP. It certainly allows for far more free thought.

Be careful! We aren't "the new TRP". Thats not our purpose. We are here to debate RP and relationships only. We have no doctrine or orthodoxy of our own.

It is true that ... seeing a viewpoint debated well against other viewpoints can lead you to understand things better.... to "get the best of both sides" so to speak. But thats what we do.

Our purpose is to allow that debate to take place, and to moderate it to be fair and open to all who can keep our rules.

What the membership make of that opportunity is something the membership makes. It's not anything PPD makes. You're the guys generating the insights here. The mod team just tried to give you a space where you can do so.

Oh and do actually listen to that Cas track I linked you, it samples an 80's track and has an 80's arcade style video, I reckon you will like it.

No, but I'll have a listen now. I doubt I'd like it.

Here's one for you. Although I doubt you'll like this one either...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmceSj07_fs

[–]ScaryDate1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

I am sure RPS thought this too, but why would you invite actual debaters to trp? That is like turning your Authoritarian run country into a democracy and not liking the fact that suddenly people are free to question you and leaving you to your pouting. Seems like it is a stupid thing to do, but then again I am not selling lousy t-shirts for a living.

They thought they were going to smash us into pulp.

They were hoping other subs would link into the drama, and by so doing drive new people to their sub interested to listen to the guys smashing people into pulp.

They hadn't realised, and it did not occur to them, that their ECs are extremely rusty at defending RP against outside viewpoints.... and that our membership do this every day, and some of us have been doing this every day for years.

I think misunderstood what we do here. Many of the EC's seemed to think PPD was "A TRP for being purple" rather than what it actually is "A site for people who believe in RP to debate RP with people who think RP is wrong and which has now branched out to a general relationship debate".

They made a tactical error. One brought on by their hubris.

They've become unused to debating RP with outside viewpoints, because they ban outside viewpoints on TRP, and they no longer come here to debate.

They're used to a "debate" that goes

"I'd like to ask this question -> I, as an EC, give you this answer ->Thank You, sir"

OR

"I'd like to ask this question -> I, as an EC, give you this answer ->But I think thats wrong, and here are all the reasons why -> Ban Message: You have been banned by the moderators of TRP for being a twat. Please don't come back"

As a result they've got a false view of how persuasive their arguments are to outsiders because they, usually, get "Thanked for their insightful contribution" or kill the argument dead before they realise how poorly they are defending it.

They've got incredibly rusty at this kind of stuff.

I personally think RP is correct (but not necessarily TRP orthodoxy on what RP is)... As such, I think if they were not rusty they could have handled all questions given very well indeed. They had a massive advantage of defending a viewpoint reflective of reality. They should have been able to represent this well enough to have given the good impression that they wanted to give to anyone coming to see the Drama. And they could've got the new subs they wanted.

They didn't fail because "RP is wrong".... They failed because "They couldn't adequately represent RP properly anymore to outsiders, because they have no practice in doing so".

[–]CombatStaceyBlue ovaries4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ScaryDate1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

See it from their perspective...

Whenever they "debate" someone on RP... they're "proven" right. The noobs agree they're right. The other ECs agree they're right. Anyone with a different view gets banned.

They've accumulated a few years of experiencing everyone telling them how right they are, how well they represent TRP, and generally have built their confidence that this actually reflect reality.

In addition, they tell themselves... and others tell them... that outsiders are wrong. That outsiders only ask stupid questions. That the fault of outsiders is they don't understand RP correctly and not that, in some areas, the outsiders may understand RP perfectly well and have a point that needs to be dealt with carefully and with appropriate respect to the fact that this is a good question that is going to need a really good answer to resolve the debate their way.

They, literally, spend half their time telling each other how stupid all the bloops and non-RP people are.

They don't get out of this bubble much.

From inside that bubble... I am not surprised this seemed like a good idea.

And, yeah, it is very much dunning-krueger type stuff. They created the effectin themselves by enforcing Epistemic Closure on the TRP debate. Not getting outside that closure bubble occasionally. And convincing themselves "These bloops are just stupid" every time they did so.

Now they're reaping the whirlwind of those decisions to close off, not go outside, and to tell themselves "I was really right, that bloop was just stupid" every time they poked their head out.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And, well, if it's a workplace situation... and he has a bigger hat than you... you're going to have to find a way to get what you want, in such a way that HE also thinks HE is getting what HE wants.

This is where things like the 48 Laws become the most useful I imagine. After all the first law says "never outshine the master."

I downloaded that PDF too, I'll check it out.

If he doesn't.... you'll never get a bigger hat from him, and the pay rise that goes with it.

In this particular situation there was no upward mobility anyway, it was always the intention to use the job to get some experience so I could get a better one at another company. Even the guy who I was directly working for, who in turn worked directly under Mr Authoritarian, told me to do this because I wouldn't even learn a lot of things that I'd need to know at other companies because Mr Authoritarian wouldn't let the underlings help with essential parts of running the department regardless of how able they were.

He told me a story which was so incredibly stupid and demonstrates how counter-intuitive these people are. Some software broke, the guy I was working for was perfectly able to fix it as he'd had decades of experience working with it, but bossman said no that's not your job, and waited weeks for the person whose job it was to get back off holiday while leaving the software broken all that time.

Screw the people who actually needed to use it, his ego was more important apparently. Fucking loon.

Be careful! We aren't "the new TRP". Thats not our purpose. We are here to debate RP and relationships only. We have no doctrine or orthodoxy of our own.

Right but that's exactly what I mean. This is a better place to discuss RP ideas precisely because it isn't TRP. It has no hierarchy or orthodoxy it's just a place for people to discuss and debate the merits of various ideas without the ideology.

That, as far as I'm concerned, makes this a far more valuable resource than TRP proper.

No, but I'll have a listen now. I doubt I'd like it.

Here's one for you. Although I doubt you'll like this one either...

Not my usual cup of tea but I did enjoy it and it's certainly relevant to our discussion.

How did you like mine?

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]multiplevideosbot1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree.

I agree that there has been a huge takeover of parts of the farthest left by authoritarians (well, aside from the parts like the commies that we’re always that way). Often the loudest/shoutiest parts. Certainly the parts that are most visible on the net.

Bit I also think that they remain largely fringe figures on the left... and those people who claim that they have taken over the mainstream left parties are largely claiming so for their own ends, and to promote their own views and positions, and often to draw attention from the fact that the mainstream right party has been taken over by a raging authoritarian maniac of the type they claim to be “so worried about” when they become “head spokesperson for women with blue hair against animals being used to feed humans” or whatever fringe group is shouting stupid shit today.

It does somewhat scream to me “beware the mote in your eye, lefties... but please ignore this giant orange log poking out of my face. Certainly nothing to see there.”.

Did a fringe lefty declare a national state of emergency yesterday in order to do what she wants despite congresses objections ?

No? Weird. Someone did. Whose side is the guy calling national emergencies and “sending in the troops” and ignoring congressss expressed will on the budget ? Is he a lefty?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ScaryDate9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I gotta say, as much as I was very disappointed by the quality of debate on offer from the ECs.... They were better than the standard TRP userbase... and that userbase is STILL better than the incels.

Whenever I debate an incel, it's pretty clear that they've become completely untethered from reality.

The ECs problem wasn't that they were untethered from reality. It was that they couldn't represent that reality based position well, or even adequately, in the face of someone openly questioning them.

The incels problem is they are untethered from reality. That makes it easy to dunk on them. You just have to keep rubbing their faces in reality (like rubbing a dogs face in it's own poop) until they become tehered to it again... or say something like "OK, you're right. It is my own fault. There is plenty I can do about it. It's not impossible, but it is hard. I just can't be bothered to do any hard work to fix it".

Once they do, you're done.... you can't help those who decline to help themselves. Their plight is what they've inflicted upon themselves, and they're unwilling to stop doing it to themselves.

You can't stop people making themselves miserable.

[–]SkookumTreeRomantic relationships aren't necessary for happiness!4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

And I will agree that you fully warned us... and you and /u/planejane in particular have every right to say I told you so as many times as you want to.

So feel free to get it out your system.

All I can offer in response is that, by pulling the threads, it was TRP that conceded defeat. So anyone who wanted that as an outcome should be pretty happy.

I wanted a different outcome... I'd have loved to have got good, reasonable, clear answers to my questions I could then have used on PPD in defence of RP. I certainly lost, because I didn't get that.

I also hoped that if I didn't get that... I might have got TRP ECs and Mods to reconsider some of the ways they describe RP to outsiders. I don't think I got that. I think they're too proud to admit their own mistakes. But, this still remains a possibility.

But YES... You get to say I told you so, and so does jane, as many times as you like.

I'm here to take the beating (and will be for another hour or two) if you want to give it.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm more concerned about the future of this subreddit and what's going to be done about the incel problem and inconsistency in BlackPill/RP platforming.

There have been efforts afoot !

Prompted by your reasonable advice... I have sunk about 40 man hours into creating our mod team a bot. It was a fair amount of work, but now I'm done (and there will probably be an announcement in a week or two).

This bot does one of the things we've been previously unable to do. It scrapes the log, and gives us an "approved/removed comments or posts" percentage for every commenter who appears in the log.

It will no longer be the case that each of us "just removes one or two comments of $his" every few days... and it's hard for us to identify the bad actors as each mod only see's 1 or 2 that they removed, and has no idea the other mods have also each removed 1 or 2.

Now people who have "25 comments reported in the last 30 days, 24 of which the mod team have removed" are made clear to us by the report.

We can tag them with a mod note... and the very next time they are uncivil, or post "woe is me" incel shit....ZAP.... end of bad actor.

IN ADDITION TO THIS.... I have also agreed with the other mods on a revamp of our post/comment filter designed to .... reduce the amount of "auto reported" comments that don't help us (to reduce the auto reports about 25%).... and by so doing open up our time to strengthen the anti-incel filters (whcih will put those auto reports back in the queue, targetting incel behaviour). This should also reduce the amount of incel posting we have without requiring a rule change and so a general consult. I have got the other mods to agree to do so, and one of my tasks this afternoon is to put this new filter in place.

Your conversation did have an effect on me. I put the work in. I did what I could to improve the quality of debate here in a fair way that doesn't change our current rules (which requires member consultation in most cases).

Hopefully over the next few weeks and months as we use this new functionality, you'll gradually see all the bad actors removed.

Thre is little we can do for a brand new guy.... but he'll only now be able to participate for a week or two before we spot him, rather than as before "slipping through the cracks between mods" for a long time before we wise up that this guy is a consistent rule breaker.

Until that significantly changes--and with this new development showing again TRPs are largely incapable of debating or maintaining consistent views even within their own party--i still don't see the purpose in arguing RP vs BP here.

I know, you made that clear before. I'm doing what I can within my skills, and within the current rules to improve it.

I hoped that you would check back in with us in about 6 months, or a year, as you said you might and think...."Hmmm, this place seems to have improved a bit. Most of those bad actors appear to be gone. It's still full of stupid people saying stupid things... But at least the rules seem to be being consistently applied now and the real nutjobs who can't keep the rules all seem to have disappeared for some reason"

TRP has shown itself to be amorphous and indefinite and shifting, and basically at the end of the day focused more on "winning" or "being alpha" more than presenting logical or rational discussions or debate topics.

I agree. They shit their pants on this one.

I thought they'd be better at this debating lark than they were.

But as you yourself pointed out... their TRP userbase rarely participates here anymore.

I'd also point out that although RPS agreed to put a link into the OPs back to PPD, he did not do so. When I immediately spotted he did not do so, I let it go and didn't demand the link.... that was in response to the comments that you and the userbase made that they didn't want hordes of Terpers finding our little sub. SO.... Your feedback there was also taken into consideration and acted upon as well, even though this went against the initial intent of the mod team.

I don't debate to win if it means compromising the integrity of every argument, so I've got no reason to hang out.

Jane, you don't need to compromise YOUR integrity when they compromise THEIRS. If my comments over there proved anything, it proved this.

I was honest. I was open. I participated civilly (whatever RPS says to the contrary to cover up his teams mistakes).

If anything it made their bad acting stand out even starker, and made them look more clearly the people "ducking and diving" and avoiding "straight answers to reasonable questions".

If you want to debate RP with someone who will be honest, and open, and straightforward.... you can always just reply to one of my comments. I'll defend RP honestly.

Unfortunately this does mean you'll have to put up with my pedantry, and the inordinate length of my replies.... but, just for you, and because you deserve it... I will try to cut out the condescension as much as I am able (which isn't as much as I should do so, but will be an honest effort to do so).

I hope you continue to participate here. Or at the very least you do come back in a few months.

I really did listen to what you had to say... and hard work has gone into addressing valid points I could address entirely on my own (creating the report bot), or with the other mods agreement (filter changes) without having to drag the whole membership in (which is required for major rule changes).

[–]Salty-Bastard4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty-Bastard0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It was for a week, or at least those were the original terms RPS proposed and that we accepted.

He then came back after only 1 day.... and attempted to say "It's only for one day!", we pointed him to his agreement that it was for a week. He accepted he'd agreed that and said "Fine, but the ECs will stop participating after today" and we said "Fine, you made no promise that the ECs would stay. We'll just continue debating and if you want to leave the respones to your usual userbase then fine".

He grudgingly left the threads up... and as the TRP userbase aren't very good at debating the mods and ECs had to stay on there and keep rescuing the debate from their own noobs fuck ups.

It seems after Day 2 of this they realised there was no-way to unfuck the thread. Not even by using their modding powers and "tactical deletions" of their worst arguments to do so.

Then, without an announcement, and without consulting with the other party he had agreed this with.... RPS unilaterally pulled the threads and locked them 5 days earlier than he had agreed with our mod team.

And there ended the debate (on TRP).

It still continues here for any RP poster with the balls to come defend RP, and to do so under moderation which strives to be fair to both sides.

I've got the balls to do it here. So have other RP guys. So, even, does the odd EC or two.

It seems the rest of them fear that entering a fair debate may make them look foolish, and so they're staying away.

They're welcome to come debate here any time they like so long as they keep reddit and our rules whilst they do so.

They continue to decline to do so.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]decoy88Black Male in London4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

We had a sticky up a week before, announcing a debate on TRP. You can see that here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/anvkfa/announcement_burning_straw_man_festival_21319/

Then we had a sticky up whilst the debate was going on, linking it and explaining the rules as we were assured they would be. You can see that here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/aq8dx5/the_burning_strawman_debate_is_open/

Finally, (at least for now) you can still see the two debate threads (and the fact they are locked for further comment) in the links in the above sticky.

I'd get there quick if I was you. It is only a matter of time before they remove both those threads too to prevent people seeing what is left, after Mods/ECs deleted many of their own answers, and also deleted many of the questions and debate put forward by outsiders and PPD members.

We only pulled our announcement thread once we'd seen they had unstickied their threads and locked them for further comment, unilaterally ending the debate that was multilaterally agreed to be over 7 days.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Frag_Man0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]The_Frag_Man0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karakal4566 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I have no bone in this “fight”, and though I lean red (mrp) even I thought that thread was a disastrous idea. TRP is/was in no way, shape or form ready for that thread.

