The precedent in Failure51 vs. RichardChill24 says that a candidates personal opinions are not allowed for attack adds.

with how the rule currently stands, it does not break it.

The precedent of failure51 vs. RichardChill24 says that the meme breaks it.

MorallyRighteous has no ties to here whatsoever.

If RichardChill24's personal opinions are not fair game. Than CSF's personal opinions are not fair game.

Who's?

My bad. I mixed up the various people IG attacked. Let me fix it: If RichardChill24's personal opinions are not fair game than EYM member's personal opinions are not fair game.

it wasn’t removed because it was personal opinion, it was removed because wut was from a fricking separate stream.

EYM Members' have personal opinions not related to this stream. Opinions of the BLM fall under that catagory.

oh.my.god. what does that have to with anything?!

He likes bringing up random, unrelated stuff to argue about so he can continue the quarrel for as long as possible. He is just so exhaustingly relentless and stubborn.

Someone's personal opinions that are not related to this stream are not fair game for attack adds.

you are so relentless it’s scary. no...no. it says “don’t make things personal” but it does not say don’t bring up irl politics. uve changed wut part of the rule he’s allegedly broken several times now this is ridiculous.

Here is the rule he broke: He made an attack add based on users' personal opinion.

He said that everyone in EYM supported terrorism. That is a personal and not fact based attack.

i need links to those images or something besides just saying that.

I think this meme and the comments in chat will show it: imgflip.com/i/56aevn

in the comments u link something from a different stream, which breaks the rule.

Yes and the current situation is similar.

no its not. he doesn't reference, link, or use a screenshot from a different stream.

IG has not done that

tell me when and where i changed the rules lol

Thank goodness you’re back. This guy is just so exhausting lol

thought he woulda given up by now...smh

I’ve quarrelled with him before. He’s stubborn as a mule and enjoys starting petty arguments with other users and even entire communities that drag on forever. He keeps fighting down to the bitter end. I’m starting to think it might be best to block him once this is all over, and I don’t do that often.

The rules changed between failure51 vs RichardChill24 and Omega_Void vs IncognitoGuy. The rules went from you can't make attack adds based on a candidates personal beliefs to you can make an attack add using a straw man of a candidates personal belief.

captain scar never changed the rule. therefore I continue to act as this rule says imgflip.com/i/4pfasz. if there was an important rule change regarding mudslinging he would've announced and/or changed the rule. but the rule hasn't changed since it was put into existence.

failure51 vs RichardChill24 established a precedent. The precedent should apply to Omega_Void vs IncognitoGuy

dude, u link something from a different stream.

My evidence was from a different stream. So was IG's lies.

i remember u

what did richard do

failure51 made attack adds saying he was homophobic. That was struck down under the mudslinging rules and this case is quite similar to that.

Um you're Failure51. What, are you gollum or something?

I was failure51. I just said it that way because I felt it could help me not inject my personal opinions into this matter.

Well it's a bit late for that. This whole thing is just a political attack. That's why you've been so desperate to make me drop out.

I no longer want you to drop out.

So what is it that you're so stubbornly fighting for?

I want you to delete the meme and apologize.

IG is a bit stubborn (Good bad way). Not gonna happen

lol

lmfao

So you've spent all that time and energy on this? Well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think I will. Hopefully this can be a lesson for you.

I did learn a lesson. The stream doesn't care about rule of law. It only cares about laws if they cause problems for liberals.

ur image wasnt removed because it used personal opinions, it was removed because it linked to a thing from a separate stream. can u not see the difference here.

So the fact that I provided evidence meant my case was weaker. And he doesn't have a case. Attack adds based on personal opinions of candidates are not fair game.

listen up: YOUR IMAGE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE IT LINKED TO A SEPARATE STREAM, INCOGNITOGUY DID NOT DO THAT.

ur not listening. whether or not u believe it’s lies does not mean it’s against the rules. your image was removed because it linked to an entirely separate stream. incognito guy did not do that. i’ll tell u now that IG plans to counter sue for defamation and he has a pretty strong case, so unless you drop this rn this could become a very unnecessarily big deal.

And what makes you say that?

ur so stubborn ur not even responding to my point.

So the fact that it contained a citation means it breaks the rules? Failure 51's attack add about RichardChill24 was based on facts unlike IG's attack add which was based on straw men and lies.

The fact that in the failure51 vs RichardChill24 a candidates personal opinions couldn't be used in attack adds but in Omega_Void vs IncognitoGuy a straw man and lie about a candidates personal opinion can be used in an attack add.

You are Failure51

I was.

You still are

I am the same user but I changed my username.

You are still Failure51 inside

To be honest IG is pretty homophobic

I don't have a phobia of homosexuality.

Yeah but that isn’t an excuse for being hatefull

I'm not hateful either.

You telling me a while back that my parents where bad for raising a gender fluid sibling seems hatefull to me

I fail to see how that's hateful.

Homophobia =/= fear of homosexuality. Out of sight out of mind =/= invisible insane. Terms and words can be used to mean something other than the precise dictionary definition. Homophobia = discrimination and/or bigotry.

Well then I'm certainly not a homophobe :)

You are not a homophobe. You are a genderfluidphobe (I don't know what the actual word is).

lmao because the word doesn't exist. It's all politically correct newspeak nonsense.

Politically Correct: Adjective. A word saying that someone doesn't use harmful stereotypes and thinks before they speak. You are bigoted against gender fluid people by the way.

Nope. You sure do love making false assumptions, don’t you? The reason I felt it would be worthless providing sources is because I’m certain it will have no effect on your radical views because you have frequently exhibited signs of extreme stubbornness. You will most likely call it fake news no matter what it says. But here you go anyway. Here’s another excuse for you to continue the pointless squabbling you seem to enjoy so much:

https://conservapedia.com/Teenage_homosexuality

That source is biased and not trustworthy.

I’m pretty sure every organisation has some form of bias. That’s just he reality of being human. It’s impossible to be completely 100% unbiased (although I’m sure you consider yourself an exception, my narcissistic friend),

I understand I am biased and I take steps to counter it. And there is a difference between taking steps to mitigate bias and being proud of looking through the world with a lens that filters out inconvenient facts.

Then stop being proud of looking through the world with a lens that filters out inconvenient facts.

How am I looking at the world through a lense?

Well thanks for providing the dictionary definition for some random word for no apparent reason. And I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide for me what I am and am not lol

And you've done a similar thing by accusing me of rule-breaking. Looks like this is a common habit of yours.

You said it was child abuse for a parent to be okay with their children being gender fluid. If that isn't bigotry against gender-fluid people there are only a few things that would be. Also the reason I provided a definition was you used it in a negative way.

So how come you called me a bigot?

See what I mean? You knew whatever I gave you would never satisfy you. Do you enjoy starting pointless arguments that drag on forever?

I suspected that because I have often received links to disreputable organisations when I ask conservatives for evidence.

Calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot like you did to me. You see all your opponents as bigots, just like typical leftists.

No. I see people who call being okay with a non harmful inherent trait of someone bad as bigots.

I don't think such a feat is even possible. You're just too stubborn.

So are you admitting you don't have evidence?

And yet you asked anyway and were angered when I hesitated providing a source because I correctly predicted this was exactly how you would react.

I thought you might realize that if only biased organizations agree with you that you are wrong. If you don't have evidence for claims don't make them.

And why wouldn't I? I mean, I'm not wrong.

When you said it is child abuse you are completely wrong. The only way to change my mind is if you present actual evidence.

I think you should be allowed to share your opinions but I should also be allowed to tell people that they are bulls*it

And nobody's trying to deny you that right.