To Durf (open letter, if you will)

[Word]

Say there was the smartest person in the world (or any trait, doesn't have to be "smart" - and they were measured and determined to be the most of this trait). If that person were to walk down the street and say to another person "I'm smarter than you"; it would appear arrogant to the listener (obviously), but is it? No. Not in the slightest - in fact it could even be perceived as helpful / informative, and yet, what would the listener perceive? Question is, WHY would they perceive that arrogance? Because of THEIR own ego defending their self-image attributing the possibility that they might indeed be smarter than the smartest person in the world.

I also read the paragraph about your perception, but this example is actually good to illustrate the issue you have. For some reason you can't grasp that to us there's no difference between "acting in a way that makes you look like an idiot" and "being an idiot" because it's essentially the same to us, "behaving like an idiot". No, we don't perceive you that way because of our ego - it's because we are used to certain behavioral patterns that you apparently don't take for granted. So yeah, even if you were the smartest kid in the world, you would be (not just seem) arrogant once you boast about it (to use your phrasing, "inform" someone who didn't ask for that information in the first place), even if you do it unintentionally.

* chances are that someone will misinterpret something that was said (as Z-Man did in the PMs), meaning that unless you're willing to dispute it with the person who was actually involved, you aren't credible to make judgement (you'd only be judging me based on if you like me or not - not if Z-Man was being an unreasonable moderator or not. This is to prevent emotional judgements.)

Well, the sexism/nazi debates ended the same way. Once you arrive at a deadlock you'll just say that everyone else misinterprets what you say, you aren't really a Nazi or a sexist but it's perfectly OK to associate oneself with those people. If we disagree with you it's because of the unnecessary crutch that are emotions and our personal bias It probably never occured to you that you're just wrong and that our personal bias stems from rationality. You make a mistake if you separate emotions from facts as if the latter couldn't cause the former.

** No, it won't - which is why this is partly a waste of your time as the underlying issue would still remain. What it will prove is if Z-Man was unreasonable / unfit to handle a dispute

My guess is whatever Z-Man might have done will seem intelligible when one is confronted with someone who kills the forums because he was banned for a ridiculously short time. A dispute with you is like talking to a wall that can type (and one can easily predict a large chunk of tropes that are rather repetitive in your posts which makes it even more frustrating, see above).

Don't expect me to reply again here.

(I tried searching your posts for the words fact/facts but you used the first one too often for this to work. The "facts" search however shows that you're never using that word in a context that would make sense. It's just an empty phrase you keep using once it gets uncomfortable, followed by a completely unreasonable opinion)

[Z-Man]

Direct reply section:

From you, Durf. I wanted to spare them from you. Yes, I will admit my failure in this regard fully.

For the reason for the 96 hour period: I am not afraid of anything. I just do not want you to drown the entire reaction in your shifting and ever growing reinterpretations of what you said.

You ask what triggered this, what you wrote in your last PMs. I was willing to let Tank handle this, but then you started slandering us in public again.

Speaking of which - they know I don't use sock puppet accounts; yet I wouldn't put it past them to use them.

Again you put my honesty into question, without ANY way of backing it up. Since you're so good at sniffing out sock puppets (Hah) where are our sock puppets that meet the criteria I put forward for real users? This guy doesn't count, obviously. You won't find them because they don't exist. And no, we simple mods would not be able to create them now.

===============================================================================================

Publishing negotiation section:

- no verdict is decided upon

There is not going to be a single verdict. Every regular user has the right to enter or leave the discussion at any point and draw and post their individual verdict at any time. I'm not going to moderate them according to your rules.
If you mean that any personal verdict is invalid until you have declared the discussion for finished, not a chance. Like Word said, we have strong reason to believe you'll never consider them finished. Your further conditions seem to be specially designed to keep everyone critical of you out; note that I specifically did not add such a clause.

As to what is done with the individual verdicts, we'll see. If I feel the community demands and/or would be served by me stepping down from any positions of factual power, I'll do that. I quite enjoy just writing code, you know? I'd even hand leadership to you if that's what people want, though in that case, I'll probably be gone. Can you promise something similar? Will you let it go if they want that? Will you accept a timed ban if they call for one?