No offence (well, no disrespect) meant, but your claims to “victory” are hilarious and immature. You go into the whole situation without both parties being agreed on the terms (yes, yes, RP stupid, but the terms were still unclear), then you post borderline bad-faith questions and when RP collapses under the sheer ridiculousness of it, you declare victory. Then you quibble about technicalities to hammer your “points” home.

I enjoy much of what you write here. Over there, not so much.

As you yourself say: People here are better debaters. Yes, they are. The result is a perfect example of Danth’s law (https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/328079-danths-law).

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No offence (well, no disrespect) meant, but your claims to “victory” are hilarious and immature.

What claim to victory ? I lost. I got nothing of what I wanted. For me this debate turned out to be a total waste of time.

What happened was the “win” condition for other people, they won if that was their “win” condition. I lost.

I thought I made that clear in OP when I said “we” in the section where I described us as losing. You might have to read OP again.

I don’t think my declaration of losing is premature. It may be. Maybe I get the answers I desired by PM. As it stands I didn’t get any of the things I’d list out as win conditions from any debate, let alone this debate.

I enjoy much of what you write here. Over there, not so much.

Fair enough, you can’t entertain all the people all the time I guess.

As you yourself say: People here are better debaters. Yes, they are. The result is a perfect example of Danth’s law

Whether Danths law is true depends on what your “win” condition is.

I’d agree that people thinking they “win” this de aye are “winning” a danths law race. That’s one (among many) reasons that’s rarely my “win” condition.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Karakal4561 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrippyskippyMonk5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As far as I can see they did so first by "deleting their own ECs answers when they thought the ECs answers made TRP look like fools",

It is funny that you say this because I read a response from a TRP member (can't remember if he was an EC) while on my lunch break who said that AWALT wasn't supposed to be logical or truthful. I didn't have time to respond to the comment, but when I got off of work I noticed it was gone. For a minute there I thought despite my differences with bloops, I was a hero to the female bloops out there reading the comments. What is funny about that is I was actually going to argue against his position and tell him that there are elements of AWALT that are entirely truthful and logical. I think many RP's were missing the points that I was making about AWALT lacking nuance.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah,

One of the things they did that I had failed to anticipate was their ECs deleting their own comments where they had looked like a fool.

That surprised me, although perhaps it shouldn't have done.

Normally this is not a problem at all, because ceddit and other sites offer functionality you can use to recover it.... and then people could've paraded around here with the "bloody flag" of proof that the ECs were cowardly deleting their own mistakes.

I also hadn't anticipated that ceddit no longer works on quarantined subs. When I found that out ... I put on my sad face :(

Still, we're not all perfect and we can't anticipate everything. What we did anticipate was more than enough for people to see what they did over there and make their own minds up.

Just view every [deleted] as an EC being a fool, getting bollocked by RPS, and then removing his own stuff.... and every [removed] more or less being a non-EC saying something they didn't want to answer, where they could "by squinting at their own rules just right, and interpreting 'good faith' in a way thats very convenient to them" vaguely justify removing it.

[–]waywarddancer 1 points 5 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, they seem to have deleted most of the things you might describe as "highlights" (i.e. bits where they appeared to be saying foolish things).

The archive of whats left is available here

https://archive.is/DkMRX - purge

https://archive.is/30Mh0 - non-purge

(Thanks /u/MercedesBenzoAMG ).

Nor can you see the deleted items on ceddit as that no longer works for quarantined subs.

I think the straw that broke the camel's back is the question that is still the top question on the thread. They couldn't seem to answer it sensibly, and I think gave up when they realised they had painted themselves into a corner by the way they describe themselves as "a science" from one corner of their mouths (my first question, further down the thread)... and as a "doctrine, with an orthodoxy, represented by priests" out of the other side (when they represent what TRP is and an EC is over here and to their userbase).

Once they realised they couldn't square that circle, that was that.

I don't know WHY.... because it's perfectly answerable as a question. Even in such a way as to make TRP look good. It's a circle that can relatively easily be squared. I just don't think they had the required knowledge and debate skills to do so, and when realising that... they pulled the debate.

Can't have the heretics and the infidels making the priests look foolish, can we ? People might get the wrong idea concerning the doctrine or the orthodoxy.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CombatStaceyBlue ovaries1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ireadredpillonce2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tiger1296A little bit of both4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]EminemLovesGrapesSpongebob2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tiger1296A little bit of both6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EminemLovesGrapesSpongebob1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tiger1296A little bit of both5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tiger1296A little bit of both2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tiger1296A little bit of both2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

you wrote a big giant essay about your OWN ideas about "systems" and then claimed you blew TRP out of the waterdwhen they wouldnt debate you on it

No. I wrote a relatively small essay. Then had RPS try and persuade me over 20-30 comments to retract, or go debate elsewhere, or change the way I said it. An exchange he deleted on TRP, but which you can see some of on the PPD thread where he tried the same thing.

Then I woke up to find he'd pulled the threads, after (initially) proposing it be over 7 days (and us agreeing) and then agreeing it would continue as long as people were asking questions.

uh, why would they? they were there to debate TRP ideas, not TGPs mentally ill ENTP garbage paragraphs

Fair Enough, and if the thread had stayed up for our members to continue to ask their questions... and they'd just ignored me... and they'd not deleted all their EC's comments... I wouldn't have had much recourse, would I ?

But you're quite right. They didn't have to answer my questions. They offered to.

They offered to debate the questions our membership wanted to ask, NOT the questions they wanted to answer.

We took them up on that generous offer.

They realised they had been too generous, and pulled.

That was and remains their decision. But we had to explain to our members what had occurred... as what they had been told to expect was retracted.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The question I asked them was...

"How do you see TRP on this spectrum I've defined ?" and "How did you intend to develop TRP in the future? "

Both questions I was very interested in.

My original question was "Do you think of RP as a science?" something else I was very interested in Mods/ECs from TRP discussing.

My next question was going to be about fish/fishermen and why had they replaced the female fishermen with fish, and how did they expect fish to develop female RP....if you were interested to know.

All these things are the things I wanted TRP Mods and ECs to answer.

If I want to know "What RP says about X" I can go read the sidebar like anyone else. There wasn't anything there I needed an answer to in a sexual strategy sense that wasn't already available. I wanted them to answer for the actions of themselves as TRP ECs and Mods.

What they offered me was answers to the questions I asked, not a multi comment fillibuster, and not just answers to the questions they were prepared to answer.

[–]9ItalianLeatherSofa9🐙4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No they invited us to ask the questions we wanted ECs and Mods to answer.

These are the questions I personally wanted answered.

I wanted them answered so that when people challenged me with the same questions here, as they do.... I could tell them the answer. And then when they said “very clever, that’s your view but not what TRP believes” I could then say “No, this is what TRP believes a n EC/Mod told me so, here is the link”.

I actually wanted a good answer I could use, and explain was TRPs position.

I figured if I couldn’t get one... they might realise they were in an untenable position, and change it to a tenable one that I could then defend here as a red flair.

They refused to give me either, and by pulling the debate ensured that I achieved NONE of the things I wanted.

Either having an “official” answer I could honestly defend OR having a new “official” position I could honestly defend.

Because it turned out, they didn’t want an honest debate. They wanted a debate they could “Win” according to their definition of that, which I don’t share.

[–]DebatePonyLet's ride!2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DebatePonyLet's ride!1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, that was a subjective judgement on my part... reinforced by the fact that it appears the EC felt the same way (because who deletes their own comments, except where they think they paint them in a bad light?)

In some cases I excerpted their arguments in my own arguments and other did so too. You can see fragments of it there.

With 20:20 hindsight should have setup an archive bot before we started the debate in case they did this.

I only didn't think to do so as I made the faulty assumption that ...

a) They'd be better than they were and wouldn't say foolish stuff and

b) They'd engage in the open debate fairly, and allow others to see what was said as much when it was foolish as when it was perceptive.

.... in hindsight that looks naive, but I engaged in good faith and assumed there was at least going to be some attempt on their side to do so too, so I didn't put in place failsafes to expose bad actors. I had also assumed ceddit would work there like anywhere else on reddit, so we'd be able to see how they behaved with mod actions. Turns out ceddit doesn't work for quarantined subs.

Perhaps someone somewhere can get ceddit working for the thread.... and/or had a bot going archiving as the thread continued... If anyone has that information I'd really appreciate their linking the output here.

Gold is on offer for anyone who can give us an "un-censored" version of the thread.

[–]DebatePonyLet's ride!1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the banned me when I asked my second question. I think because it scared the bejeesus out of them, and they thought they couldn;t answer it and look good (they could have done, I could have answered it to make TRP look good, but they couldn't work out how).

I made a BIT of fuss on our PPD thread.... and RPS rushed over to say it was a "mistake" and one of his mods "got trigger happy" and they didn't mean to... although his explanation absolutely did not add up.

So I went back to participating, and as they still couldn't handle a reasonable question with a reasonable answer... they gave up when they realised my "reasonable question they couldn't answer" was going to stay at the top of their thread making them look silly until they could answer it properly.

Then they pulled the threads and locked them.

Doubtless, the view they may one day represent as to why they did so will look very different from this. They will have some kind of "explanation for it" that reassures the dumbest of their userbase. It's not going to foll anyone with a brain.

All of the above is just my subjective view of what went down. If you want to see the question, how they banned me, and how I got myself unbanned, here it is (as a sticky on our debate announcement thread)....

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/aq8dx5/the_burning_strawman_debate_is_open/egj26l8/

If you look at the conversation below this sticky it is RPS desperately trying to pretend they wern't doing what everyone could see them doing and me holding his feet to the fire until they finally gave up and locked their own threads rather than look like fools, and fools who were breaking their word at that.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I know. TBH, it really surprised me. I thought they were better at this than they are.

I can answer those questions perfectly well in such a way as to make TRP (the sub) look as good as they wanted it to look.

I could have slam dunked that question if someone asked that of me on PPD, and assuming I had wanted to defend TRPs (the subs) position there.

I think I'm far from the best at this stuff. Plenty of people out there better than me. I had thought that some of them were ECs.

If the ECs can't deal with me, they're going to get absolutely toasted out there in the real world if they ever venture into it again. There are plenty of people smarter than me out there.

They're going to need to get a lot better at this than they are if they're ever going to leave their safe space and participate in an open and free debate again.

Atlas would've absolutely KILLED them if she participated. You and buartha could've ripped them to shreds too. About half our membership could have fought them toe-to-toe. They were shockingly bad at it for people who hold themselves out as being good representatives of either RP (the ideas) or TRP (the sub).

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The original agreement was the threads would be open for a full debate over 7 days.

We went into it with that understanding.

After Day 1 RPS tried to pull.... when we pointed out the agreement was for 7 days he said something like "Oh, alright. I'll keep them open as long as there is activity But I can't guarantee EC or Mod participation every day for 7 days" and then posted over here trying to tell everyone "It's only for 1 day!".

I fully intended, entirely on my own if necessary, to keep those threads active for 7 days with at least 1 new question a day just from me. Our sticky would also have stayed up for that 7 days, driving more participation from PPD. It was RPS who unilaterally tried to declare it 1 day only.

I think he was hoping they would withdraw and he could then tell everyone on TRP "Look, guise. We gave them 7 days and they couldn't hack it... no-one's posted a comment for ages.... they flounced because we are so awesome!".

Our mod team held his feet to the fire.

What a disappointment, I think you’re right that they are fairly new to actually debating and defending their views.

No, I think they did this a fair amount.... about 5 years ago.

Then they closed themselves off in their little bubble, and haven't come out really for 5 years. When they do, and they get their ass handed to them, they convince themselves "I was right, that bloop was just stupid and couldn't see the awesomeness of my arguments" and retreat to their bubble again.

In that bubble, they only "debate" RP with people who already agree with them... and ban anyone who argues back.

As a result they are rusty as fuck at defending RP against outsiders.

They seemed to think they'd just get all the arguments they got 5 years ago. "Why are you misogynists ?".... "Why are you such big poopyheads ?"...."Why are you so mean to girls ?"...."What is Hypergamy?".

They didn't realise that our membership have, more or less, been debating those questions for 5 whole years. The debate has moved on. Whole new branches of argument and counter-argument have been and gone.

They went into the debate like one of our noobs answering "What is hypergamy ?" not someone like you or atlas answering "What is hypergamy?" with the benefit of all those years experience of debating that question.

They didn't know, or had discounted the fact, that in the interim.... we'd been in the "PPD Gym" getting huge muscles lifting the "RP debate weights" and they'd spent all the same time hanging out at McDonalds eating Big Macs because Big Macs are tasty.

They badly miscalculated what they were getting into.

As I said to RPS on his long exchange with me trying to get me to somehow make it easy for him and/or his EC's....

"You didn't know what you were biting off. Now, you've bitten it off you have to chew it. You can't spit it out without doing something we'd consider to be breaking your word, freely given."

In the end the pain was too much, and he'd rather be seen to break his word than to continue having the pain of watching his ECs get smashed up and down the thread. So he pulled. Or, at least, thats what I think has happened after scrutinising what they did and how they acted.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma8831/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_vanillaePurple Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]weakandsensitive3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Or...... I could go the gym, or self-critique, or masturbate, or get an enema, or any number of things that I perceive as adding actual value to my life.

Yes, but a self-critique is never as useful as a critique by outsiders who have an alternative view of why you are wrong. Think of it as going to see a fitness instructor. Someone who'll yell at you until you find a way to do it right.

I have zero need to have my fluctuating, relative worldview validated or invalidated by retards on the internet. (This includes MRP, PPD, TRP, TBP, etc.)

I know. I can see from your stats that you almost always confine your redditing to "safe spaces" for your views. MRP/askMRP for your sexual strategy views, The_Donald for your political views, RC_Christians for your religious views (I presume).

In my opinion, that makes you flabby. It makes it easy to convince yourself you're correct without an outside check on that.

Like a guy ho thinks he's fit... because he never looks in the mirror, or goes see a fitness instructor.

But thats, like. Just my opinion, man.

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It probably won't help your personal day-to-day.

I would help you develop ways to communicate RP more effectively to other people. To be able to say it in such a way that you were clear about what RP advises, and which doesn't lead people listening down the wrong path.

If you did it as effectively as you could... it might even entice passers-by to come and listen to RP more often, as they hear clear explanations of what RP does, and are interested to hear more.

If you're interested in that kind of thing, of course.

I can't say thats anything more than an ancillary/secondary reason why I do it. I do it because it's fun. But if the occasional lurker, or incel I'm beating the hell out of on a thread, thinks twice about RP because of what I said.... and goes to sub to TRP/MRP to sort their life out... or just goes reads some blogs and books to start sorting his life out... thats a very welcome side effect of what I do for fun.

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It probably won't help your personal day-to-day.

Exactly.

I would help you develop ways to communicate RP more effectively to other people.

