Y'know, like, current debating standards. 's easy to get away with presenting craploads of fallacies, mostly because invalidating given fallacies leaves less of an impression than making statements which are left unanswered. There's no risk in stating things, there is a serious risk in not being able to defend yourself. Of course, this implies a serious imbalance between offense and defense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
's like, appealing a ban for the sake of appealing: 's dangerous because it entirely circumvents the purpose of the appealing process, which is to protect users against unjustified and/or unwarranted banning. If for some reason people wish to exploit their (presumed) right to appeal by putting it into practice solely for the sake of argument, they're wasting people's time regardless of what the relevant administrators decide to do with the mentioned appeal. Hence, adding an option during the banning process which allows a moderator to make temporary bans not open to being appealed against would be administratively beneficial. Also, Alex.
About Alex
's like, I don't even actively think about her. All I'm doing is writing down her name during lectures so every once in a while, 's no more than actively putting emphasize on the fact that I really do, in fact,
unnecessarily care about her. So even though random third parties would conclude that I'm still obsessively in love with her, I'd deny just that. Despite me writing down her name on, literally, every page. Lately, I've been thinking about other women rather more often than about her: by now I've spent so much time thinking about her I'd have nothing else to ponder. Love and the rapture it tends to produce aren't inseparable, thank god they aren't.
Warmth wished,
~Chair