@Word: Your claim was not proven. And I'm 100% confident that you cannot prove it. Stop spreading rumors. Are you so stupid as to buy into every lie the moderators will tell you? Hey, your intelligence is not my responsibility - you are only discrediting yourself and devaluing your own posts.
It's not like the longer versions have much more substance to them...
Yes they do; you just like to ignore reason and explanations.
According to you I act like an ass and you're a self-proclaimed martyr and scapegoat, so yeah.
This is a case when you're being too stupid to insult. No one is capable of being a self-proclaimed martyr. That is literally something you cannot do by yourself (dumbass). When the word "martyr" was used, it was used to describe the nature of my position regarding the unreasonable nature of the moderators and their decision to ban me (banning me forever simply because I voiced my opinion in Vogue's ban appeal thread would turn me into a martyr - nothing I could do by myself, literally the moderators are the ones to do it). By scapegoat, I'm talking about all the bullshit that ignorant users like you just buy into without actually using your brain. I have turned into a token user for people to look at my posts and go "aw shit. Here's another flame war" (or otherwise dismisses it as less valuable than what you yourself might post). Regardless of how my posts are, that is still mistreatment. You don't act like an ass, you are one; when you choose to remain ignorant to act and partake in the mistreatment and overall devaluing of my posts. The fact remains that a group of people can do the same to everything you post, and you wouldn't like it - so why is this acceptable for you to do? Oh that's right, you're an ass.
So you're saying all your posts have no purpose at all?
After reading this, I'm forced to assume that you're TRYING to be an ass (much like Lucifer does); deliberately misinterpreting what I've said to conjure up some ridiculous meaning that no one else (in their right mind) would conclude. Stop being an idiot. Most of my posts' content is a response to something that was asked or otherwise instigated from me. The purpose is to address every concern / point made. Why? Because that's common courtesy you ass - something you fail to show others because you deem what you think as more important.
Um, you never really explain how I'm wrong. You're just claiming I'm far from the truth and think I'm trying to be an ass. You do the same with Z-Man and everyone else. Maybe you should start caring how your posts appear to others, if they're so easily misunderstood. I'm done here.
Reread my previous post about the emotions / facts issue - that explains how your thoughts were wrong (example of how I explain how you're wrong - this is also an example in itself). Frankly I have proven how you're far from the truth, being stubborn about it or trying to avoid the topic (like the moderators do) is being an ass. These are more than claims at this point. Yes I do the same with Z-Man, and I will do the same with everyone. Don't be a hypocritical ass, and no one will call you one (that should have been learned at an early age - I'm sorry you didn't have someone to teach you, but you can teach yourself).
The thing is, if my posts are easily misunderstood, I should have the opportunity to explain myself - since when it is acceptable for an entire community to criminalize a single user without getting an explanation? That being said, you don't know the efforts I'm already taking to make my posts easier to read for the likes of you - I'm already doing what I can. The fact remains that you don't care in the slightest if you misunderstood - you came to your conclusions and that is good enough (ass).
If you are done, what was the point of posting at all? Was it just to interject your unfounded points just to proclaim yourself as an ass who cannot think rationally? I don't see a purpose in making an attempt to have the last word by abandoning the topic - you only show your unreasonable behavior.
If your logic was infallible, it would be so - meaning, there wouldn't be any effort on your part to prove your claims, and there wouldn't be a need to be "done" (since you'd be right and you can prove it - the only exception would be a complete lack of patience which again lowers your credibility in trying to dealing with any "heated" discussion - you aren't providing anything of value by being an impatient ass, nor are you even making the claim and I'm just hardheaded or too stubborn to learn. You're the one that is too stubborn to realize when you're mistaken - are you human? Do you claim to be something else?).
@Z-Man: Z-Man...you're an idiot (I'm disappointed in you). The extra conditions Imposed are merely a way of ensuring that everyone is treated fairly.
The condition being vague does not imply that I want me to exclusively decide if there was a resolution met - on the contrary, it is to say that a resolution being met must be ABSOLUTE (meaning one that everyone can agree on because things were PROVEN - you can't argue with facts). The more you show how you go out of your way to make such stupid assumptions, the more you portray the look that you're just out to get me because you don't like me. Try showing everyone how you can be a good moderator instead - it's a simple compromise and it doesn't change the outcome other than to ensure fairness.
As you have not agreed to a simple compromise, you show how you have no capability for honor and as such, I am not obligated to abide by your conditions as you are just trying to enforce yourself as a tyrant (if not, then work towards a compromise).
Really, I could have imposed much much worse conditions - mine should be easy and understandable for you to agree to.
I am willing to let myself stop by Tank any time, my the softest of means. A word is enough. Well, two, probably. Thing is, I do respect the authority of the person who owns this place.
Don't try to bring up the past then - you abandoned the dispute and left it up to Tank. He will be the one to decide then - and if something comes from it, like you didn't do your job as moderator properly, then whatever he decides for correcting the issue should be abided by. That being said, the PM history being posted was only because you wanted to disprove my claim that you were being unreasonable and that you abandoned the dispute without resolving it.