What do you need articulated? I never communicate in terms of RP, I communicate it in a societal context.

For example, girl meets guy. Girl think guy is awesome, has an mission, is on an adventure and has goals.

They get together - they get involved. Instead of girl being an accessory, along for a ride on an interesting journey, guy becomes more complacent, more deferential. Instead of going away with friends on the weekend, to have an adventure on the beach, guy stays home with girl instead, because girl asked.

Fast forward a few years, guy is nowhere near the guy the girl fell in love with. And girl is no longer in love with the guy.... why are we surprised that girl is no longer happy, no longer interested? Why are we surprised girls eyes are wandering? Why are we surprised girl is now fantasizing about guys like me - who do travel the world, who have a great job, who do take care of family, and who still manage to take the time to flirt with everybody?

It's really simple. Every relationship you're in - make sure that relationship augments who you are, make sure it doesn't replace who you are.

And that's not RP - that's fundamental human psychology. What RP says is that society has lied to us, and that for two generations men have bought what society has sold - to our detriment. Want a perfect example of this? Go try playing a loud boombox at 3am in the morning in front of some random girls house. Watch how fast you'll get arrested.

The fact that spergs have infiltrated (or created) RP and are using it to rationalize their own insecurities and failures... not much I can do about that.

I just treat it as an honest treatise into human nature.

But like I said, while I will almost always engage in face-to-face things like that, in a socially acceptable manner, I generally won't do it on the internet. The ROI isn't there.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, look.... you're right.

The ROI isn't there for you. You need it all paid back a particular way. You're only going to get back 50% of you put in on the internet most of the time. Thats a terrible ROI ... 50c of "guys learning stuff" out for each $1 "weakandsensitive" puts in, who'd invest in that ?

OTOH... .if you do this for fun... if doing it is it's own reward for you. More interesting than the idiot box. Worth it to you on your own terms, because you often learn new things that interest you... then thats different.

I get 99c of fun out for $1 of time in. If, on top of that, I also get another 10c worth of value from other guys learning stuff they need to learn.... then I put in $1 and get $1.09 every time I put my dollar in the machine.

Who wouldn't feed that machine whenever he's got spare time he wants to fill with fun ?

Maybe on MRP for every $1 I put in I get 50c of guys learning, just like you. But if thats no fun. If I only get 49c of fun... then it's worse. 99c out for every $1 in. Who puts his money in that machine ?

I do this for fun, and the guys learning is a by product, albeit a necessary by product.... because if I thought no-one was learning anything I'd be on 99c and it loses it's interest for me.

I need a bit but only a very little bit of value added to others. I get just enough of that value on PPD. The way MRP used to work... it may be different now... I didn't.

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Same thing about the PUA community - it's contextualized framing.

"Aren't the PUA a community of guys who just use tricks to get laid?"

Maybe, but it was really beneficial for me to be involved.

Growing up asian in western society, I bought into a lot of negative connotations to my own detriment (as an aside, the statistics regarding asian social development being delayed is backed by statistics - and the detrimental effects of that is multiplicative, imo - edit: sidenote/humblebrag, I was an outlier w.r.t those statitics). Looking back, the number of missed opportunities because I thought women weren't attracted, so I never took a shot -- I'm disappointed to be honest.

But what the PUA community offered me was a group of like minded guys with a purpose. Most friends, you go to a bar, you try to talk to a girl, you get shot down, they'll make fun of you, they'll take the piss out on you, and you'll be less inclined to go talk to people out of embarrassment.

In the PUA community, simply approaching was the goal. You approached, the guys would be positive, they'd support you. "Good on you for taking a shot!" "Good on you for trying." "It looks like she had fun talking to you!" Gathering a bunch of positive reference experience with the support of friends does great things for one's self confidence -- especially in those cases where things do go well "hey - there are women that really, really like me".

Other things - "hey, your body posture makes you look really nervous." "hey -- why do you keep looking at your feet?" just the little non-verbal cues where all great feedback in terms of person-to-person interactions. You don't get those generally.

Interacting with people was a great skill to learn. At the end of the day, it really was an exercise in cognative behavioral therapy.

Were the weirdos and creeps in that community? Absolutely, but I can't help that.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well I didn't come in through PUA, and although I absolutely cocked up my approaches and interactions with girls.... It didn't hurt me too bad, I'm good looking enough, and tall enough, and all the rest that I did fine. Not great, but good enough. Several LTRs, several ONS, several FWB type things, one LTR that became my wife.

The interest for me in RP was intellectual.

I was very interested in Evo Psych. Had been for years. Was one of the things I really loved learning about, reading books, reading blogs. I found that and genetics and evolutionary science really interesting.

It always left with me with a particular thought...

"Wow, you must be able to use all this knowledge to get girls, make your relationships work better, do all those things. This science is gold. If only I could figure out a way to put this knowledge into practice... I'd be outstandingly successful... and probably very rich".

Of course, turning science into a praxeology is really hard. I couldn't figure out how to do it. It require practical knowledge, practice, a community of practice even. So it always just stayed a stray thought. Not something I could work out to develop all on my own. So I stuck with the Evo Psych science, and other things that interested me.

Then ... one day... I stumbled across RP for other reasons. Basic relationship stuff, not a crashing plane, just making my relationship better. I thought I'd read a book on it that I saw guys recommending as it seemed interesting. So I bought MMSLP.

Imagine my delight when, about 10 pages in... I thought... "HEY! This is applied Evo Psych! This guy has worked out how to do it. All by himself! Clever guy. This is going to be real interesting. I wonder what he worked out".

THEN I discovered about 200 pages in "HOLY FUCK! There is this whole world, this whole community of practice, and by the application of several million hours of manpower they've figured out a whole praxeology built on Evo Psych."

It was a sort of Holy Grail of my intellectual thought, and I found the grail just lying around on the ground on this place called "reddit" and on blogs and on other places and in other books.

So I dived into that community of practice and sucked all that practical knowledge out.

Then I tried it in my own life, after all it's no good as a praxeology f it sounds good but doesn't actually work.

Turns out.... it worked perfectly well! (At least for married guys, as I was already married I've only ever had the chance to "practice the praxeology of applied evo psych"/RP in a married context).

I wanted to share what I'd learned, and delve into the community of practice.... TRP seemed to be for single guys, and I had no practice to share with them, just intellectual stuff... So I subbed to MRP where I could speak honestly about actual practice as well as theory and dived in there (which you experienced first hand).

But I wanted to learn about it, and show other guys things, and share knowledge where my skillset was, and generally just have a lot of fun with it. And MRP sucked the fun out for me by enforcing orthodoxy, and by restricting my ability to do the things I needed to do to have fun with it, and by insisting all talk be practical... no evo psych... no fun with theory... all "Does it make my wife wet ? No ? Then fuck off".

Then I found PPD.... and 4 years on, here we are.

So there you go.

Thanks for your origin story, I always wondered.

Here is mine.

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

MRP/askMRP for your sexual strategy views, The_Donald for your political views, RC_Christians for your religious views (I presume).

I'll indulge you this. I don't go to those places to get my views formed.

I've formed my views from 3rd party sources, and go there to consider other viewpoints. When I think of sexuality, humanity, and psychology - I look for PsychologyToday references. When I look at politics, I look at aggregated information, direct speeches, etc. My entire day to day is to contextualize information, identify biases, and understand root causes - if I trusted what was written, as it was written, I would deserve to be fired.

Now, you, doing debate, understand that if you disagree on the foundation, if you disagree on premise, it's not even worth having a conversation.

If you fundamentally disagree on root cause, (e.g. Trump is/isn't a racist), the argument delves down to differences in personal opinion. You don't shift personal opinion without great effort. I'm not interesting in using my most valuable commodity (time) in that manner.

I'm always willing to engage in those discussions face-to-face. I won't engage in those online unless I'm looking to take the piss.

As an aside, you know my last username was whinemoreplease, right?

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, from your last reply I worked that out and gave you a response more appropriate to the redditor I knew under that username.

I'll agree that I too tend to get new ideas, and form my views, with those kinds of 3rd party references.

I just find that if I "take them as gospel"....or.... "take them onboard only under my own judgement"... I often take on things that can't really be justified in an open and frank exchange of views.

So I tend to "road test" them first. I put them in front of the best opponent I can find. I challenge them to tell me exactly how I'm wrong, and exactly what sort of idiot I'm being, and I listen intently to their response.... I defend it where I think it's defensible... and I bash it around with those opponents for quite a while.

If it survives everything thrown at it, and still appears robust.... I am MUCH more inclined to think I've seized on something reflective of reality than I am when I first trip across it and think "that seems to make sense".

It's getting harder and harder to find good opponents to do this with.

It's getting harder and harder also to find people who are willing to tell me "You're wrong and/or you're an idiot" and back that up with convincing reasons why.

Thats why I was so pleased to see it was you, someone always able to tell me I'm an idiot, and someone always willing to back that with good solid reasons why.

I'd value an extended discussion with you more than almost anyone else.. maybe Atlas... because of this.

It really is good to see you come over here and lay into me again.

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]waywarddancer 1 points 5 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

None of it was interesting and now you wrote a bajillion word post on it with no screenshots or links lol

Well, as always. You didn't have to click on it. Or read it once you did.

Why did you even do this?

The original debate ? Because we thought it might be fun for the members who wanted to take part.

This thread ? Because the members deserved an explanation of where the debate they'd been promised had disappeared off to.

Are you the main mod here now?

Nope. In fact I am currently the lowest ranked mod under my new account. I have the smallest and least shiny hat of all.

We have no "main mod".... although we generally take the view that Leanne, Oryx and SpaceWhiskey are the "senior" mods of the active mods as they've been here longer.

If he'd ever actually turn up in modmail, we'd happily consider PPDFrameEnforcer the main mod. But he doesn't show up anymore.

Almost everything is done in full consultation with the mod team. Including our stickies. We discuss them first, other mods get to propose changes and edits, then they go up.

Initial mod actions are on individual mod judgement of the rules. Appeals against mod actions require a mod vote that reaches a quorum once a full 5 mod votes couldn't overturn the result (e.g. an appeal is resolved at 3-0).

Very special actions. Like banning a long termer like Lewis or taking on a debate like this one with TRP....take a FULL mod vote, where any mod active over an extended multi-day period gets a chance to register their vote.

The vote to "suck it and see" on the TRP debate was unanimous over a multi-day period IIRC.

[–]yaseedog will hunt1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]campfire4511 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dicklord_airplane1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Texastentialismshe's got a tattoo and two pet snakes1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iceklimber0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iceklimber1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t claim to be perfect, and although you feel I’ve let my ego out of control ... and I can’t say I blame you... I have freely conceded I lost, and failed to meet my objectives even though I am also disappointed very much on the ECs and Mods of TRP as well.

I would point out here that if there was one side who’s egos prevented them admitting they might be wrong, it was those ECs and Mods. In several comments I freely conceded points where I felt I was wrong. They seemed extremely reluctant to ever do so. I can’t blame humans for that, it’s just humans acting like humans, but it seemed to me that it was their egos that prevented a free and open debate.

The ECs are the ones that deleted their own comments when they felt they’d made a bit of a fool of themselves, to protect their ego. I left my mistakes up. I argued with 5-6 ECs on my science question. At least 3 of them deleted all their answers to me, rather than concede their position was untenable, leaving only the best arguments (made by other ECs) visible. This is the action of people preserving their egos.

If they wanted to claim that their egos were not involved, and mine was, they shouldn’t have deleted their bad arguments (as they did to prevent others seeing them). They should have freely conceded them.

I can’t claim I don’t have full confidence in what I say, I do. But I can claim I’ll openly concede, and not just delete my comments and slink away, if I think I’m wrong or my opponents arguments are better.

The ECs did not behave that way.

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Why should I feel embarrassed ?

I grant there are reasons I should. I don’t think they’re the reasons you think they are.

I feel embarrassed that we took RPS at his word to moderate fairly.

I feel embarrassed that I didn’t take all the effective measures I could as a mod to be able to fully expose where RPS put his thumb in the scales to make the debate moderationunfair.

I feel embarrassed, on behalf of RP, that the ECs couldn’t give good straight answers that were effective despite having the advantage of defending a view reflective of reality.

I feel embarrassed that we offered our members a good, open and fair debate and they didn’t get what was promised.

That’s my “frame” if you like. That’s the one I feel embarrassed within. That’s the one I’m still holding. We wanted a fair and open debate, we promised our members one, we didn’t get one... where my actions failed to get us one, I’m embarrassed and think I could’ve done better.

I think RPS is still holding his frame too. His frame was “were holding this debate to show everyone we can run faster than the disabled kids in a danths law race”.

When he realised the retards were running faster than expected, he got his “slowest” ECs to pull from the race by saying “Ow my hamstring” and deleting their comments.

When he realised the retards were still running fast, he banned the fastest “retard” and only allowed him back in the race when he made a fuss. He may have banned other “runners”.

When he realised the retards still could be seen to be winning he looked in his rule book, and started removing the fastest retards and the slowest TRP runners for ~~arguing in bad faith~~ “having an unfair advantage” which he’d written into his rules for this purpose and refused to define other than “its bad faith when I think it is”.

Finally, despite offering to keep the “special olympics going for 7 days” he changed this too “as long as the retards want to keep running” with our agreement... waitied till 4am, then ended the special Olympics on day 2 because “no one is on the track running at 4am, so I’m calling off days 3-7” despite the fact the “retards” were looking forward to days 3-7 and putting their running shoes on that very moment.

We wernt running these races for the reason he was (to “beat” the retards).

We (or at least I, I can’t speak for all the PPD members) were running because... it was fun... we might learn something... the audience has being entertained by the event... for the sheer joy of participating.

In order to achieve his win condition (or at least avoid his lose condition), he prevented us from getting what we wanted from it. The fun event.

And all over this thread he is exposing what he was doing. He should certainly feel embarrassed by that.

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Why should I feel embarrassed?

Because you were intellectually disingenuous ~~dishonest~~ in attempting to extract an official position under contest debate rules. ~~false pretenses.~~

Finally, despite offering to keep the “special olympics going for 7 days” he changed this too “as long as the retards want to keep running” with our agreement.

This is disingenuous, as the thread title and description clearly stated it was a one-day exercise. Whatever you thought you had agreed to in the negotiations, the participants knew exactly the promised time frame for the debate before choosing to participate, and in the event they got more time than promised.

By no means should this be construed as a blanket defense of the ~~DEERing~~ continually changing explanations RPS and you are giving about these events.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I was not intellectually dishonest. I asked a straight question which I was looking forward to a straight answer too.

It’s RPS and his team that repeatedly say their ECs and Mods speak officially for TRP. I was interested in them doing so.

Where people gave a fair and honest answer I engaged in good faith in a further debate.

This is disingenuous, as the thread title and description clearly stated it was a one-day exercise.

I’ve gone over this with RPS in detail below. Here...

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/egu8h4c/

And again (where his explanation clearly doesn’t make sense ... here...

