[Report] Continued baiting

[Ballotonia]

After Arch applied the newspaper here, asking us to stop baiting, I've done my best to keep a cool head and avoid baiting (which I didn't intend to do in the first place). My debating counterpart does not seem to have made the same attempt.

I've underlined what I feel is continued baiting.

I'm confused, are you saying that international observers shouldn't be present in order to confirm that the election was not fair and free if Dobkin remains detained? Are you saying that irregularities ahead of an election should lead to international observers staying away completely? Because if that's what you're saying, it seems odd that you seem to think it would be perfectly fine for observers to only be allowed to be present during the day of the election in Crimea, and not to look at what happened ahead of the election there.

I'm saying that if you want to pretend that your election has some semblance of Democracy, you have to let the candidates conduct their campaigns. You cannot jail someone who's got a chance of beating you. The election in Crimea, since you seem confused, I'll clarify, is about a referendum. No one is actually running. I know it's difficult to tell the difference between a referendum and actual people running, but I'm sure you can manage to do so, Gravlen!

Is this of significance? Are you saying that it is bad and undemocratic if you lock up candidates before elections in which actual people are running, but it's perfectly fine to threaten, beat, lock up and 'disappear' activists, as well as only allowing a one-sided campaign to run, if it's only a referendum?

And you haven't clarified if you think international observers should refuse to be present on the 25th of may, and if you think being present only on the 25th of may, disregarding anything happening before that day, would be sufficient.

Yes, it's quite significant to know what you're voting on, i.e. people or proposals. And no, I'm not saying that either one's stellar democracy. Do you actually have a quote of me claiming that Crimea is a stellar democracy? I said that it's hard to invite people who don't want to come. Anyways, what I am saying, (that you're deliberately ignoring as it doesn't fit your needs,) is that you cannot have democracy if you're jailing the guy in the running, only serious candidate from Eastern Ukraine, who can beat you. That's all I initially said. Again you're deliberately twisting my words, and bringing in things that are completely irrelevant in an utterly pathetic attempt to attack me.

I didn't mention Crimea. You deviously brought that into the equation. However, in terms of Crimea, I never said that it was going to be a model referendum. But, apparently, in Gravlen's eyes, if anyone dares to so much as suggest that one shouldn't consider elections where someone who could actually win is jailed as legitimate, is worthy to be discredited, and someone who dares to suggest that an independent investigation be held into the Maidan shootings, must be constantly spammed with legalese...

So with this post, what you were actually saying is that observers don't want to come to the election in Ukraine on the 25th of May, because they don't think that said elections are legitimate? If that's the correct understanding of your post, I'd like to see a source.

The post where you responded "so?" to someone suggesting that a political party might be banned? Gravlen for democracy, ban political parties!

Yes, quite deviously. And dashingly, don't forget dashingly.

I don't consider five year old tactics to be dashing. It's why I picked a forum that's rated PG-13.

I'm sorry, you're simply not making any sense here. You should go back and re-read my posts, because it seems like you've missed... well, quite a lot, actually.

When I asked for an independent investigation into the Maidan shootings, you responded with legalese spam. When I said: Ohh, right, because it's totally cool the jail the presidential candidate who runs, as long as he's from Eastern Ukraine: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukrain ... 38993.html solely in response to you switching to your talking point about the Ukranian elections taking place on the 25th of May. There's no indications that international observers won't come to that one you deviously brought Crimea into the equation with your next response:

Since you're confused, here are the two previous posts on that:

Ohh, right, because it's totally cool the jail the presidential candidate who runs, as long as he's from Eastern Ukraine: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukrain ... 38993.html

I guess "We're talking about the Ukranian elections taking place on the 25th of May" really means "right now I'll talk about it, but if you respond just to this part, I'll bring in whatever the fuck I want, no matter how irrelevant, and then proceed to quote you out of context" in Gravlenese.

And since I did say that I'll fully discredit any debating tactics that are used against me, I'll just go ahead and discredit this one. It's called the switcheroo, where you constantly switch between your talking points, in an effort to confuse your opponent, while trying to make it look like he's debating with himself, in desperate hopes that he won't remember all of your points. Yes Gravlen, your points aren't very valuable, and I don't remember them all, (and probably won't remember any of them fairly soon,) but it's an online forum, where your posts stay. So I can *gasps* look them up! Anyways, here's a simpler example of that tactic:

I can already predict his response. "I was specifically talking about the observers," (after all, he's trying to deflect attention from the initial post mentioned above,) "and there were observes in both, and the Sun also shines over both places, so it's like totally relevant!" Well, he might omit the part about the Sun. Let's go back to his original post, something he's not quite going to enjoy:

The 'illegal' argument does get us somewhere, and as for the counter argument, well, that can be solved by holding free and fair elections with international observers on the ground - not foreign troops - making sure things are carried out in accordance with democratic standards.