Hmm, how about this. You seem mostly concerned about people misinterpreting your messages. Would it be OK if we allow you a SHORT (say, 500 characters or 150 words top) "interpretation guide" at the end of each of your PMs? Non-binding to the reader, of course. And clearly marked as such. And really just talking about what you mean, not what I said.

[Olive]

if you are sick of reading then don't read.

don't worry, I have successfully ignored most of your posts. However, lately I find it tough to ignore the agitation your posts evoke. You rarely fail to mention the ongoing quarrel in the margin of your posts, and often utter your thoughts in a provocative, displeasing manner. People react, the discussion reaches a (dead)lock and interest fades. But within days similar drama appears in another thread. Perhaps I'm sick of reading your posts, but I'm definitely tired of being confronted with the trouble they cause, to the extent that I feel morally implored to publicly address a fellow forum-dweller on his behaviour. Something I never thought I'd do.

Manning up and getting over it: is kind of a sexist thing to say

isn't this a commonly used phrasal verb?

If you're going to say something is self-contradictory, the least you can do is say how it is.

you believe Z-man's actions are disgraceful, I don't. We are in disagreement as our opinions are different. Can you see how this is a mismatch of individual opinions, rather me being ignorant to a universal fact? And even if it would be a fact, at the very least I still find it insulting.

And again, the length of my posts shouldn't be related

being concise is courteous. It saves time and often keeps the discussion from deviating from the matter at hand. Your posts remind me of a Filibuster. As you've mentioned I do not directly respond to every question you've posed, my apologies. For the questions left unanswered I believe the answer is either already written elsewhere or evident - I do not wish to repeat myself.

Durf, I sincerely hope this issue is resolved as soon as possible. Post the pm's and let us brace ourselves for the final shitstorm, so everyone can cruise through the grid and forums harmoniously again.

[Durf]

@Magi, talk to Z-Man why he brought up an old dispute.
I'm sure everyone would like this to be over; put simply, if the moderator abuse doesn't exist, there'd be nothing for me to complain about.
If I'm just mistaken, they can easily disprove my claims with a simple explanation.
If they're mistaken / Lucifer was actually abusive, then what is to become of that? Is that allowed / expected?
Set the expectations for everyone I say, but making shit up as you go will prolong the issue (not that you are making shit up, they are).



@Word: >_> I am surprised, it's like you try to miss the point:
The example I gave wasn't necessarily my perception, nor am I claiming to be the smartest person of anything. It was an analogy to illustrate how perception is very relative, and no matter what you might personally think, FACT will remain FACT, truth will remain truth, and no amount of your own opinion can change that.
How is that relevant? Rules. If you are emotionally upset, that doesn't mean a god damn thing if no rule was violated.
Furthermore: being arrogant is "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities" (Google Dictionary); which means that no matter how arrogant you thought someone was, you can only be sure if you actually know their abilities and understand their perception of themselves. So even if the smartest person in the world was in your face and boasting about being smarter than you, it is not (by definition) arrogant in the slightest. Emotions carry no weight in proving a fact to be true or false, and that's how a moderators judgement should be (free from biased thoughts that aren't based on fact). If you disagree with that requirement for moderators, do you expect and allow yourself to be abused by one?