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/egubvb2/

Those comments include (finally, after repeated requests) links to the comments they consider uncivil. RPS still refused to define what he considers uncivil except “its uncivil if I say it is”. You can see those he removed, and decide yourself if they were uncivil. If you believe they are not, you should also understand why we considers RPS to be unfairly moderating the debate.

Those are the comments they used to ban me. This allowed me (for the first time) to reconstruct the timeline of my Ban. That’s available here

AgIn decide for yourself if this was fair moderation, or whether it was moderation intended to imbalance the debate in favour of RPSs mods and ECs.

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/eguaeod/

I am happy to openly discuss any of this, and continue to do so on this thread with anyone still asking questions.

It still appears to our mod team RPS moderated the debate unfairly in order to try and assist his mods and ECs. It still appears that he pulled the threads for reasons other than he cited. Saying both that “he removed them as inactive” and also “he expected too much acitivity to moderate over a weekend”. He has also failed to answer noblesse obliges original question “Was it true that you pulled without notifying the PPD mod team ?” ... preferring instead to answer other questions... because he knows that’s exactly what he did. Unilaterally ending our bilateral agreement.

I’d understand if you’re sick of all this and decline to bother reading the above. However, I’d urge you to do so as anyone asking these questions are entitled to an answer.

I ask you to use your own judgement on whether these threads were moderated fairly by RPS given his explanations.

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It's difficult not to play the person considering the only reason this post exist is purely for rant purpose. LKF removed it and was right to do it, but then the FSM pressured to have this post back because "muh we deserve a men are trash post".

No, again.... please look at the comments made by the TRP mod team I linked above. They invited us to come and seek "truth" from them, or at least "the official TRP position on X" all up and down that thread.

It's true that their covert agenda was to "win" a Danths Law race. They never shared this with us, they billed it to us as a chance for us to ask questions and receive "official TRP answers" they said so again and again on that thread...

Back on their site, they sold it to their members as a Daanths Law race where they would "beat the crap" out of the "retards" and so win new subscribers by doing so.

https://imgur.com/a/SGTgZsf

They didn't share that with us. We went into it as the truth seeking debate they described on all our PPD threads. You can see that in the comments I linked.

I have little interest in assessing its exact appropriateness in this particular case, or RPS's judgement or ethics, because I follow neither his posts nor TRP. I do, however, sometimes read PPD and you, so I do wish to assess your level of integrity and sophistry to determine whether to continue to do so, and if so how much credence to lend to your words in future.

Thats fair enough. I am a mod here. It is very important to me and the mod team that we are seen to be honest and above board at all times. This is absolutely vital for you to have confidence that we moderate the debate here fairly.

To bolster my above claims... you already have the comments in that previous thread where the TRP mods/ECs were talking about "acting as TRP representatives" and giving us honest and clear answers in an open debate.

Simultaneously to telling us that... which you can see above... They were telling their membership it was a Daanths Law race and they were going "to beat the retards into pulp" and were discussing creating false flag ECs to drug up drama.

Please compare their responses I linked above (an open debate with TRP representatives) to their covert agenda revealed here.

The billed it as honest truth seeking, they treated it like "beat the retards and mock them".

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

This was an attempt to get TRP mods and ECs to give me straightforward answers to questions I am regularly posed on PPD, which I try to defend on RPs behalf, and which I find extremely difficult to do honestly in a way that’s consistent with what ECs and Mods say about TRP.

My first question (Does TRP consider itself a science?) is a frequent one here, and I chose that as an EC had stated something as “TRPs position” that it was utterly impossible to defend honestly. I wanted them to give me an answer I could honestly defend, or to realise their current “official” position was untenable BUT could very easily be made tenable such that people could honestly defend it. Including me, but lire importantly, including their ECs and Mods.

My second question used their responses from the first (TRP is a science) and their own chosen language on what TRP is trying to do (Spread a doctrine, defined as orthodox, by people appointed to do so who use the priest metaphor to describe what they do) to try and get them to give me a clear answer to THAT riddle.

Again, one I could use to defend their view by saying “Aha! that may appear to be untenable... but here is how you square that circle”.

When someone replied to me “very clever. That’s clearly what you believe, but that’s not what TRP believes”.... I wanted to be able to say “No, this is what TRP believes. Here is a link to an EC telling me so” and give them that answer.

Where people (not ECs) have engaged with that question in good faith we’ve had a nice discussion where I outlined my reservations and would have (if it were an EC) possibly led to a position I could actually hinestly defend.

An example of one of those is here... and you can see how I intended to continue if I got a straight answer from an EC. The ECs didn’t do so, wanting to protect their egos and deleting their comments when they felt they were at risk of looking wrong. Some members responded honestly and got honest discussions in reply...

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/aq8dx5/the_burning_strawman_debate_is_open/egohtju/

.... it had to be on PPD as they locked the thread by that point.

If an EC had answered like this we could have discussed it civilly (as I did there) and if we could have come to an explanation I felt I could honestly defend on PPD as a red flair I would have done so, and then linked the conversation as “proof” this wasn’t just me talking out my ass, but it’s also what the ECs thought.

On this question on the TRP thread you can see a single EC who tried to discuss this with me... it was also developing down this line, but he declined to go further (again I suspect because he didn’t want to to appear “wrong” or discuss a resolution openly and fairly as part of a fair debate).

Incidentally this is also why I found ECs deleting their replies particularly annoying and bad faith.

Have I CYV ? Or do you want me to discuss this more ? Or link you to other conversations that bolster my point?

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

You never did get a satisfactory answer did you? Let me jerk you off a little bit.

Does TRP consider itself a science?

Don't know about TRP, but I don't.

If we grant that the core of science is to tests cause and effect, then by very definition, anything related to human nature is not a science, because human beings are inherently irrational. Therefore, the conclusion has to be that RP is not scientific in nature.

However, if we grant that the human condition is generally shared (especially within cultures), then it follows that given a set of people, there's a probability of responses. We can map expected behavior as a probability function. (e.g. if you ask people to think of a number between 1 and 10, ~~a majority will pick 7~~ the modal number will be 7. very few will pick 1 or 10 - i.e. we do not expect a uniform distribution.)

Furthermore, if we grant that humans are basically animals with sentience (and not high order beings as some people like to think), then we could reasonably argue that there are components of our behavior that are driven by basic instincts. It's hard to argue this point when over and over, we see sociological and psychological experiments that confirm that we make inherent and often biased assumptions. For example, better looking people will have an advantage getting hired and are considered more trust-able, based on nothing.

So, it should follow that if you take your average relationship, or even your average inter-sexual interactions and relationships, there are levers there that can be used to adjust and subcommunicate (read as: potentially manipulate) opinions and attraction in the receiver. These might be overt (e.g. not looking like a tub of lard, see good looking data above), or they might be more subtle (e.g. holding slightly tighter and lingering on a handshake to indicate attraction, gently stroking the palm, standing slightly closer in the personal space bubble). Granted, this may not apply to every interaction, but based on a population's distribution, we can expected that it will be effective to some confidence interval.

Other things that we know from psychology is various types of comfort zones in our body. For example, if a girl is comfortable with you brushing her from her face, that's a serious level of intimacy and comfort. If she's willing to share a drink with you, she'd probably willing to kiss you. The difference between standing face to face versus side to side. Things of that nature.

Other aspects are more intuitive than quantitative. For example, the level of passion in a new relationship, new engagement is so much higher than one that's been going for 10 years. The change from a burning passion to a kindling passion (each with its own benefits) I don't think could be honestly argued. The root cause of this could be numerous - habituation? lack of competition? overfamiliarity due to the day-to-day grind? Who knows... It's still enjoyable, even if it's not the same. As humans, we naturally become desensitized to repeated exposure to stimuli. Why would we not expect this to be the case in our sexual interactions?

Is all of that scientific? Not really. But there are scientific components behind each of those interpersonal elements that can be leveraged and tested to see what and to what extent the response is impact. You could make the argument for both sides - for me, it doesn't matter. Take what works, discard what doesn't. Focus on the practical. If it augments, great! if it doesn't, forget about it. NBD.

If you're expecting humans to have some sort of internal consistency... I don't know what to tell you other than I'm pretty sure you've completely misunderstood the human condition.

2) Wherever that place is, in which direction do you intend to move TRP in the future. More towards the error correction system extreme, or more towards the authoritarian/big hat extreme ?

Well - I'm surprised no one called you out on the false dichotomy. I'd inherently reject the premise that it's limited to a linear spectrum or that there's a collective authority figure to decide for this (I'm not surprised that TRP didn't... because it's obviously there). If we disagree on this linear spectrum concept at a fundamental level, it's not worth having the conversation.

At MRP, it's very simple. We expected every user to take the collective knowledge and thoughts available, and to apply it to their own personal values and end goals. The thematic drivers of MRP are personal ownership, focusing on what you can control, and rejecting inevitability (and adding value as a byproduct of contributing). But that goes back to the first point, that I don't view it as a scientific endeavor. It's a much more human endeavor.

In that sense, it's like art - sure you can use science to understand art (AI/ML of art comes to mind), but art does not necessitate science.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I've been busy with other comments and wanted to give yours the time it deserved. Edits to your excepts are to keep under the Char limit, I tried to address your original text.

If we grant that the core of science is to tests cause and effect, then by very definition, anything related to human nature is not a science, because human beings are inherently irrational. Therefore, the conclusion has to be that RP is not scientific in nature.

I dunno. I agree with you RP is not scientific. We get to that conclusion by different paths though. I'd count evolutionary psychology as a science for sure, and that deals with human nature.

~Human nature as animal nature~

I total agree with your paragraphs here, and often explain it in similar ways... humans are NOT rational being who leapt from the head of Zeus... we're animals, like all the other animals, with a thin veneer of rationality over the top. Like a rug thrown over an elephant.

So, it should follow that if you take your average relationship, or even your average inter-sexual interactions and relationships, there are levers there that can be used to adjust and subcommunicate (read as: potentially manipulate) opinions and attraction in the receiver.

Again totally agree with this bit. I'd describe it as humans being distributed on a bell curve for any particular trait, with bell curves by sex.

By the very nature of bell curves although some humans may be out on the extreme of the "likes height" curve (for example) ... most humans, on most traits, will be in the bell of the curve.

If there are 20 curves (height, symmetry, dominance, muscles, whatever, whatever) then by developing those 20 things well (where you can) you find you hit almost all females curves. Maybe only 18 of 20 in each individual womans case. And always a different 18 depending on the woman. But you're always getting them in the end... as on any thing most of them are in the bell of that curve.

The root cause of this could be numerous - habituation? lack of competition? overfamiliarity due to the day-to-day grind? Who knows... It's still enjoyable, even if it's not the same. As humans, we naturally become desensitized to repeated exposure to stimuli. Why would we not expect this to be the case in our sexual interactions?

There is something on this point you may be interested in. Basically, you'd expect evolved beings to have more than one attraction instinct. Humans appear to have three. Love, Lust, Limerence.

They've evolved for different purposes. Love is the human "pair bonding emotion". What we feel here is analogous to what (say) a species that mates for life feels for a partner. Lust is the human "fuck the shit out of this female" emotion. What a species that "mates for life" feels if they can get laid with another penguin and get away with it. Limerence is a longing for a particular female/male, genetically it's the emotion intended to make you do lots of crazy things to select a really good mate. I don't know if other animals have this.

This curve of emotion you speak of is what you'd expect from a species that has three different attraction emotions working for three different purposes... Think of each as a curve overlayed on the others... Limerence a huge "before sex" peak, that stays high for a short while afterwards and then tails away as it's not required. Lust as a big peak where it is required that quickly subsides. Love as nothing prior to sex, then slowly building as the genes become more and more "sure" that you've been having sex long enough a baby is going to pop out any second now.

I think what most humans experience with that "heady first love" and later "comfortable long term love" and (despite the above) the urge to just "go fuck that chick over there, that comes from nowhere" is an interplay of three different emotions.

Humans have (falsely) munged all these into one thing, and so get sonfused as fuck (I love my husband, but I don't feel in love with him anymore ? And why do I want to fuck the pool boy if I love my husband, like I think I do ?).

Once you disaggregate "love" into the three instinctive forces you'd expect from an evolved animal that needs to make long term investment in children.... a lot of stuff that was previously inexplicable is actually predictable by the theory.

See. Theory kicks ass. We can talk about this more if you'd like.

Is all of that scientific? Not really. But there are scientific components [...] Take what works, discard what doesn't. Focus on the practical. If it augments, great! if it doesn't, forget about it. NBD.

Ah, but you're missing the benefits of a really clear theory here. One that can sort the facts better such that actions in the real world work as you would expect and don't seem to fail for reasons that are unclear.

Have you tried thinking about this on an evolutionary/genetic basis ? You can make a lot of things much clearer from that viewpoint, and then you can use that in an applied context much better.

If you're expecting humans to have some sort of internal consistency... I don't know what to tell you other than I'm pretty sure you've completely misunderstood the human condition.

I think this is often (but not always) because we haven't done all the disagregation required yet.

When you munge the three forms of love together, into one "love".... then it looks like humans are being inconsistent all over the place. Disaggregate it, and suddenly you can see them acting consistently. Just consistently with 3 separate forces... not inconsistently with one.

RP did a similar thing with "attraction" and "alpha and beta". Everyone else munges them together as attractive... and tells our nice beta guy "Why don't you do more ironing ? Why don't you earn more money ? That makes women attracted". When they are not attracted they say "inconsistent women, they're usually attracted to those things. What inconsistency".

They're not. They're consistent. There are just TWO types of attraction, and once you can divide into sexual attraction and relationship attraction... you can see how the females suddenly look a LOT more consistent.

I think the major problem with psychology is that they haven't "cleaved humans at the joints" properly. They have no underlying framework thats true to do it with. Frued didn't work out. Jung didn't. Whatever the latest fad is doesn't.

What cleaves humans at the joints correctly is genetics/evolution. Evolutionary Psychology is the one that starts cleaving humans in the right places... and discovered things like the 2 distinct types of attraction... or the 3 distinct types of love... that then hang together properly and generate good predictions because they've finally got the right joints.

To my mind Psychology is Alchemy. They discovered lots of true stuff. But they never had a solid basis. It was all just random true facts jumbled together with no true system to generate new insights.

Evolutionary Psychology is Chemistry. It's built on Genetics as it's foundation, the way Chemistry is built on Physics. It's finally built on a lower level of reality that Psychology never was.

I'd inherently reject the premise that it's limited to a linear spectrum or that there's a collective authority figure to decide for this (I'm not surprised that TRP didn't... because it's obviously there).

I think there is a real truth to the fact it's a linear spectrum. Ironically, given what I said above... it's driven by psychologies division of people into two personality types, authoritatians and (forget the term) non-authoritarians.

People who take "You're wrong" as an instinctive chance to say "Am I ? I'd like to know how, can you explain it to me ?".... and People who take "You're wrong" as an instinctive challenge to their authority.