Of course now that he made that post, he's got a little problem, like arrest of the only seriousEastern Ukrainian candidate. But I'm sure he'll do the most he can to avoid this question, or claim that he doesn't disagree with it, or bring in his little qualified from above, i.e. the "if things went as I outlined" one.

Lame tactic is lame. Next!

There is a long history of this, and it's getting a bit tiresome.

Well, what exactly defines an independent judiciary? There's different ways of defining it, but two basic characteristics make up the foundation of this concept: Impartiality and freedom from interference.

You were talking about degrees earlier. So how does "freedom from interference" have degrees? Or are we talking about skateboarding now? Oh, wait a sec, it's Gravlen weaseling out. Initially he stated that, and I quote:

If the judiciary was truly independent and did its job upholding the rule of law, upholding the Russian Constitution and protecting human rights, Putin wouldn't be able to take on the role of dictator. The people would be protected by the judiciary, which would safeguard democracy.

Since it's not independent, and we see politically motivated prosecutions happening, that safeguard is gone and Putin has moved Russia a step towards becoming a dictatorship.

but now he realized how utterly bullshitty that was, and he's going to change his argument. Move the goalposts. Weasel out. Now the argument is going to be all about how Putin is moving the judiciary in the wrong direction. So according to Gravlen's Theorem, some that never existed can actually be gone if it suits your argument. Let's give him a sarcastic round of applause for that

I kinda do. I think it should be subject to judicial review, and I find that blocking the Wikipedia page on Cannabis and the sites featuring the cartoon “Dumb Ways to Die” (including YouTube) is problematic.

That's nice dear, but your opinion doesn't really matter

As you see, the quote highlights several issues beyond the crackdown on homosexual rights. In fact, you can remove the part about 'gay propaganda' and what it says is still alarming. It's probably convenient to overlook that, but...

Also, I note that you don't disagree with anything in this quote, yet still seem to maintain that this has no effect on freedom of expression in Russia.

Nice strawman there Gravlen. *throws yet another kibble treat* I didn't actually say that it has no effect on freedom of expression. I did say that it's potential negative effect, when compared to other positive developments, such as Internet users multiplying twenty fold, is small. Additionally, I was curious though, as to which websites were actually blocked. Unlike you, I tried doing actual research, not just taking what someone said for granted, and the number of blocked sites was rather small when compared to the overall numbers of websites. Less than one percent. The biggest scandal was blocking of Lurkmore, (which I didn't support, nor did quite a few Russians,) and after instructions on how to make drugs were removed, the website was unblocked.

At this point, I'd like to apologize to those in Russia if you read Gravlen's travesty. Oh yeah, this website isn't banned in Russia, because the mods crack down on racism, drug making and child pornography. I've deleted the crap that followed, since the numbers, which were central to my argument, were addressed. Once again Gravlen, I must remind you that my argument was about improvement in Human Rights under Putin, or improvement between 1999/2000 until today, as compared to what was going on between 1881 and 1998/1999. You are more than welcome to pretend that it's something else, and I'll throw you a kibble treat every time you do.

This post was made by Gravlen who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Hopefully that wasn't a reply to me, as I'm sure that a mature individual isn't going to reply to someone who told that they're on the ignore list, only to gloat about victory over "defeating" someone who ignores them on an online forum.

[Shofercia]

When I placed you on my ignore list, you continued to respond to my posts. When I pointed out that you're on my ignore list, and should stop gloating, your reported me for baiting. You were told by the mods that it wasn't actionable. Recently, you've baited me, and then reported me for baiting you. Specifically you took this quote:

Look, I asked for an unbiased investigation. Instead of suggesting a manner in which to carry it out, your response was "UNSC shouldn't do it, and here's why I think Russia sucks". So, do you have any suggestions for how this investigation can be carried out in an unbiased manner? Because the "Big Three" certainly cannot be trusted to be unbiased. If you do, please respond. If you don't, please don't, because I'll simply ignore that response and move on. I care much more about actually knowing what happened, than about some debate with some poster. So if you want to help that, please do. Otherwise, know that I won't care what your response is.

quoted this part out of context: here's why I think Russia sucks

and responded to that:

and here's why I think Russia sucks".

While you're right that Russia does suck for their illegal invation in contravention of international law, that's not the point. My statement about how there were no justifications for Russia's actions was germane to my point about why it was unlikely that we'd see a UN investigation.