Which is fine, let's go through that claim until it's resolution; don't abandon it when you find out you're defending a mistake. Also, it should be noted that you abandoned a recent issue that I'm trying to address; you don't seem to care and would RATHER bring up a past issue just to better your own image, than to deal with a potentially worse problem that affects everyone (this is an example of how you disgrace yourself).
I got a solution for you: Make them once, back them up once. That's a thousand times more valuable than making them a hundred times and never backing them up. You can't prove I have been dishonest because I have not been.
How big of an idiot are you trying to be right now? I make a claim, and I prove it. That is the reason why my posts end up being verbose.
If I make the same claim (a hundred times >_>) it's because you ignored it the first time (like you always do - you're unfit to moderate because you dismiss things as unimportant just because you think so) - address the claim and be done with it; reach a resolution for the claim / prove or disprove it. Simple.
And, when have I claimed you were dishonest? I've claimed you were unreasonable, bigoted, a tyrant, misguided, ignorant, and in general too incompetent to do a moderator's job. Do you want me to go through the proofs for each one again? I will if you really want to know; otherwise you can just put in some extra effort to not be that way. But seriously, show me where I've made the claim that you were dishonest. All I've ever said was that I can't trust you - that means I can't trust that you will do a good job as moderator without being a bigot and abandoning the issue or otherwise won't deal with something if it doesn't suit you personally. That's what makes you untrustworthy as moderator. You don't have to be a liar to be undeserving of your position.
And yea, I mentioned that your criteria for defining a sock puppet wasn't necessarily good enough - but as you mentioned, you'd have to have accounts readily available. Given the nature of "why we use fake names" - I only ever said that I wouldn't put it past you (mostly Lucifer) to have such an account.
And think about it: If you're just a bigoted tyrant who will say anything to get his way - then of course you want to hide your sock puppets from the public; no amount of you claiming not to have those accounts will make us believe you if you're just not trustworthy.
@ppotter: I actually agree with what you said; but you mistake the length of my posts as drivel or rambles. My posts are worth reading because I got into appropriate detail such that everyone can read and understand. It is because the community has such a predisposition for misinterpreting my words that I end up explaining more things.
Don't spend an inordinate amount of time trying to make assumptions, and I won't have to talk about why it's just a worthless assumption (makes sense, right?). But I'm not about to just let you guys criminalize me without reason (though if you can prove that I did something wrong, then I will agree to it and learn to reform).
If you can tell me how I can say the above with less words (a few sentences) you will be helping me greatly - otherwise I'm not sure how I can shorten what is REQUIRED to post. (it is a personal requirement for myself to address every point made to me out of respect for the person as an individual with individual thought - I would have thought that more people would give this same respect, but I guess this community is just too young to know any better [after a decade, it's still this immature <_<] )
I actually don't have any responsibility to engage the reader - in these cases, the threads are started / instigated by someone else, making what I have to say only a response. Should the person even seek a response, they are obligated to read what I say. Should they not seek a response, they were only trolling to begin with. To those who decide to interject in a thread that doesn't involve them - the same principle applies; I have no obligation to present the requested information in a way that appeals to their emotions. Besides me having to go through extra work just to figure out "will this person be offended by that? Oh but what about this person?" is what would be a waste of time. I get the information across in a manner that gets the information across - you decide to be a barrier for that information or not (making it not my responsibility).
If something is misinterpreted, shouldn't everyone be willing to give people a chance to explain themselves? Y'know, instead of just assuming and condemning even after the person is saying "Hey wait! You've got the wrong idea!"..? Seems like something normal people would do if you ask me - so is everyone here an asshole or not? I'm not even expecting anyone to immediately understand what I say the first time anyway - all I'm asking for is the very reasonable behavior of allowing anyone to clear up misunderstandings should they arise (so long as this can be done, no one has a requirement to appeal to anything extra like emotions). Really, it's a certain level of patience and tolerance required; if you remember my posts since before the discussion of Vogue's ban appeal, I've only been spreading a message of tolerance because of how bad things are in this community. It takes far less effort to not get offended to blindly and ask for clarification than it is to criminalize someone without valid reason. All in all, not my problem.
Lastly, you mistook "I have no charisma" for "I don't abide by social etiquette". By nature, I don't have any charisma (none). This causes me to choose to avoid social etiquette (such as lying to be polite - I'm going to tell you the truth because that is the most productive).
But overall I was talking about how people look at a thread and try to dismiss it, or a user's posts, as garbage simply because it doesn't meet THEIR criteria (something fairly impossible to determine, and abide by, for 100% of people). That is what is their problem, not mine. They are the ones who choose to perceive a discussion as something good or bad (it's just text on their screen, and in varying amounts - yet they take it upon themselves to flip out and try to think I'm ruining the forums..."ruining", really? >_>). And this problem will differ for everyone, so you're asking for an incredibly difficult task to appeal to everyone (especially when it's not a requirement - it's extra).