Nor is it a dichotomy. I deliberately gave them a spectrum and asked them to place themselves on it. I didn't expect them to place at either end.

Nor is it false. They claimed to be both things.

I expected them to say "Well, we have elements of both. Like a corporation. Sometimes there is error correction... like when our product doesn't sell, so we alter the produce... and sometimes it's authoritarian.. like when our CEO defines a plan, and we follow it"

That would have been satisfactory, and we could've chatted about it at length.

I wanted them to square that circle... and I actually expected them to be able to do so! I could do it. Its relatively easy. But they couldn't.

Because they were afraid of being seen to admit an error. It would have damaged their authority. They didn't look on it as a chance to error correct, but as a challenge to authority.

Thats the problem. They wanted to claim to correct their errors... AND.... wanted never to admit an error ... AT THE SAME TIME. When they couldn't. Well. They got pretty mad about it.

MRP as human endeavour.

Yes, MRP is a teaching place... not a place for correcting the errors in MRP. I know that. I know thats true of TRP too.

But they DO need an error correcting place too, if they're going to exclude it from the teaching space. PPD could do that for them. They could create their own spinoff. They could have a post flairr or something. But they don't.

They claim to correct their errors, and never do... and ban anyone who doesn't "respect their authority" if they point to an error. I covered this with Benzo above authoritarians/non-authoritarians, and how this is largely instinctive, and neither are wrong but they do have different strengths.

In that sense, it's like art - sure you can use science to understand art (AI/ML of art comes to mind), but art does not necessitate science.

Yeah, that would be a fair analogy. Their problem was they wanted to claim to be a science where that "title" was not deserved... because unlike science, they don't correct their errors, and they don't make a process available to any of their members that could do so.

[–]Gino_Lucetti0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Once you disaggregate "love" into the three instinctive forces you'd expect from an evolved animal that needs to make long term investment in children.... a lot of stuff that was previously inexplicable is actually predictable by the theory.

Now this is much more interesting to discuss than exactly how unfairly RPS moderated a debate!

While genetics provides a raw substrate enabling these behaviors, environmental stimuli are often required to activate and properly refine them, hence the reported inabiility of unsocialized mammals to engage in proper sexual behavior. This complex entanglement of genetics and environment makes evo-psych both more difficult and more interesting, but no less real.

I wish there were more hardcore evo-psych speculation threads on PPD, but there seems to be relatively little interest in the few that appear.

Yes, MRP is a teaching place... not a place for correcting the errors in MRP. I know that. ...

They claim to correct their errors, and never do... and ban anyone who doesn't "respect their authority" if they point to an error.

My observation disagrees with this. I've seen a big shift in the two years that I've participated in MRP, in my estimation largely driven by /u/weakandsensitive's influence. It just requires a gradual, "under the radar," tactful approach that's sensitive to community norms and doesn't insist on explicit acknowledgement of error and ego-validating recognition of the contributor.

You would surely find these constraints too frustrating to work around, but others are able to do so and shift the community over time.

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I can only speak of my impressions, since we don't have official statements of MRP dogma to compare old and new, but I'll trace one example that comes to mind. When I first started reading MRP over two years ago, IMO there was excessive fear and loathing of hypergamy; all wives would fall on the nearest Chad's dick at a moment's notice; anecdotal posts about branchswinging women were common and highly upvoted, and the idea that any woman is likely to branchswing or cuck any man at any time (call it "hairtrigger hypergamy") was the accepted wisdom.

I think we have a much more balanced view today that women are relatively unlikely to cheat on quality husbands (hypergamy is largely reactive), and I attribute that shift largely to you.

Your post on 15 Feb 2016 The Trope of the Beta Male Married Husband was the first key step in the transformation that I'm aware of. (This was before my time; maybe I'm missing some earlier stages.) Here you echoed the orthodox view (beta males easily get cucked by Chads) ... but you emphasized that it's due to the unattractiveness of the loser beta husband (rather than the hypergamy of the wife; you never mentioned that word.) You placed primary agency and responsibility with the man, rather than with the wife's hypergamy, but you brought in this fundamental change of perspective "under the radar" in a way least likely to call into question the status quo.

Your 01 April 2016 post (did you choose April Fools Day for this post on purpose?) Why defaulting to a negative view on women (e.g. "women are harpie bitches") is detrimental to your personal growth ("women are generally awesome") was the next step in challenging the prevailing "hairtrigger hypergamy" orthodoxy. You commanded sufficient orthodox credibility and respect to post something a bit off the norm, and have it stay up and be read. While then a minority view, guys like me could link it to calm the panicked newbies seeing a Chad in every closet (and the nine other comments saying that she had already fallen on Chad's dick every day in the past week.) Notice that you didn't challenge the hairtrigger hypergamy orthodoxy directly; you made no claim about it one way or the other. You simply pointed out that it was in any event not in a man's interest to assume it was true. Over time this became a tolerated minority view.

These posts also followed the MRP expectation of functional value; any theory is contextualized within "here's why this shit happens, so this is how you can change it." Theory is functionalized in MRP, or most of us don't care.

After your reincarnation and reestablishment of your orthodox credibility, you steadily and ever more clearly and openly expressed this view in comments to OYS and other posts, linking back to your key posts, and by lending your credibility in support of posts or comments by newer users expressing similar views. Gradually, your view has become the predominant one, and perhaps even the new orthodoxy in MRP. All without ever having a big debate, users taking public stances, egotistical winners claiming victory and credit for the new ideas, and losers being excommunicated; imagine that!

I suspect that little has changed in TRP in the meantime on this topic, which suggests that this was not an inevitable evolution of thought in a RP community, but one driven by key thought leaders (you).

[–]weakandsensitive0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Now this is much more interesting to discuss than exactly how unfairly RPS moderated a debate!

Yes, one of the reasons I was disappointed that it ended after 2 days rather than 7 is I had loads of stuff like this saved up to chat about.

While genetics provides a raw substrate enabling these behaviors, environmental stimuli are often required to activate and properly refine them, hence the reported inabiility of unsocialized mammals to engage in proper sexual behavior. This complex entanglement of genetics and environment makes evo-psych both more difficult and more interesting, but no less real.

Yes. Genes do not ever work on their own. They only ever work by “bouncing off the environment”.

This is why things like zero-G cause havoc in humans. The genes evolved in an environment where gravity was always on, and at 1g.

Where those same genes do their same “job” but bounce off a 0g environment whilst doing so... humans kinda stop working. They lose bone density, they get ill, muscles atrophy, and (I’m pretty sure) pregnancies would fail.

I wish there were more hardcore evo-psych speculation threads on PPD, but there seems to be relatively little interest in the few that appear.

Yes. I do one occasionally. Without fail they’re not highly upvoted, and they’re largely ignored comment wise.

People want to argue about “offending” posts, and generally prefer “good, short, shit flings that benefit their team” over more substantive comments. Unfortunately the members upvote what they like to see, that isn’t (whatever they say about it) substantive discussions on science.

I’ve done a lot of EP posts you can find most in my old history /u/TheGreasyPole. The Hypergamy one is pretty good, but most are EP related in one form or another (including an early, as yet inimproved by debate, version of the love stuff above).

There was also a great one done by cuilter, representing the blue case, in which me and her had a long battle in the comments that was a a really long and informative debate concerning eco psych and its conclusions.

That’s here... and there’s are two comment chains (the 2nd is the longest) in which we battle it out.

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3j6bz4/deconstructing_a_few_manosphere_myths_man_the/

Finally the “old” mod team did save some threads they thought were high quality. These aren’t EP related, but they were selected for being good old threads by the members/old mod team.

That’s here

https://www.reddit.com/r/purplepilldebate/wiki/depthhub

Also we have other good things on our wiki like a good Terms and acronyms page so you might want to check out the wiki generally. That’s here

https://www.reddit.com/r/purplepilldebate/wiki/

My observation disagrees with this. I've seen a big shift in the two years that I've participated in MRP, in my estimation largely driven by /u/weakandsensitive's influence. It just requires a gradual, "under the radar," tactful approach that's sensitive to community norms and doesn't insist on explicit acknowledgement of error and ego-validating recognition of the contributor.

Well, that 2nd paragraph above was more directed at TRP than MRP. MRP has always been better in this regard, even 3-4 years ago. I’m quite willing to believe it’s got even better since as I have no direct experience of that.

And... lest you be worried about my ego being a problem, you should checkout my exchange with an MRP regular...

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/egnz8ij/

I am not the droid you’re looking for.

You would surely find these constraints too frustrating to work around, but others are able to do so and shift the community over time.

Probably not on MRP. One of the ways this debate has prompted me to error correct and be better have been the challenges concerning “yeah, it’s all right arguing about it. By why do you no longer produce on the RP subs for the guys, huh ? Huh ?”.

They’re probably right there. I’ve developed new stuff and refined it well in open debate. It’s probably time I dropped some on TRP or MRP. I suspect that it would get auto-deleted on TRP considering the above shitshow... but MRP was always more appropriate to me anyway... and if it’s got even more open to ideas since my last contribution then there should be no problem.

I should think about what’s well developed enough to share over there. Maybe develop this Love/Lust/Limerence thing into a full post. Maybe Hypergamy. Maybe some other EP stuff

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. I do one occasionally. Without fail they’re not highly upvoted, and they’re largely ignored comment wise.

That's a shame.

if [MRP]’s got even more open to ideas since my last contribution

To clarify, what I meant was that certain implicit theory underlying the MRP teaching has shifted meaningfully over my time there. (Hypergamy is largely reactive to mate quality, not aggressively seeking to cuck and branchswing with the nearest Chadlet at the drop of a hat.) In that sense MRP seems open to theoretical change and error correction.

Whether MRP is more open than before to heterodoxy with the evolving orthodoxy, or to theoretical posts, is not clear to me. There's an element of "it doesn't matter if a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice", and theoretical innovations often enter through that route. MRP posts mostly focus on adding functional value; any theory is contextualized within "here's why this shit happens, so this is how you can change it." Theory is functionalized in MRP, or most of us don't care.

[–]SteelSharpensSteelMRP Has The Tools0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think I will. After reading this comment I’ve sketched out a series of posts I’d like to do on EP and how that knowledge should assist married guys. Maybe 10 posts or so, probably ultimately I’ll link then together in a series. I’ll drop them on MRP, and participate in my own comments threads. I may also crosspost some to PPD as well, adjusted for a PPD audience.

Every post should satisfy rule 0... But the first post in the series may“only just” do so as that post will be setting the groundwork for the other posts... Basically I’ll need the guys to understand how genes/instincts/humans work properly in post 1. That’s going to make post 1 genetics/instincts heavy and “applied to a married scenario” light, although it should clearly be value adding. The rest should be MRP heavy, but justified using the EP and much more clearly directly adding value to MRP guys and scenarios.

Getting the genetics/instincts understanding over is harder than you’d think, people are prone to jumping to the wrong conclusions... and so I want to set that up right at the start.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SteelSharpensSteelMRP Has The Tools0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

EDIT: For the record: MOSTLY RETRACTED; see strikethroughs.

Yes, you have plausibly CMV. ~~But IMO, this explanation casts your actions in an even more unfavorable light.~~

By your own admission, you had a very specific agenda to extract an "official TRP stance" on several specific questions. Instead of openly declaring your interest and negotiating a process in good faith with the TRP Mods (for example along the lines of the current Warhorn Media exchange with Dalrock)

~~you concocted this Open TRP Debate thread as an elaborate false-flag cover operation under which to pursue your covert agenda by stealth.~~
~~You sold the idea to your fellow PPD Mods possibly under false pretenses, if you didn't reveal your covert agenda to them as a key motivation for the proposal.~~
~~You almost certainly sold it to the TRP Mods under false pretense.~~
~~You may have negotiated for terms of debate that would favor your pursuit of your hidden agenda in ways that would become apparent only after acceptance.~~
In your single-minded pursuit of your personal hidden agenda, you risked monopolizing the time, effort, and goodwill of the TRP leadership at the expense of the other participants from your community, thereby placing your own interests above and in conflict with your responsibility as a PPD Mod.
Your dogged pursuit of your own ~~covert~~ agenda may very well have caused your TRP counterparts to end the exercise early, to the detriment of other participants ~~with more honest motives~~.
You disingenuously accuse the TRP Mods and ECs of acting in bad faith in ending it and in failing to follow your own personal rules of online debate, while conveniently overlooking the fact that the entire exercise originated in bad faith and false pretenses on your part.

I criticize as a disappointed fan, not as a gleeful enemy. I thought you were better than this. In fact, I think you were better than this. I read in your exchange with /u/weakandsensitive that you once frequented MRP; perhaps you might better "sharpen your saw" by renewing your functional congruency, frame, OYS, and integrity than by "winning" a few more theoretical debates.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

you concocted this Open TRP Debate thread as an elaborate false-flag cover operation under which to pursue your covert agenda by stealth

No that’s whT RPS assumes because he had a covert agenda.

We had no agenda that wasn’t overt. We wante the open and fairness debate overtly, and said so.

There is nothing the PPD mod team wanted here except that open and fair debate.

If at the end of it... TRP has “won” the danths law race, that’s fine. We’d have had the open and fair debate we wanted. Our members would have had fun. I would have acheieved my personal “win” condition every much as RPS had achieved his.

Everyone could have won. Please stop assuming you know what we wanted, you clearly don’t.

You sold the idea to your fellow PPD Mods possibly under false pretenses, if you didn't reveal your covert agenda to them as a key motivation for the proposal

There was no covert agenda, the PPD mod team agreed on our overt agenda, they agree now that RPSs breaking his word, freely given, to moderate fairly have stopped us achieving this.

You almost certainly sold it to the TRP Mods under false pretense

They sold it to us. It was RPSs idea. And again, you’re assuming a covert agenda we didn’t have.

We wanted a fun debate. That’s what PPD does. It’s what our members are here for. RPS wanted to win a danths law race (an agenda he kept covert) while promising an open and fair debate for fun overtly.

He thought he was being clever. The scorpion ended up stinging itself because it couldn’t conceive of an opponent that was honest. It just did not occur to him that we were honest, he thought we were like him.

You may have negotiated for terms of debate that would favor your pursuit of your hidden agenda in ways that would become apparent only after acceptance.

We accepted all of the term RPS original proposed. We added only 2 things to that proposal. Our members be unbanned. He give OPs a link in OP. He agreed both, but he didn’t give us the link (possibly the first time he broke his word)

Later he claimed confusion about the length of the event.... which we considered a week based on his original proposal and the handshake, and he thought was a day. There we agreed to resolve this as “open for a week as long as the threads were active”. Again we extended a handshake agreement in good faith considering it a bi lateral deal.

RPS then waited until the middle of the night, ignored the activity there, ignored the fact that he knew we intended to continue in the morning, did not warn us, did not tell us, and pulled the threads.... unilaterally ending our bi lateral agreement.

~more hidden agenda crap~

There was no hidden agenda. You and RPS just can’t conceive of people who are happy to say openly what they are trying to do. You assume that because you lie about such things, and have hidden agenda s you are moving forward under those lies, we do to.