You say things like "once I arrive at a deadlock, I just say that everyone misinterprets what I've said". Actually, this is a case where you're mistaken (again).
First of all, I never have yet reached a "deadlock". Every dispute/argument/discussion of relevance has ended with a moderator refusing to continue (they are the ones to reach a dead end with their lack of logical thought). If someone says you're mistaken, you don't dismiss it by saying "oh they're just saying that because they can't defend their position" (frankly, the reason why my posts end up being long is because I tell you you're mistaken, then proceed to explain exactly how). The least you could do is ask "howso?" and challenge the claim; if you are mistaken, you will learn and everyone will be better off; if I'm the one who's mistaken, you can easily prove that with a response (explanation).
You are mistaken about me not being open to the possibility that your personal bias stems from rationality; but at the same time, your refusal to discuss the issue with me shows you are unreasonable and only care for your own opinion; I, on the other hand, am here and open to what you have to say. Show me how your personal bias stems from rationality; if it even does, it should be fairly simple for you to do and it will help get things resolved (do your part rather than just complain).
Separating emotion from fact is not a mistake when it comes to making sound judgement calls as a moderator - I'm aware that facts can cause emotions, which is exactly why it is abusive for a moderator to act on their emotions (not everyone will react emotionally the same way, and their job is to encompass everyone's emotions in their judgements, not just their own). It is the precise reason that you think the smartest person in the world is arrogant for boasting about it, that causes your emotions to make an unsound judgement call.
Put simply:
emotional judgement = do you like or dislike the person or occurrence?
logical judgement = was a rule broken or violated?
As you can see ^ one path clearly avoids abusive behavior while the other one clearly allows it.
Besides you being unqualified to dictate how moderators should do their job; if you think moderators should make judgement calls based solely on their own emotions, you are basically saying that you think it's okay for them to be abusive at their discretion.
Are you somehow safe from their abuse? Do you kiss their ass enough for them to grant you the favor of not abusing you? Maybe if you validated their false sense of entitlement some more, you can get moderator privileges of your own! (<--sarcasm / I would genuinely be surprised if that's the case).

You say "kill the forums" as if I not only intended to do that, but as if I'm solely responsible for that (or at all).
If you're referring to the spammer and the garbage that was posted, that wasn't me. Stop accusing me of things I didn't do.
(in case you haven't noticed, I'm just a scapegoat for this pattern of accusations - learn to open your eyes and stop mistreating a fellow tronner)
If you're referring to my lengthy posts and / or PMs, you accept the responsibility by entering the thread and becoming involved; you don't have to even deal with my posts. So stop complaining because you're only adding to an already bad atmosphere. Trying being helpful and addressing my concerns like as if you actually cared that a user might get mistreated on these forums (don't you care if a user is mistreated? I do).
A dispute with me is not like talking to a wall, and you don't know what's it's like because you weren't involved in any dispute. Being met with such bigotry is like talking to a wall if you ask me. Try not being an ass when you are in a dispute and actually address what's been said; progress through topics and move on. Complaining and quitting makes YOU the "wall" of unreasonability.

"fact": "a thing that is indisputably the case" (Google Dictionary)
You failed in trying to devalue my previous posts like that. The use of the word is proper. Just because you are blind to the requirement of proving a claim (as fact), doesn't mean that when I say "fact" that I'm using it as some 'trump card' to avoid the issue. I'm genuinely asking for the piece of knowledge, that you know to be true, to be known as true in my mind as well (teach me how you came to your conclusion - prove to me the claim and I will accept it if it is proven).
The FACT remains that you're just upset at me, and none of these unfounded claims make a difference; your emotions and opinion of me has no effect on past events and what actually transpired (as mentioned above, your emotional judgement is unrelated to facts).




@Z-Man: you said "I wanted to spare them from you. Yes, I will admit my failure in this regard fully.". I'm glad you can show that you are capable of admitting to your mistakes/faults (even though you've done this in an arrogant way - nvm that); now move up from that and start to deal with the actual issue at hand, start admitting to what you should actually be admitting to.
"ever growing reinterpretations of what you said" - don't go out of your way to misinterpret what I say and such an effect will not occur.

