losesomehonor/gainsomehonor/gainsomhomor are all the same person, and He/She uses gainsomhomor to illegally pump up the other two personas wins ratio.
Adam the Great said 09/28, 10:50 AM
Whoever this person is, he constantly starts pretend debates, either between losesomehonor and gainsomhomor or between gainsomehonor and gainsomhomor. If you notice on the leaderboard, these two have a ton of wins. And if you look at gainsomhomor, you'll notice he has a ton of losses, all to... gainsoehonor and losesomehonor. Also, If you need further proof, go to "And the winner is..." and scroll back until you start to see where gainsomehonor and losesomehonor start winning. They only win against gainsomhomor.
Also, He/she uses gainsomhomor to say absolutely filthy stuff on a website that prohibits it and has no place for it. He should be kicked off immediately for such abuse of this site.
Tickers said 09/28, 01:25 PM
I've accepted this debate partly to point out the fact that you are wrong.
Gainsomehonor is probably not the same person as losesomehonor, since he appeared on this website back in May and used a ghost account called 'womenequality' to fix their way to the top. Gainsomehonor also never used profanity as losesomehonor did.
The second reason for accepting is that I really get irritated by this sort of debates; since every few weeks someone seems to believe that they are the first to notice the vote rigging that has occurred on this website.
Trust me - we know.
We know that the leaderboard is rubbish and probably shouldn't exist.
We know that people cheat and that they shouldn't.
We know that there is no moderation on this site and that there should be.
But also we know that none of these flaws is corrected by creating debates that simply point out the obvious or discuss the occasional internet troll who is best left ignored. This topic is neither new nor interesting, and really it isn't even one that can be debated, as I think there's universal agreement that bad people are bad.
Cheers,
Tickers
Adam the Great said 09/28, 08:32 PM
Maybe there is, but talking is the first step towards fixing something. And the fact is, all the evidence stacks up to show that this person does this. And we can make a choice here and now to shun this person out of membership. That's the real purpose of this debate.
And if you need proof of this person doing this, do as I said and go to "And the winner is..." and scroll back a ways. What he does is wrong and must be stopped. You can just say "there's universal agreement that bad people are bad." or you will give way to a broken window effect that will ruin this website for those who take solice in it's use as a safe haven for furious political thought.
Tickers said 09/29, 06:25 AM
Exactly how does someone shun a person who does not interact with anyone on this forum?
Gainsomehonor and Losesomehonor were internet trolls who turned up, posted a lot of spam and then disappeared again. Other than a name on the leaderboard and the archive of their spam they effectively do not exist on this website any more.
You are embarking on a moral crusade against someone who isn't there, which is a rather strange exercise.
These people are no longer ruining the website since they are no longer here and can easily be ignored. What continues to stop this website from being a "safe haven for furious political thought" is the creation of debates such as this that are not political and cannot be debated because they simply point out that bad people are bad.
If you want a better website then e-mail time, if you want better debates then post something of quality and wherever you go on the internet always ignore the internet trolls. Your creation here fails to do any of these things.
Adam the Great said 09/29, 07:23 AM
How do you figure that this isn't political? This is only a "useless debate" if your view of politics is limited to the national stage. What we are discussing is a moral issue. And I disagree with the statement that gain/lose is gone. As long as he remains on the leaderboard, he is here. As long as he is thought of by the people who don't know what he did as an excellent debater, he remains. And he could come back at any time. If he does, we must shun him.
How might we go about that? Well, we can simply not vote at all on his debates. That might stymie him. Or we could neglect any challenges he presents. If they go unused, they will disapear.
This website is to be a great haven of political thought and we can stop it from being ruined.
Tickers said 09/30, 06:40 PM
I remain confused by your continued assertion that we should shun someone who doesn't exist. These people are not going to come back and use those accounts to interact with the community here, if they want to debate they will simply create another account and nobody will know the difference.
You have not created a moral debate here, simply expressed moral outrage. Your opening argument is a simple statement of fact that no rational person can actually disagree with and as such has no actual value as a debate; I may as well post Pythagoras' theorum.
As for the danger of new users being awed by the leaderboard; I wonder what the danger is. I would hope that people actually respect other users for the quality of the arguments they use rather than some meaningless number, and since these ghost accounts make no arguments their ability to sway newbies is somewhat limited.
However since you claim it is so important - I wonder if after you have won this debate and it drops off the front page, will you recreate it in order to protect people from being too impressed by the leader board because we assume that they are incapable of spending two minutes to check the history of their heroes?
Comments
Add Your Comment
This is random, but where is DEADPRESIDENTS? We need him now more than ever. He deserves to be the true leader on the leader board.
jpobama | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
It's happened before. About three or four months ago some idiot named stee_theliberal had at least one ghost account that he used to win debates. When confronted about it he forfieted a debate simply to remove himself from the leaderboards.
Miral150 | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
If you go down the page and you see the word TIME, click on their privacy policy. They have an e-mail to contact them for questions.
jpobama | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
They are the same person. if you look at the recent forfeited debates between gainsome/losesome with all the cussing and whatnot, losesome's replies and forfeits are exactly one minute apart from gainsome's first argument on every single "debate". he was obviously logged in at the same time on two different browser screens and they all take place one right after the other, right after the other ect...
breakthecycle | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think half of the debates started on this web site are boring and un-intellectually stimulating. All I ever see on here our about old/stupid polotics. The media debates these issues into the ground and we just conntinue them on this site. I for one am not. If anyone is wanting to actually talk policy i will be waiting!!!!!
NewAgeJacobin | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Bring it on, man. I think your right. If you want policy talk, challenge me. But for now, this is probably an issue we can be almost uniform on.
Adam the Great | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ok NewAgeJacobin challenge me to a debate on any topic that you see fit, I'm waiting
theunsaid | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think this sites lack of a neutral reviewer hurts it a lot. There could also me some automation tools to scan for likely cheaters.
CommonSense76 | 09/29/08
Report Offensive Comment
An actual discussion forum would also be a nice feature... course with all the things we want TIME to add to this site why not create one of our own complete with all the things we want and know TIME wont deliver... just a thought haha...
xm4r5h4llx | 09/30/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ummm, Adam, you're shunning him by not voting on his debates? debates, which didn't even last a minute because he forfeited to himself? And for the record the three people you mention are not the same person and Dead Presidents has his own contested and contreversial history on this site.
MorgMcA | 09/30/08
Report Offensive Comment
DEADPRESIDENTS seems kind of suspicious, his arguments are not very well said or well thought out, I'm not sure if he is the real leader in debating. HAHAHAOHWOW has strong arguments, he seems to play fair, but he is not necessarily the best debater, he just won the most debates fairly. LOSESOMEHONOR/GAINSOMHOMOR/GAINSOMEHONOR/WOMENEQUALITY/Probably a bunch of other accounts obviously are cheating. In my opinion theandrewest is the best debater on this site, but he left. :(
SCai | 10/13/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Heartbreak in the Middle East
As the conflict unfolds in the Gaza Strip, the pain of loss is felt on both sides
( )
A Photo Album of Presidents and Their Children
As Malia and Sasha Obama arrive in Washington, they join a rarefied group of war heroes, authors, socialites and enfants terribles
(AP )
Tickers is right. I made the mistake when I started to debate gainsomehonor, Tickers told me about what was going on, and I understand now. What I think we should do with this useless debate is create into a forum in which we can find a way to contact the people that run this site to stop cheaters.
jpobama | 09/28/08
Report Offensive Comment