We don’t. There is no need to.

You disingenuously accuse the TRP Mods and ECs of acting in bad faith in ending it and in failing to follow your own personal rules of online debate, while conveniently overlooking the fact that the entire exercise originated in bad faith and false pretenses on your part.

No. I accuse them of breaking their agreement with the PPD mods which they freely entered into to have a fair and open debate which would be moderated fairly. They did not do so because it failed to achieve their covert agenda to do so.

Our mod team are unhappy that this was the case, although we always suspected this was going to be the case. We were prepared to “trust but verify”. RPS abused that trust. We could see so when we verified.

He appears to have done so because whilst his overt agenda was an open and fair debate his covert agenda was “Beat the retards in a danths law race”.

That wasn’t my agenda. It wasn’t the agenda of our mod team. It may have been the agenda of some of our members, but they’re going to have to answer for themselves.

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

They sold it to us. It was RPSs idea.

the PPD mod team agreed on our overt agenda

I am pleased to hear that my most damning accusations were erroneous inductions from your inconsistent statements.

There is nothing the PPD mod team wanted here except that open and fair debate.

We wanted a fun debate.

There was no hidden agenda.

TGP: "I wanted them to answer for the actions of themselves as TRP ECs and Mods."

TGP: "I wanted them answered so that when people challenged me with the same questions here, as they do.... I could tell them the answer. And then when they said “very clever, that’s your view but not what TRP believes” I could then say “No, this is what TRP believes an EC/Mod told me so, here is the link”. ... I actually wanted a good answer I could use, and explain was TRPs position. ... Either having an “official” answer I could honestly defend OR having a new “official” position I could honestly defend."

TGP: "This was an attempt to get TRP mods and ECs to give me straightforward answers to questions I am regularly posed on PPD, which I try to defend on RPs behalf, and which I find extremely difficult to do honestly in a way that’s consistent with what ECs and Mods say about TRP. ... I wanted to be able to say “No, this is what TRP believes. Here is a link to an EC telling me so” and give them that answer."

I find, and I believe that most people would find, the first three statements of yours inconsistent with the last three. As would most people, I consider the last three statements an admission of a hidden agenda to extract by stealth an "official stance" to your liking from an ostensibly casual debate, and that attribution of someone's words as their "official position" requires

their knowing prior consent,
the opportunity to consider and craft their words with a care well beyond that assumed in a casual debate,
and that they be given the opportunity to freely refuse to declare an official stance at this time.

I recognize that you considered your intentions benign in attempting to covertly guide them, through a Socratic process, to produce a stronger and more defensible "official" position. But by hiding your intent, you attempted to extract in official position under false pretenses, so I agree with Atlas that "you are the one who was intellectually dishonest", although thankfully the dishonesty did not extend as far as I had feared.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

You’re assuming our agenda.

I wanted an open and fair debate.

Yes. I wanted them to answer my questions.

Why is that a covert agenda ? Or disengenious ? Or in some sense bad faith ?

They allowed us to ask the questions we wanted to ask. Those are the ones I wanted to ask.

They are the ones who tell us that ECs and Mods can answer authoritatively for TRP. They told us they would be doing so on this thread.

Here they are explaining that they’re representatives of TRP doctrine to PPD

Max_peenor saying so on our announcement thread

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/anvkfa/announcement_burning_straw_man_festival_21319/efxd4r1/

Another EC saying so...

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/anvkfa/announcement_burning_straw_man_festival_21319/efy0j6v/

They did so again here

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/anvkfa/announcement_burning_straw_man_festival_21319/efyio58/

They repeatedly asserted the same thing. They were the people who could properly represent TRPs position, and they invited us to come ask them questions with their role as “TRP representatives who could speak authoritatively fo TRP” in mind.

This was an overt commitment they openly made.

I wanted to do so. I was completely open about that fact during as well as after the debate.

I don’t see as how wanting a good answer I could defend... or.... if they could not defend it, and found it untenable, expsoing that... was in any way bad faith. They offered to us repeatedly to answer as representatives of TRP.

That’s what HAPPENS in an open and fair debate... you ask questions, you get answers.... if the answers aren’t satisfactory you explain why and debate why.... if both sides are operating in good faith they admit any errors as they discover them... if that makes their position untenable they say “Ah, ya got me. Well played. You’re right, I can’t honestly defend this. I’m going to have to have a think about where I went wrong. Perhaps there is another way of putting this that doesn’t have that problem. Perhaps I’m genuinely wrong. Thanks for the good debate”.

Any of them who did not wish to give an answer as an EC or mod could have said, whenever they wished, “OK, happy to discuss this but I’m unsure of TRPs position here. Please take this as my personal position but not as TRPs position”.

That is a phrase I say, here on PPD, all the time.... when I’m defending what I think is right, and this is different from what RP or TRP says is right. I feel I have to do so because I have a red flair.

I’d have been happy to discuss on that basis.... whilst I’d preferred to discuss it “officially” as the TRP position.

Where other people have discussed this with me we had that open discussion ... I was interested in the debate... as here

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/aq8dx5/the_burning_strawman_debate_is_open/egkbpal/

RPS told us that his ECs would be on that thread acting as official TRP representatives. He asked us to come ask any question we wished to. Those were the questions I wanted to ask TRP representatives (although as you can see above I was also happy to discuss them with anyone else too... or if they wished to any EC “taking his hat off” to do so).

I recognize that you considered your intentions benign in attempting to covertly guide them, through a Socratic process, to produce a stronger and more defensible "official" position

Only if they couldn’t give me an answer that satisfied me as given. That’s what a debate is. Either a means to get a good answer and discover you are wrong and adopt that answer.... Or.... if that does not happen, a chance to persuade your opponent of the correctness of your answer via an open exchange.

That’s what we were offered.

In that open debate it is bad faith to ... delete your own comments if you feel your argument was poor rather than conceding freely it wasn’t poor (as they did).... Ban your opponents (as they did).... use rules you do not define, and interpret creatively, to remove inconvenient comments by your opponents (which they did).... and preemptively end the debate outside your agreement to continue and without informing or asking your opponent (which they did).

I’m not sure what RPS definition of bad faith is, but these actions all fit PPDs definition of bad faith (given in our rules for CMVs, which are the only threads in which we attempt to mod bad faith as it is so difficult to do fairly).

But by hiding your intent, you attempted to extract in official position under false pretenses, so I agree with Atlas that "you are the one who was intellectually dishonest", although thankfully the dishonesty did not extend as far as I had feared.

I never ... at any point... hid this intent. I declared it openly during the debate and after it. I took them m up on their offer to debate as TRP representatives that they freely and repeatedly made. It is the intent of any person who enters into an open and fair debate in good faith to either receive an answer that is satisfactory to them, or to continue to explain why it is not satisfactory such that their opponent comes to agree.

When those people offer themselves as “speaking officially for an organisation” as ECs do... and when the organisation accepts that as RPS did.... they are speaking on behalf of that organisation.

It was not covert. It was overt. They offered to do this and we accepted.

I openly asked them questions on that basis, as you may ask a salesman representing “Corporate Inc” questions on the same basis, that his answers are for the organisation.

They had every opportunity to say “Well, I can’t answer for the corporate there. I can give you my personal answer which is.....”

[–]man_in_the_world1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

People debate for (at least) two reasons:

Contest debate: primarily for entertainment or competition. (Examples: formal debate contest, or attorney at law, with arbitrary assigned position or person to defend; most of PPD) The primary goal is sophistic; to "win" the debate, or get your legal client off regardless of guilt or innocence.
Truth-seeking debate: primarily to advance, refine, or improve the correctness of understanding of a subject. (Examples: scientific or theological debate; formation of an organization's official position statement) Goal: produce a final statement or understanding that most accurately reflects the "truth" regarding that subject.

Most debaters will have somewhat mixed motives, but most debates will be either predominantly contest- or truth-seeking oriented. Since the goals are so different, the rules, behaviors, and outcomes are also very different for these two types of debates.

Contest debate: The goal is to win a contest against an opponent, so use of rhetorical tricks, misdirection, and hiding weak points in your argument to bolster your score, and attempting to lower your opponent's score by confusing or rattling them, misrepresenting their words or arguments, or enticing them into saying something damaging that doesn't reflect their true intent, are allowed and expected. Since the goal is to determine the winner, a complete record of every word in the debate should be kept so that a final score can be determined.
Truth-seeking debate: The goal is to converge on the truth, ideally with consensus, so the participants are expected to regard and treat each other with goodwill and respect as collaborators in a joint exercise of discernment. Since the goal is to arrive at the truth regardless of anyone's initial position, rhetorical tricks are denigrated; participants are expected to point out the weaknesses in their own arguments and to overlook or assist in correcting misstatements of other participants rather than exploiting them. Since the goal is only to produce a most accurate final summary of "truth", a complete record of the debate need not, and often should not, be kept. For example, an organization such as Amnesty International would not make public a record of the debate in formulating its official stance on torture in Africa, since doing so would only risk diluting their final stance and abetting tyrants or trolls who might wish to sow confusion.

Most PPD regulars are clearly contest debaters, and your statements clearly show that you expected the debate to operate as a contest debate and behaved accordingly. This no doubt seems the default to you as a PPD regular, but most people assume that the purpose of debate should be truth-seeking and regard contest debate tactics as deceptive and unethical. (This is why lawyers are so universally despised.) It is unclear to me whether the TRPers understand the distinction between contest and truth-seeking debate, and whether they signed up for what you think they did. Caveat emptor you may say, but in any event you tried to have both at the same time by seeking to extract official positions (which means you should play by the more "cooperative" truth-seeking rules) while playing under competitive rules. Hence I call foul, and bad faith.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

OK, but as I replied above.... all conversation here, which you can see all over our announcement thread, are "come debate TRP representatives and finally get the truth about TRP from the people authorised to represent it".

I've already given you links to 3 of their comments. If you go look through that announcement thread you'll see them billing it to the PPD membership this was again and again. They sold it to us as a chance to come get the truth about TRP from the "horses mouth" or their "authorised representatives".

We took them at their word, on good faith.

And, as you can see from the linked screenshots, back on TRP they were playing the "lets beat the retards" game. And generally thinking they were being clever about doing so. They were discussing creating false ECs to trick us too

https://imgur.com/a/docYFYT

https://imgur.com/a/SGTgZsf

This was not unexpected TBH, at least by me, I strongly suspected this was the case... But I was happy to stay on there and be called a moron behind my back... so long as I got the answers I'd been promised.

Ultimately, I didn't... because they didn't live to their commitment to have an open and honest debate (because, secretly, they wanted to win the Daanths Law race).

[–]man_in_the_world0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

OK, in fairness to you, I'll take a look at your links.

TPG: Could you answer these questions for me? Or do you decline to do so because you are unable or unwilling to do so today?

The mod team let it slide for a while, but we recognized that GOADING users wasn't acting in good faith, which requires generous interpretations of the opposition and requires you to assume the others are also acting in good faith. This did not occur with much of TGP's comments.

Again, RPS has created his own version of a rule "bad faith" where the definition is "What RPS considers bad faith". Do you (or other PPD regulars) consider those linked excerpts of my comments uncivil?

Yes, I find your remark modestly uncivil and goading for a truth-seeking debate; it would be well within bounds for a contest debate.

Perhaps your time at PPD has inured you to the norms of civility among nondebaters. Or perhaps British and American norms of civility are somewhat different.

Note RPS's statement of moderating according to truth-seeking debate norms. He has an ostensible case here.

Your broader argument here boils down to "The fools agreed to let us truth-seek under contest debate rules! But wait, they switched to truth-seeking debate rules midstream. Foul! Foul! Unfair! They promised!"

Within the contest debate ethos, your complaint is justified. What you're missing is that within the truth-seeking debate ethos, you don't exploit the mistakes of your opponent to gain an unfair advantage or score points. You were cheating in the spirit of the debate, if not the letter. If you want to get all legalistic and huffy about the letter of the agreement and contest debate that as well, have at it, but don't expect much sympathy or respect from anybody other than contest debaters like yourself. Most people find insisting on the letter of the law against its spirit distasteful.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I find your remark modestly uncivil and goading for a truth-seeking debate; it would be well within bounds for a contest debate. Perhaps your time at PPD has inured you to the norms of civility among nondebaters. Or perhaps British and American norms of civility are somewhat different.

If there was anywhere that inured me to incivility it was RP itself. Many of the things they say are extremely uncivil. They openly say "Well, if you can't get past the offensiveness of our content to see the truth, then you're not worth talking to".

Thats their line.

I made the mistake of assuming the ECs would apply the same line with themselves that they ask their noobs to accept, to go past some things that caused them offence to get at the truth.

I was also interested to see whether they were authoritarian in nature, as we debated up thread between me and Benzo. Most were, some wern't. Those that wern't (like max_peenor) were happy to go right past any offence straight to the meat of the argument... others saw it as "disrespect" for the "authority" bestowed on them by the big EC hat, and bristled and tried to "win" by "slapping down" this "disrespectful no hat".

Both of these guys are ECs I was debating at the same time they were writing this elsewhere.

https://imgur.com/a/SGTgZsf

But fair enough. I asked you to be honest in your reply concerning your views and you were. I will take what you've said on board. It was offered honestly, and I should take note of honest advice offered.

Did you also notice that their ECs and Mods were goading in their replies as well ? That I often had to get past lots of goading to get them to answer the question ? That certainly occurred too.

Red4Ed - Again, you seem incapable, or unwilling to stop with the femenist-esque shame language. Is it because you have the free pass, or because you don't know how to keep your emotions in check? This is rhetorical BTW. I don't really want an answer.

Red4Ed - And for PPD. I have no questions. I find a majority of people there are trash people who pretend they aren't. I've never seen a place full of people more angry, more petty that project their own securities so blatantly onto others. It's an online forums answer to why the Jerry Springer show was so popular, or a living example of the dunning Kruger effect. If I could sum it up in a youtube video under a minute, I'd use this

Red4Ed - You were uncivil in the civil sub, you were told to stop it, you ignored, and were given a cooling off period (in err, mea culpa) while I enjoyed your fake news post for your fans, even they saw fit to dunk on you. I really do have a hard time believing you were on MRP for any length of time and not banned with the way you conduct yourself.

If RPS considered goading uncivil, then why are his EC's comments not removed for incivility ? He was happy to let them goad me, including goads far stronger than mine in return, but he used my goading as an excuse to try and mod me away. That wasn't moderating a debate fairly.

Note RPS's statement of moderating according to truth-seeking debate norms. He has an ostensible case here.

He does. Except in so far as where when his "team" broke the same "norms" but that looked good for his "team" .... he didn't mod them away.

He wanted a one-sided debate where these rules could be applied to unbalance the debate such as to create the effect he wanted.

The same man who claimed up and down that he wanted a fair and open debate... ALSO... Was settting the debate up like this.

https://imgur.com/a/docYFYT

Would that breach his own bad faith norms ? Planning to create false flag ECs to goad others into intemperate comments ? That was his planning before the debate.