Well, the fact that you don't want to let Tank Program (the only one who has shown they are capable of reason) handle this shows that you are afraid of being proven to have supported an abusive moderator, and you're afraid of what might come of that judgement. Sorry to break it to you, but that dispute will still be going on regardless of the PM history and subsequent discussions. Why? Because the PM history (and your desire to make them public) is being used to prove how I was either slandering you or not; NOT to prove or disprove the ban(s) being just (as they cannot prove that as you refused to progress through the dispute and basically rage quit from it). So regardless of what you think, Tank will handle it anyway.
As for "slander", you call it slander ("make false and damaging statements about (someone)" - Google Dictionary) because you don't see how me calling you unreasonable / unfit or otherwise unable to handle a dispute can be proven true - that is what the PM history is for. Don't forget that. And don't be surprised when you are proven to have been unreasonable and disrespectful as moderator.
So let's deal with your concerns (unlike you, I'm willing to go through all concerns you have until it's resolution - you are STILL avoiding issues, you fail as moderator).
Are you disallowing Tank to handle the issue? You can't; you alleviated yourself of the responsibility of the actual dispute. All you're doing now is trying to save face by calling what I say "slander" - I don't mind, it will be proven not to be slander when the PM history is released.

I put your honesty into question because I can't trust a moderator who will make unsound and/or emotional judgements. I have plenty of ways of backing it up...you want to test it? Go ahead. I figured if I stop explaining every claim within the post that I make them, my posts would end up being shorter for you readers - either way you get pissed off at a lack of information or the post length (can't win with you), so your unreasonableness discredits your opinions either way.

I don't understand what you're asking: "where are our sock puppets that meet the criteria I put forward for real users?". And you are unaware of my methods for "sniffing out" sock puppets. Given the lack of quality around here and your general incompetence as moderator (including your admitted limited perception), I don't expect you to even have a clue how I do it.
Also, what do you mean that you can not able to create them now? Preventing registration from same IPs or something? (That wouldn't stop anyone)
Creating an account is simple; moderator or user alike.

====

What I meant by "no verdict is decided upon" is that no one should come to a conclusion regarding what happened without some kind of proof and hearing a statement from the actual person involved (meaning if anyone makes a claim against you or myself, they'd have to wait to hear your response after 4 days to determine whether or not their claim was accurate - it's just a procedural thing, blame it on my methodicalness).
You're right in that every user can join and leave a conversation as they wish; but one should make note on how it looks to make an unfounded claim (start bullshit rumors) then not be there to back it up. Again, this wasn't as much for personal gain as it was to ensure that things are done properly (if you're going to try to "slander" someone - the least you can do is prove how it is actually true, otherwise you're just being a hater / troll). Thought these things would be obvious, but I guess you're too wound up in your own hatred to think clearly.
This has nothing to do with a requirement for me to say the discussions is finished or anything (not dependent on me); though you should remember what makes a "valid verdict". There is no requirement from me for the discussions to actually resolve - what is required is fact (proof). Put simply, if you can't prove what you say, then yes it's already invalid (not fact, only opinion). If you don't understand this, you lack the credibility to remain an unbiased judge.
I will consider any verdict finished if you can prove it to be true; this is a very simple requirement to meet - I've done it plenty of times by now by showing you how you've misinterpreted and teaching you exactly how that's the case. If you cannot do the same, there's a reason why (unfounded claim).
My conditions is not specifically designed to keep everyone who is critical of me out (unless the only people who are critical of me are the ones that can't prove their biased claims - which makes sense). Point is, don't be an idiot, and my conditions won't limit you in any way.
It is discomforting to know just how far out of your way you will go to come to the wrong conclusion Z-Man. If you don't see how the additional structure is beneficial to actually reaching a VALID resolution, then you are the one trying to design this ordeal in your favor, not me. (albeit, there's no favor you will gain in either case)