You've been baiting me before, and proceeded to report me for baiting in the response to quote, but Archie let it go: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=286958

Shofercia is clearly guilty of quote editing.

But you clearly selectively quoted his post to ascribe to him a position he didn't hold here:

While you're right that Russia does suck for their illegal invation in contravention of international law, that's not the point. My statement about how there were no justifications for Russia's actions was germane to my point about why it was unlikely that we'd see a UN investigation.

When you write "reading my post it should be clear that the bit about "why I think Russia sucks" is the position he ascribes to me", that isn't clear at all.

What it looks like is you deliberately and misleadingly quoting from Shofercia to make it look as if Shofercia is saying "here's why I think Russia sucks" because your very next statement is "you're right that Russia does suck".

If I warn him, I warn both of you.

What I actually suggest is that you both take a deep breath and stop baiting each other - which is what I'm going to write in the actual thread.

Despite Archie clearly saying: you clearly selectively quoted his post to ascribe to him a position he didn't hold and your "apology" to that end, you continued to ascribe positions to me that I don't hold. For instance, when you said:

We're talking about the Ukranian elections taking place on the 25th of May. There's no indications that international observers won't come to that one.

I responded with:

https://twitter.com/shustry/status/443149809940439040

East Ukraine's most powerful politician and presidential candidate Dobkin now in jail on separatism charges. Starting to smell of a purge

Yeah, wouldn't want someone who can kick Yats' butt actually running, that'd be totally undemocratic

And despite being warned by a moderator of ascribing to me positions that I don't hold, you responded with:

I'm confused, are you saying that international observers shouldn't be present in order to confirm that the election was not fair and free if Dobkin remains detained? Are you saying that irregularities ahead of an election should lead to international observers staying away completely? Because if that's what you're saying, it seems odd that you seem to think it would be perfectly fine for observers to only be allowed to be present during the day of the election in Crimea, and not to look at what happened ahead of the election there.

Knowing fully well that when you ascribe to me positions that I don't hold, that's going to frustrate me. That's known as baiting. You persisted in ascribing to me positions that I don't hold:

Is this of significance? Are you saying that it is bad and undemocratic if you lock up candidates before elections in which actual people are running, but it's perfectly fine to threaten, beat, lock up and 'disappear' activists, as well as only allowing a one-sided campaign to run, if it's only a referendum?

And you haven't clarified if you think international observers should refuse to be present on the 25th of may, and if you think being present only on the 25th of may, disregarding anything happening before that day, would be sufficient.

So after you didn't get your way with getting me warned, you continued to bait me, by starting your posts with "are you saying that..." and proceeding to ascribe positions to me that I had no idea I held!

You've also previously reported me for some of the stuff that you're quoting. And the mods asked you to stop baiting me. Asked us to stop baiting each other. Implied that we should've put each other on ignore lists. Asked us to deal with one another in a mature fashion. I could easily find more baiting posts on your behalf, but I'd rather let bygones be bygones. In terms of being the bigger man, I've placed you on my ignore list and you continued to deliberately respond to my posts.

If you don't want to respond to me, I have no issues with that. You want to place each other on ignore lists, I have no issues with that. But when you say "are you saying that..." and proceed to ascribe a position to me that I don't hold, (after being warned that's baiting,) when you responded "so?" to a party office getting ransacked, perhaps in an attempt to heat up the thread, you're the one who's been doing the baiting.

In response to other things that you've underlined, I thought that you've used a tactic against me, and I explained how here, which also provides the background context for some of the things that your reported me for:

And since I did say that I'll fully discredit any debating tactics that are used against me, I'll just go ahead and discredit this one. It's called the switcheroo, where you constantly switch between your talking points, in an effort to confuse your opponent, while trying to make it look like he's debating with himself, in desperate hopes that he won't remember all of your points. Yes Gravlen, your points aren't very valuable, and I don't remember them all, (and probably won't remember any of them fairly soon,) but it's an online forum, where your posts stay. So I can *gasps* look them up! Anyways, here's a simpler example of that tactic:

"Let's talk about point A"
"I think point A is xxx"
"Actually it's yyy, what do you think about point B?"
"Point is B is actually zzz"
"But that's not what you meant by point A!"
"I didn't mention point A in that response!"
"Sure you did, you said: I think point A is xxx"

Now let's see how Gravlen uses it in his posts:

Zebulor and Parti Ouvrier are talking about anti-annexation law vs anti-coup procedures. PO thinks that couping a democratically elected government can be just as bad as invading militarily.

But is [annexation] such a law a good law?