I feel here as though it is very much a case of "perfect behaviour is expected from you, but my (RPS) behaviour is not a subject of debate here".

In light of RPS's actions... it's very hard for me to consider he was the "wronged" party, when I lightly goaded his ECs into giving answers.

Your broader argument here boils down to "The fools agreed to let us truth-seek under contest debate rules! But wait, they switched to truth-seeking debate rules midstream. Foul! Foul! Unfair! They promised!"

No. Those are your words. Mine have always been (all through this thread)...

"We were promised a fair and open debate that was fairly moderated."

I knew some of our members would debate as a contest, others for truth, others for gotcha's, all sorts of reasons.

What I expected was it to be fairly moderated.

What RPS wasn't fair moderation. It was moderation on behalf of his team. Replying to questions, then banning users so they could not rebut. ECs deleting their own comments so ass to refuse the rest of the debate the opportunity to discuss them. Apply very strict rules of civility/good faith to the opposittion.... applying no requirement for civility/good faith to his "team". Closing the debate unilaterally, when we had agreed bilaterally for it to continue.

What people use a fairly moderated debate FOR is up to them.

But you shouldn't promise to moderate it fairly, and then moderate it unfairly.

Within the contest debate ethos, your complaint is justified. What you're missing is that within the truth-seeking debate ethos, you don't exploit the mistakes of your opponent to gain an unfair advantage or score points.

Where they debated in good faith, I didn't do so. I linked you to two debates. One in which an EC replied in bad faith, and me to him in good. One in which both parties were debating in good faith.

In neither did I make it a contest. In both I was only ever interested in the answers, and debating them fairly and with a charitable interpretation to the other side.

Even in this thread, I've taken a charitable interpretation of RPS's actions wherever possible... He's spammed the thread saying "TGP is a liar!"... Again, I feel like I'm bending over backwards to be charitable and that any minor faults I've had in doing so are more than balanced by the major faults of the other side.

I can't claim to be perfect. I can honestly claim to have tried hard to be as good as I can be. I cannot say I've seen RPS or the other TRP mods do anything like try hard.

If you want to get all legalistic and huffy about the letter of the agreement and contest debate that as well, have at it, but don't expect much sympathy or respect from anybody other than contest debaters like yourself. Most people find insisting on the letter of the law against its spirit distasteful.

I haven't got "huffy" ... although RPS has. My OP freely concedes I lost. All through this thread, I've freely conceded confusion where there was such confusion. All through this thread I've answered honestly any question asked.

Even whilst... the whole time... I had that screenshot showing there was never any "good faith" on their side, I have continued to talk in good faith, and give charitable interpretations. I've freely conceded everywhere RPS is "right" or being "honest" or "truthful".

There is very little I can do for the remaining mote in my own eye.

But I ask you to notice the beam in the others eye while you continue (rightly) to point out my mote, and advise me honestly that I can do better if I remove it.

[–]SteelSharpensSteelMRP Has The Tools0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ScaryDate0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I haven’t counted. By certainly an awful lot of them are missing.

I’m inviting you to speculate as to why people intending to debate openly feel the need to hide their comments ? They’re your mod team. Perhaps you could ask them.

Please link the comment of mine you considered uncivil. So far you’ve kept repeating that I was. If one of our members asks we’re happy to link him to it in the interests of openness and transparency.

I can’t soeak to that other comment. Perhaps you’d like to restore it, seeing as how the threads locked, and I’ll be happy to give him an honest answer here or via PM. I like open and fair debates, and I am certainly stand a bit of incivility directed at me.

I’m happily answering your questions.

Why don’t you answer mine ? Still trying to “win” the danths law race ?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CainPrice0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This whole thing was sold to the Red Pill guys as an one-day debate thread, nobody banned and nothing deleted except for breaking Reddit's rules, and top-level comments having to be a question.

Some of that is what RPS agreed with our mod team. Some of that are things that were not in our original agreement that he added unilaterally.

There are also some things he agreed to and took away unilaterally.

This is the first I've heard of a week-long extravaganza.

Yes, the PPD mod team failed to spot the changes he was making as he made them, thinking we still had our original handshake agreement in place, as that was gradually chipped away by RPS. We failed there. I should have kept a closer eye on what he was doing.

I don't think anybody ran away screaming in terror at the amazing intellect of something you or anybody wrote, timid and fearful and unable to defend their position.

I don’t think that either. But I do think many of the ECs Deleted their own comments when they realised they’d made errors or looked foolish, rather than letting people openly debate what they’d said. You can see those deletions in the archive.

RPS also moderated the thread heavily after promising is an open and fair debate. He kept removing arguments he wanted to remove because he thought they were “bad faith”. He never defined what he thought his was. And openly admitted to zapping anyone he personally decided was saying something he personally thought “bad faith”.

TRP mods also banned me at one point to stop me commenting. They reversed this when I made a fuss that made them look bad by editing my comment on their thread to call them out. Their explanation for the ban did not make sense, and the timings indicate it was clearly motivated by them wanting to post a reply and preventing me from making a rebuttal.

All of the above was also against his agreement to moderate the debate fairly. Humans invested in one side of an argument can’t possibly fairly moderate the other side based on heir personal decisions of something as I’ll defined as “I think they’re arguing in bad faith”. You can’t ban commenters you don’t want to answer back.

I think people just have shit to do that precludes spending a week following up on Reddit comment threads.

Yes, that’s why our mods agreed with RPS that so long as he left the threads up we’d understand if the TRP mods and ECs couldn’t attend past day 1. But he agreed to keep the threads up for that week so long as they remained active.

Then, in the middle of the European/US night ... at 4-5 in the morning they took them down. They didn’t warn us. They didn’t say they were doing so. They just locked them.

3 days later, here RPS tried to say “that’s because we only had 3 comments in 3 hours”. But we don’t have a userbase large enough to comment 24/7, in the dead of night. They knew they’d be a slack period, and used that as an excuse to pull because by that point they needed an excuse to do so.

If he’s have communicated we’d have said “keep them up, well give more Qs in the morning”.... but they didn’t... they broke their bi lateral agreement with us unilaterally, didn’t ask us, didn’t tell us, and slunk away in the dead of night following that with 2 days radio silence.

[–]esayer0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AuvergnatRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The plan was for a one-day event, from its inception, through internal discussion, to its announcement on TRP.

In order to make it understood to PPD, /u/redpillschool told you it would run in the style of your “purge week”. He obviously never meant to say it would last a week.

Perhaps RPS could have made it clearer to avoid a misunderstanding... just as you could have cleared up the misunderstanding for yourself when you showed up and read both the title and post content specifying the duration of the event.

But even if one can forgive you for not noticing such blatantly clear information on the day itself in your haste to contribute, you can’t be forgiven for not recognising the misunderstanding a posteriori.

Anyone reading the title and contents of the posts of the event, and the previous post announcing it, could clearly tell now that RPS always intended it to be a day event. To claim that the TRP mods changed the rules mid-game directly flies in the face of the evidence. To maintain that claim even after it’s been pointed out to you is simply bizarre. Does it mean that you are so hell bent to “win” a debate that you can’t retract an argument that is quite clearly shown to be a misunderstanding? It looks like a page taken straight out of Trump’s playbook.

I’ll go and guess that you did misunderstand the duration of the event, and then did hope to force the mods to pull out earlier than planned. This is clearly bad faith but to recognize the misunderstanding would sap the foundations of your strategy and call off your proclaimed victory and thus this obvious fact can not be acknowledged.

Anyway. It’s too bad because I liked your contributions and this makes me reconsider your capability for a civil and rational debate of ideas as it would imply your default “I win” obsession places you quite far on the “authoritarian” side of your spectrum. I was looking forward your analysis of the debate of ideas but you dont seem to want to venture any further that your refusal to see a basic misunderstanding about the events duration for what it obviously is.

[–]WhisperTotally LARPing. Really.0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because we thought we’d agreed a whole week when RPS came in and said “I want to do a purge week debate” and we said “yes let’s do that” at the point we agreed he’d said week 2-3 Times, and we’d agreed yes.

It was only later he started saying day.

If there is a fault on us, we should have picked it up and challenged it there and said immediately... we agreed on a week.

Luckily, that wasn’t an issue as later, when he did say “I’m shutting down” we pointed to what he’d said originally and we thought we’d resolved that when he said “I’ll keep them openS Long is their is activity”, which we agreed to.

He then tried to rules lawyer this as a justification to take them down in the dead of night, when plenty of our members were willing and happy to continue debating in the morning, and whilst even some of them continued through the European/American night.

[–]N0blesse0blige0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]N0blesse0blige0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Sure, I'll weigh in.

TGP is lying about almost every point on this thread. Even after being presented proof of his lies, he continues to spew them.

Here are the facts:

The name of the event was determined in PPD's modmail on Feb 6th. AMA-TRP DAY FEB 13th. PPD Mods were well aware it was one day only.
TGP is mistaken because I said "in the style of PPD's purge week." My intent was to copy the lawlessness in spirit, not in length.
We announced a week ahead of schedule with the phrase "AMA-TRP DAY" making it quite clear this was a single day event. You can review this evidence here.
If PPD mods were at all confused about this, they had a full week to address their concerns. They did not.
Neither of the threads were "pulled" as TGP misrepresents. We unstickied and locked them after the event was over. Here and Here
Our agreement was to host a rules-free thread and we did just that. No content was removed except for reddit rule-breaking or top level comments that weren't questions for TRP.
On the day-of, we decided to offer a Civil Debate thread (Sea of Civility) in conjunction with the lawless thread (Lion's Den), to address concerns some PPD users had that we would simply sling insults at them. The civil thread was launched with the rules that you must be civil to participate, "PARTICIPATION IN THIS THREAD MUST INCLUDE GOOD-FAITH ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS," that your participation would not result in a TRP-wide ban but that your comments can be removed if you break the rules.
TGP went into the civil debate thread and started goading users who took too long to respond:

"Certainly, just yesterday, all the mods and ECs were just bursting to tell me TRP was an error correcting system (going so far as to describe it as “science”, the best such system in existence).

Could you answer these questions for me ? Or do you decline to do so because you are unable or unwilling to do so today ? (Although this seems weird given your willingness yesterday)."

The mod team let it slide for a while, but we recognized that GOADING users wasn't acting in good faith, which requires generous interpretations of the opposition and requires you to assume the others are also acting in good faith. This did not occur with much of TGP's comments.

The Next Day

The next day I messaged the PPD mods and thanked them for their cooperation. Thought it was a pretty fun event, myself. A lot of interesting topics and for the most part no big rule breakers (except for one dude who went straight for doxxing).

Since the event was over, one of my mods banned TGP. Their instructions were to keep the event live for one day only.

The PPD mods responded that they thought it was supposed to last longer, I said that I'd let the threads stay up until they burn out on their own. Reading the conversation that took place gives you a much different perspective than what TGP would have you believe.

At that point I unbanned TGP and apologized for the confusion, and told him we were extending the ban amnesty until the threads die out.

The Civil Thread

We had to remove a few comments from this thread for being uncivil, such as /u/littleknownfacts saying:

I am thoroughly convinced sado is retarded. Like short bus, helmet, the whole 9 yards.

And one of our own (Metalgear222) saying:

How bout I answer with my big important shiny dick and say he very clearly states his stance is that TRP can’t be proven scientifically because of all the nuance and grey area related to it.

But most of the comments were just fine and didn't break any rules. And most of the comments that were removed were self-deleted by the authors. I do not know why, we do not have control over that.

The final straw on the camel's back was when TGP decided to get into this dumb spat with some guy. Neither were making good faith arguments, neither were being civil. Both could have been fine in the Lion's Den, but they were both removed from the Civil thread. Yes, that guy was being a dick, but TGP egged him on.

We told TGP to stop participating in the Civil thread and told him he's more than welcome to post to his heart's desire in the Lion's Den. Which he clearly declined, and opted instead to come here and tell everybody we reneged on our deal and that we all ran away scared of his awesome debating techniques. The Lion's Den was always available to him, he just didn't want to.

Closing Time

After the posts died down to fewer than 3 comments within the past few hours, we locked them and removed sticky. According to our MOD LOGS HERE IS WHEN:

Fri Feb 15 22:47:09 2019 UTC

They were live for about 2 and a half days. TGP lies again when he suggests they happened in the middle of the night. Not from the USA they didn't.

TGP knew that the posts would be locked after it died down. Our mod team wasn't certain we could really keep an eye on it over the weekend anyhow. Looking through 1,000+ comments in a single thread for any new possible rule-breaking comments is hard work and we aren't exactly on great terms with reddit admin anyway. So better safe than sorry.

In conclusion:

Almost every detail of this event has been falsified by TGP.

That said I think almost everybody except TGP had a fun time and we'd invite you all back for another round some time.

[–]N0blesse0blige1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

How did you define your civility rule ? You didn't. Other than "What RPS decides is uncivil is uncivil" so far as I can see.

Our members ... including Noblesse... can decide themselves whether you were either

a) Fairly moderating an undefined civility rule

b) Moderating it unfairly to give your mods/ECs an advantage in debate

They've got eyes. They're clever guys (well, most of them). They're not idiots, certainly.

You've now linked the comments you considered uncivil. Looks like you had LKF bang to rights. I'm assuming you included LKF because you couldn't actually find anything I said that was uncivil and therfore needed to bolster your extremely thin justification. LKF can answer for her comment, but I'd have certainly modded that away as uncivil.

THAT is exactly what an uncivil comment looks like. You know none of mine do.

You didn't define the civility rule. Therfore they have to decide themselves if they believe the comments you deleted were uncivil.

You might also want to have a look at this comment. We'd appreciate it if you gave us a screenshot of the exact moment your team issued me a ban.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/eguaeod/

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll just warn you that when confronted with any of these details, he just kept repeating himself - over and over, hoping to make his points true through sheer force.

I think that at the end of the day the best indicator of who is telling the truth is whose interpretation of events doesn't require mind reading...

For instance in the OP he states:

As far as I can see they did so first by "deleting their own ECs answers when they thought the ECs answers made TRP look like fools"

Even if it were true that we removed EC answers for anything but rule breaking (we didn't), how do you come to the conclusion that's what we were thinking when we did it? It sure fits his narrative nicely. But you'd have to know what is in our minds to make such a claim about our motivations.

Just a paragraph or two before this extraordinary claim, he claims "They haven't communicated to us directly at all." But now he also knows what we're thinking? Very curious.

Of course that's a blatant lie as well. I've been in contact with them via modmail. They're free to respond.

banning people asking questions they found too difficult

Did we find the questions too difficult? You would have to read my mind to make such a claim, given that I have never said anything of the sort- nor have I read anybody on TRP's side making this claim.

Once again, fits his narrative nicely, but you'd have to read minds to know somebody's motivation and internal thought process.