The individual verdicts should be taken seriously. Meaning each one should be measured for accuracy (truth) and for it's emotional content. Each one should be proven to be true or false before using the verdict as either case (don't assume them to be true, make sure before they can be used in a worthwhile way - this goes for both sides).
If the community feels you should step down, I would disagree with them. You yourself aren't "abusive" (per se), and I would recommend reform / teaching you how to be a better moderator. Yours is a case that can be fixed. Though, if things are better off with you stepping down (because you'll get some development done) then by all means, do that.
I'm not asking for leadership, I'm asking for equitable treatment of all users. If I have to be forced to do that job myself, then you should already step down as moderator. You should be able to see the problems and fix them (a normal moderator can deal with this within a week, yet you choose to avoid and prolong the issues). If I was leader though, I could GUARANTEE the equitable treatment and enforcing of rules for ALL users; no one would be treated differently than any other user (true fairness). If you have to leave just because I'd be leader, you should step down already because you're far too concerned with your own sense of entitlement to be of any value. There's no reason you couldn't be a subordinate.
I can promise that if any verdict is proven to be true, I will accept the responsibility of that being the case and any consequences I deserve for that. Yes, I can do the same and offer more than you can.
I already know that everyone wants this to be let go - in case you forgot, you're the one to bring this old issue up; stop trying to pin YOUR responsibilities onto me.
Raising valid concerns for RECENT moderator abuse should be considered unrelated to the past disputes (the only relation is that Lucifer is the offender again and you are showing yourself to be unreasonable again). Meaning, this entire thing of "letting go" is on you, not me. You're the one that needs to move past your mistakes instead of continuously make them over and over again.
"Will you accept a timed ban if they call for one?" - this is a loaded question: Anyone can call for a timed ban. This is exactly why it is a condition that any verdict must be proven before it can be used in such a manner (including verdicts about you, this is to ensure a FAIR assessment for the both of us - you twit, you should know this). So to answer the question you asked: maybe. If, however, the verdicts that called for a timed ban were to be proven to be true, then I would accept the responsibility.
Will you accept the consequences of your mistakes? If verdicts against you are proven to be true, will you finally admit to them? Will you make an attempt to reform and be a better moderator? Will you stop trying to justify unjust actions (moderator abuse)?


Your additional proposal is interesting. I would prefer a 500 character reply to any unfounded claim being made (as an interpretation guide), only because I don't know what people will misinterpret (if I knew that, I would have used different word choice - obviously).
That isn't required. I am patient enough to wait the entire 96 hours and even more. My concern is the patient of others. Again, just that no verdict will be decided upon (for example, used to issue a ban) until we can all be sure that nothing was misinterpreted...makes sense right?
You don't want to mistreat your users right? So you want to be sure of what's being said..

No interpretation guide is needed for what you said. And I'm not concerned about people misinterpreting what you say (I know it will happen anyway).
People (like word), have shown to put far too much value in an emotional response rather than actually thinking about the facts. That being said, I'm expecting people to empathize with you simply because of your word choice vs mine (without giving a second thought to who is disrespecting who and why). Again, logically it comes down to "was a rule broken?" - so no amount of misinterpretation will change that; no amount of emotional response will change my innocence or your inability to be a reasonable moderator.





@Olive: No one is worried; I was saying how it is your responsibility to begin with. You obviously understand since you take it upon yourself to begin ignoring my posts. So stop complaining about it then.
I'm aware that I don't adhere to social etiquette, and that I don't grant people respect when they don't deserve it (rather, I show as much as is being shown - as anyone would I imagine). That being said, you (readers) make the choice (by second nature really) to interpret emotion or cause in my words. Otherwise you would just read the words for what they say, without the emotions you go out of your way to perceive. People react based on emotions, which is why people like you think the conversation reaches a "deadlock"; because there's nothing for you to go from that unfounded claim. The point is simple, if an action was taken that is against the rules, show the rule and show the action side by side; it should be effortless to prove if what you're trying to prove it truth (truth does the work for you).
If you think you should be talking to me about raising valid concerns of moderator abuse, I would only start talking to you about how you don't seem to care, and begin to solve the problems YOU present to the community. I'm trying to solve problems, you're trying to avoid them. gf

Making note on the sexist nature of your comment is also making note of the selectiveness of the moderators judgements. Surely you remember the ordeal regarding sexism and exactly how anal the moderators we're (trying) to be about it. This is just pointing out how there is favoritism being shown and mistreatment occurred. You're clearly allowed to that phrasal verb, whereas on past occasions, other users have been prosecuted for similarly ordinary phrases. It wasn't a claim against you so much as further proving the hypocritical behavior of the moderators and how they will just act against anyone they dislike, regardless if a rule was even broken.