I don't know, but the 'illegal' argument doesn't get anybody anywhere, it just invites the counter argument that the coup government, with fascists in key positions is illegitimate, but this resolves nothing. Perhaps a federated solution for Ukraine could be made.

Enter Gravlen. Right off the bat he's going to try to tie in Crimea to the equation.

The 'illegal' argument does get us somewhere, and as for the counter argument, well, that can be solved by holding free and fair elections with international observers on the ground - not foreign troops - making sure things are carried out in accordance with democratic standards.

Got that? As long as there's an election to legitimize a coup, that's all cool. And with the "not foreign troops" line he deviously brings Crimea into the equation. The debate continues. PO tries to point out that the offices of the parties running were ramsacked, so it might not be quite democratic.

These elections are not until 25th May. Currently the Ukrainian government is the result of a coup, sadly, the Marxist left is too weak to do anything about it and the Stalinist Ukrainian Communist Party offices got ramsacked and occupied by fascist, anti-communist, anti-Polish, anti-Russian, anti-Semite nuts. And plans are in the pipeline to ban the Ukrainian Communist party, really democratic that. But nothing to worry about so long as its legal.

Gravlen responds in a manner that's caring and nurturing of democracy: "so?" Eh, your party offices got ramsacked, no biggie!

So?

As I said, it can be solved by holding free and fair elections with international observers on the ground - not foreign troops - making sure things are carried out in accordance with democratic standards. What would it matter if the elections are on the 25th of May if things went as I outlined?

But not the legalese qualifier: "as I outlined". This lets Gravlen fall back on the "well, that's clearly not how I outlined them to be" line. After all, who'd want to take responsibility for analyzing a real World situation, when you can just insert a qualifying line? Oh, right, actual analysts! At which point I respond with:

It's a bit hard to be observed internationally, if observers don't want to come, because they don't think that said elections are legitimate.

Note, I'm specifically talking about the elections where "observers don't want to come," i.e. in Crimea. There's no deception in my post. It's there in black and white. Gravlen responds, clearly showing that he's talking about the ones in Ukraine, on May 25th.

We're talking about the Ukranian elections taking place on the 25th of May. There's no indications that international observers won't come to that one.

So we're talking about the ones on May 25th:

Ohh, right, because it's totally cool the jail the presidential candidate who runs, as long as he's from Eastern Ukraine: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukrain ... 38993.html



https://twitter.com/shustry/status/443149809940439040



Yeah, wouldn't want someone who can kick Yats' butt actually running, that'd be totally undemocratic

Again, here I'm responding solely to the ones on May 25th. This refutes Gravlen's point about elections being democratic and all, and thus legitimitizing the alleged coup, so he deviously employs the switcheroo tactic.

I'm confused, are you saying that international observers shouldn't be present in order to confirm that the election was not fair and free if Dobkin remains detained? Are you saying that irregularities ahead of an election should lead to international observers staying away completely? Because if that's what you're saying, it seems odd that you seem to think it would be perfectly fine for observers to only be allowed to be present during the day of the election in Crimea, and not to look at what happened ahead of the election there.

Yep, Crimea's back in. It was out, and now it's in. So when I call Gravlen out on that, he responds with: "but you mentioned Crimea earlier, blah, blah, blah".

I can already predict his response. "I was specifically talking about the observers," (after all, he's trying to deflect attention from the initial post mentioned above,) "and there were observes in both, and the Sun also shines over both places, so it's like totally relevant!" Well, he might omit the part about the Sun. Let's go back to his original post, something he's not quite going to enjoy:

The 'illegal' argument does get us somewhere, and as for the counter argument, well, that can be solved by holding free and fair elections with international observers on the ground - not foreign troops - making sure things are carried out in accordance with democratic standards.

Of course now that he made that post, he's got a little problem, like arrest of the only seriousEastern Ukrainian candidate. But I'm sure he'll do the most he can to avoid this question, or claim that he doesn't disagree with it, or bring in his little qualified from above, i.e. the "if things went as I outlined" one.

Lame tactic is lame. Next!

It's spoilered for convenience.

[Gravlen]

1. What actually happened that lead to Arch applying the newspaper can be seen here. No warnings were handed out.

2. In the most recent exchanges I was not ascribing to you positions that you didn't hold, I was asking you questions in order to ascertain what your position was.

3. I have no problems debating you, and that's why I haven't placed you on ignore. I'm simply getting tired of the baiting.

4. The only thing I've previously reported is this one: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=276893

[The Archregimancy]

3. I have no problems debating you, and that's why I haven't placed you on ignore.

Bad idea.

I suggest both of you take a deep breath and stop replying to each other for a couple of months.

This is getting as tiresome for me as it's no doubt getting for both of you.