If the truth were on his side, why resort to mind reading?

when they realised that it was obvious to any observer this is exactly what they were doing they did so by "Crying uncle, unstickying and locking their threads, and taking their ball and going home with a big pouty flounce

Is this a realization we've had? Does he have some insight into my thought process I'm unaware of?

Once again- mind reading. The colourful language definitely paints a nice picture though, doesn't it? It paints a picture of overgrown man children who got overwhelmed by his masterful debate skills and then ran away when the going got tough.

But if that were true, why would we be here clarifying what happened? I thought we ran away. Which is it? He doesn't make this clear because he's not telling you the truth. He's weaving a narrative to bolster his position as the red pill diety on PPD.

But he also used the word "squirming" in reference to my analysis of the events. The only people I've seen using that phrase are straight from TBP. Methinks you've got a troll masquerading as a red-piller doing as he pleases on the PPD mod team.

I could go on and on- he does this quite a bit. Even in this thread. But I think you get the picture. He makes extraordinary claims about our motivations and thoughts, but consider to yourself- would he actually know these things without reading minds?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, and seeing as RPS is doing timings... and has now identified what he deemed as incivility... I can finally give the timings I can get for that event

Here is the timings of my ban as it was applied...

23:08:18 - Last comment in chain they claim was uncivil.

Next Day: 10:10:58 - TGP Asked next question

Next Day: 13:35:31 - TRP Mod replied to my 2nd question

Next Day: 13:42:09 - TRP Mod made comment "You were warned" and is presumably the moment they banned me.

I no longer have the ban message (if I ever received one). But it is clear the ban was contemperaneous with the mod answering my question, in an attempt to prevent my reply, and not with any incivility.

They wanted to reply... and prevent me from replying in turn. So they replied, and immediately banned me after doing so.

This is not the actions of mods moderating a debate fairly. As I am sure you can understand, and was another example of that they reneged on their agreement to mod the debate fairly.

I then put this edit: On my question...

EDIT: Hi RedForEducation. I have noticed that you’ve replied. However you or another mod have disabled my ability to reply to your post or participate further in this debate.

I have no “reply” button on this post or on yours.

The PPD mod team were assured by RPS that participation here was open to all, as a free and honest debate, and modly powers would not be abused or used at all where the debate remained civil.

It appears you (or another mod) are abusing their powers in order to prevent a civil debate taking place and instead trying to create a situation where you “answer” a comment without addressing any points within it, then prevent further discussion by restricting that members access.

Have I hurt your fee fees ? Perhaps I have offended you and so because you were offended you are no longer able to think rationally and engage with the truth that is on offer. I doubt this is the case, because you are TRP ECs and Mods and so, I had assumed, above such emotional responses.

A fair debate can still take place. Remove the restriction on my commenting and I will in turn delete this edit to sallow open debate once more

Just why are you cutting off debate ? Surely you can justify TRPs position perfectly well. I look forward to discussing it.

If it helps, I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I will be more considerate of them in future.

It was only after doing so that RPS "explained" that my ban was a "mistake" and that his team thought the debate was over... but he had corrected them that he agreed the debate was still ongoing as he had agreed with us in modmail to resolve the confusion.

They stated my ban was because I had been uncivil.

He has now linked the comments, as you can see nothing I said was uncivil. Although I had quoted Lewis back to himself making uncivil comments to me. As you can also see, the ban was done at the exact moment appropriate to prevent my replying, and nowhere near the time they claimed I was uncivil (it was 14 hours between those comments and my ban.... but only 7m, approx, between the mods reply and my ban).

The PPD mod team were concerned there mods were doing this (replying and then banning to prevent a response) to other users that did not have the recourse I did to get their ban reversed.

We considered this another example of bad faith modding on their part.

I am sure you would agree, that had PPD mods done this to you in a debate (replied, then banned you so you could not reply in turn) you would consider this unfair modding. And modding designed to give that mod an unfair advantage in debate.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry Noblesse,

Just spotted RPS exposing his rationale as being a bit "wonky" another way...

From his comment above....

RPS saying he locked the threads due to lack of activity

The PPD mods responded that they thought it was supposed to last longer, I said that I'd let the threads stay up until they burn out on their own.

and

After the posts died down to fewer than 3 comments within the past few hours, we locked them and removed sticky.

RPS explaining why he had to close the debate...

Our mod team wasn't certain we could really keep an eye on it over the weekend anyhow. Looking through 1,000+ comments in a single thread for any new possible rule-breaking comments is hard work and we aren't exactly on great terms with reddit admin anyway.

I.e. He appears to have "closed the threads for inactivity" as he stated he had agreed to only remove them once inactive.... and he did so in the end because the threads "were too active to moderate effectively over a weekend."

One of those two things would seem to be incorrect to me.

It seems to me he knew perfectly well the debate was going to continue, and was anticipating lots of comments to moderate over the weekend, and he knew we intended to continue debating.

However he locked them anyway... for some reason... and his stated reason was the "inactivity" despite seemingly ALSO somehow "expecting it to continue all weekend at a high level of activity." as he also believed we were going to continue debating. As I've previously stated, and he has yet to deny despite you asking him a straight question on it, he did so without any consultation with the PPD mods he had the agreement with.

Not sure how he can square this one.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

OK, I'll reply to you... because you were promised a reply.

The name of the event was determined in PPD's modmail on Feb 6th. AMA-TRP DAY FEB 13th.

This is true. I have already addressed this elsewhere on this thread. This was after the handshake agreement before which RPS had only mentioned a week.

TGP is mistaken because I said "in the style of PPD's purge week." My intent was to copy the lawlessness in spirit, not in length.

That may have been RPS's intent. But the PPD mod team... not just myself... discussed this and agreed on the basis that he had repeatedly stated week. We shook hands on that basis.

We announced a week ahead of schedule with the phrase "AMA-TRP DAY" making it quite clear this was a single day event.

We also announced a week before, describing it as an open debate week. RPS did not correct us on this either. This is here https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/anvkfa/announcement_burning_straw_man_festival_21319/

/r/theredpill has invited the users of PPD to participate in a week long AMA session on their sub starting 2/13/19.

This was written by LKF, not me. And shows that at the time the PPD mod team still considered we had the deal we had handshook on with RPS.

I accept, and have done through this thread, that there were confused messages at this point.

If PPD mods were at all confused about this, they had a full week to address their concerns. They did not.

If RPS was confused by our announcement of a week long festival he had a week to address his concerns, he did not.

Neither of the threads were "pulled" as TGP misrepresents. We unstickied and locked them after the event was over.

At the end of Day 1 he sent us a modmail saying "The Day is over, it was fun".

We replied we had considered it to be a week. THIS is the point the confusion came to light.

We discussed this with RPS. And RPS agreed with us at this point that "He would leave the threads up" whilst there was still activity. We agreed to resolve the confusion.

Not only did he communicate this to us in modmail he did it in public on our PPD announcement thread..

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/aq8dx5/the_burning_strawman_debate_is_open/egj5jmk/

Specifically the mistake was that the mods were under the impression that amnesty was for one day only. But we've made the decision to leave the threads live as long as they're active, and not all of them got this message.

Here he shares the new agreement we made, to end the confusion above.

Our agreement was to host a rules-free thread and we did just that. No content was removed except for reddit rule-breaking or top level comments that weren't questions for TRP.

Here is redpilschool telling us, in public on PPD, that he was removing any comments he took as incivility or bad faith

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/aq8dx5/the_burning_strawman_debate_is_open/egjsxxj/

If TGP claims this "breaks the assurances we've given" it does not. The rule "arguments and rebuttals must be made in good faith" implies that arguments that are not will be removed.

He stated to us multiple times he was removing any comment he considered either "uncivil" by his own terms he did not define... or in "bad faith" by his own terms he did not define. It is on the basis of these statements that we began to believe he was moderating unfairly with respect to non-TRP commenters.

On the day-of, we decided to offer a Civil Debate thread (Sea of Civility) in conjunction with the lawless thread (Lion's Den), to address concerns some PPD users had that we would simply sling insults at them. The civil thread was launched with the rules that you must be civil to participate, "PARTICIPATION IN THIS THREAD MUST INCLUDE GOOD-FAITH ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS," that your participation would not result in a TRP-wide ban but that your comments can be removed if you break the rules.

This is true. RPS never defined those rules and removed comments repeatedly for incivility and bad faith.

As you know, if we do so on PPD we are always happy to link anyone to the comments we considered uncivil and explain why they were.

RPS has been asked to link me to my uncivil comments multiple times.

TGP went into the civil debate thread and started goading users who took too long to respond:

TGP came back to PPD and made some remarks on OUR thread that the TRP ECs were not responding.

There is nothing I did on the TRP thread that was in any way uncivil, by anything approximating our incivility rule. RPS removed comments anyway.

TGP: Certainly, just yesterday, all the mods and ECs were just bursting to tell me TRP was an error correcting system (going so far as to describe it as “science”, the best such system in existence).

TGP: Could you answer these questions for me ? Or do you decline to do so because you are unable or unwilling to do so today ? (Although this seems weird given your willingness yesterday)."

NoblesseOblige... Do you consider either of these uncivil ? Would you expect our mod team to mod away these comments as being uncivil ?

If we removed comments above like that made by YOU "stating they were uncivil so required removal" or were "bad faith" would you consider us to be unbalncing the debate and imposing arbitary rules to remove normal comments we "just didn't like" ?

The mod team let it slide for a while, but we recognized that GOADING users wasn't acting in good faith, which requires generous interpretations of the opposition and requires you to assume the others are also acting in good faith. This did not occur with much of TGP's comments.

Again, RPS has created his own version of a rule "bad faith" where the definition is "What RPS considers bad faith". Do you (or other PPD regulars) consider those linked excerpts of my comments uncivil ?

It is precisely these actions our mod team (not just me, the team) took as RPS unbalancing the debate.

The new agreement modmail

Yes, this is as I described earlier. We remained on friendly terms. We were confused RPS had decided to end it after a day.

We realised there had been a confusion earlier between our "week long" sticky and RPSs "day long sticky".

We sought to find a resolution on good terms. RPS agreed to keep the thread up as long as it was active.

At that point I unbanned TGP and apologized for the confusion, and told him we were extending the ban amnesty until the threads die out.

Which we agreed, and I thanked RPS for...

We had to remove a few comments from this thread for being uncivil, such as /u/littleknownfacts ....I am thoroughly convinced sado is retarded. Like short bus, helmet, the whole 9 yards.

This is definitely uncivil. We would have removed it too. No problem here, I am sure you will agree Noblesse.

But most of the comments were just fine and didn't break any rules. And most of the comments that were removed were self-deleted by the authors. I do not know why, we do not have control over that.

They were deleted by his mods and ECs. He could just ask them why, or they could come here and tell us why. They declined to do so.

The final straw on the camel's back was when TGP decided to get into this dumb spat with some guy. Neither were making good faith arguments, neither were being civil.

Noblesse, please read that screenshot and tell me where I was being uncivil.

/u/redpillschool can you please provide the start of that conversation that you cut off. I think Noblesse and any others should see the full chain. Not just your selected bit.

After the posts died down to fewer than 3 comments within the past few hours, we locked them and removed sticky. According to our MOD LOGS HERE IS WHEN: Fri Feb 15 22:47:09 2019 UTC

I had been unable to see when they took them down. Only that is was after I had commented last and gone to bed.

I'd like a screenshot of the modlog here because of RPS bad faith elsehwhere. But I will accept (for now) that he's describing the time correctly.

There was still activity on the thread. We had agreed that they would continue whilst there was activity. I had planned further activity in the morning, and other PPD members were planning to continue the debate.

RPS pulled at this point unilaterally, without giving us a friendly "Time to close them down" as he had before. Without giving us a chance to say "But we want to continue" or without giving us a chance to "give him some activity".

He waited for a slack period, and pulled.

TGP knew that the posts would be locked after it died down. Our mod team wasn't certain we could really keep an eye on it over the weekend anyhow. Looking through 1,000+ comments in a single thread for any new possible rule-breaking comments is hard work and we aren't exactly on great terms with reddit admin anyway.

Its hard to see how a 1000+ comment thread is being removed for being inactive. PPD threads never reach this level of activity. Certainly not after only 2 days. That would have counted, very much, to the PPD mod team as an active thread.

Which RPS would have been told had he spoken to us before pulling unilaterally.

Almost every detail of this event has been falsified by TGP.

Please see above. I have always stated our opinion of the matter clearly.

That said I think almost everybody except TGP had a fun time and we'd invite you all back for another round some time.

If we are asked. I will certainly be a vote on the mod team for doing this again. I'd want ceddit access next time. And I'd want RPS to define "bad faith" for sure.

Unfortunately, RPSs behaviour has not been taken well by the PPD mod team. I am not the only mod who has found his behaviour disengenious, nor who believes he broke his agreements multiple times. Right now, no mod team member is defending him.

Although I will be a vote in favour. I suspect any recurrence will be voted down given the views mods have expressed in modmail concerning RPSs actions and the fairness of his modding.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

For those of you who thought the win condition was "learning something new about RP" and/or "changing some minds over on TRP, or in a wider audience" and/or "having some fun debating RP with some people knowledgable about RP"....I'm sorry to say it looks like we "lost". But only because it appears the TRP Mods pulled, handing the "win" condition to those above.

I disagree, I think its very clear that TRP doesnt represent the ideology it prescripts to and is acting as an authoritarian stronghold, MRP and PPD more likely do. TRP is eating itself much like "the left".

MRP takes the information, makes action plans, follows the same formula, is less toxic and isnt telling people to go psychopathic; just shut up listen, or stop rewarding bad behaviors (with hows).

PPD ties up some logical loose ends peacefully.

TRP's behavior is extremely childish by not keeping commitments, (thats just unmanly).

As others pointed out I think it is generational, TRP was filled with angry young men, the men that learned something moved on. The men that did not stayed and it became a fight club style echo chamber. The material in all the books is not found in TRP's behavior with the exception of the 48 rules of power which has nothing to do with sex or relationships and everything about the self destructive behaviors seen in that sub.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If you’re interested in hearing the other side, which RPS failed to link, that’s here...

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/egsjlyd/

... I represent the PPD mod view of these same events.

Please note that I am linking you in at the point you can see both sides arguments presented fairly side by side, as is appropriate for someone trying to discuss an issue fairly.

Unlike RPS I am not linking you in at the point where you can only see his arguments, and where my arguments are excluded.

If you’d like to skip that and go straight to my direct rebuttal it’s here, as it appears low down in that chain.

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/egu8h4c/

Personally I think the most telling example of the deception he is trying to pull is exposed by the comment he linked about why he pulled the debate... I outline clearly here in a short comment where what he said about his reason for pulling was inconsistent with his own words in the same comment.

This is perhaps the most striking example of how he can’t keep his story straight...

https://en.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/egubvb2/

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	TRP Debate - Debrief Thread
Author	-TheGreasyPole-
Upvotes	32
Comments	251
Date	February 17, 2019 10:23 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/arjdus/trp_debate_debrief_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/trp-debate-debrief-thread.257152 https://theredarchive.com/post/257152