"disgrace": "loss of reputation or respect, especially as the result of a dishonorable action" (Google Dictionary).
You actually are ignorant to a "universal fact", but don't worry, all will be made clear to you when the PM history is posted. You will see how Z-Man disgraces himself for yourself. And it is understandable that you may find it insulting. But a reminder to everyone, your emotions won't solve the problem. If Z-Man did disgrace himself, saying it isn't a crime; if anything it can be perceived as informative and helpful (though only later do I realize that he is probably not self-aware enough to make use of that information - that might have been my mistake in making the attempt. Sometime I forget that not everyone is like me in some regards). That being said, you find it insulting because of your ignorance to the truth of the matter; just wait and see.

It is also courteous to address every concern you raised; that is giving you the respect as an individual that you deserve. If you're mentally lazy and don't want to partake in a conversation with someone just because of this, then don't even start as you lack the self-respect to partake in such a conversation. It's like you're asking me to post: "hah you're just ignorant" and leave it at that. Do you think that would be effective in explaining to everyone exactly how that is the case? Probably not; but if you already don't / didn't care that much, then why get yourself involved?
You mention about preventing the discussion from deviating from the matter at hand, so you should be telling this to Z-Man; who, instead of addressing the concerns raised made about the RECENT moderator abuse, brought up an old dispute because of his personal emotions (deviating from the matter at hand). I, on the other hand, have the patience to deal with both. I'm addressing Z-Man off-topic concerns as well as expecting a response to the others (he claims not to be an unreasonable moderator, he can prove it in those threads). For the questions left unanswered, it the implied answer is apparent (you're speechless / you cannot defend your argument as it is unfounded).

Everyone wants the issues resolved. That being said, stop forgetting what's actually going on:
- I raised valid concerns for more recent moderator abuse
- Z-Man brought up an old dispute
- we're now forced to deal with this because of Z-Man's incapability to answer some very simple concerns (avoiding the matter at hand)
If you users knew anything about the process of disputes, you would be able to see how Z-Man i being unreasonable when he makes the choice to avoid, avoid, avoid..
Trust me, I want this resolved too (otherwise I wouldn't bother); the only difference is that I know how to solve a problem for good such that it won't be a problem for anyone else, ever. Once it's solved, it's solved. I'm not obligated to appease to the limited perceptions of ignorant naysayers. What matters, in the end, is "was a rule broken" when discussing my dispute.

Don't worry, the PMs will be posted anyway. Either with agreed upon conditions, or none at all. And very soon they will be posted.





Reminder to everyone: The PM history was only brought up because Z-Man wants to disprove my claims that he is an unreasonable moderator.
Regardless of the evidence that he keeps on providing in these recent threads, the purpose of posting the PM history is to determine whether or not Z-Man was unreasonable and if he refused to dispute my ban (like an unreasonable tyrant) like I claim he has.
It won't actually prove or disprove my bans being just or unjust, since the dispute itself was indeed abandoned by Z-Man (he is unreasonable); but you will see this for yourselves shortly.

[Titanoboa]

Again:

First off Durf, I've played this game with you a couple of times and you're a nice guy, fun to chat with. I like you as a person. Now, what I want to say:

I don't have time to read everything on these forums anymore, but I skim through what I predict to be relevant from time to time. Durf, this is aimed directly at you (could be said in pm but I don't have anything to hide, and as far as contaminating the forum goes, you're doing that pretty well without my help anyway). At first I read all of your posts, now I just skip them. Mostly because of their length, but also because of your stubbornness.
So I've probably missed all your current/recent posts. Although, nevermind all that and please take this to your heart:

I feel sorry for the mods (as well as (co)founders and long-term maintainers) of these forums because they are too good to just ban you forever and be done with it. It would save them so much time and energy, but they really care about this game, this forum and its users. They really do, but they're not obliged to kiss our asses.
Of course, they can speak for themselves (and they're better at it than I am).
So, would you kindly start behaving around here and stop dragging these forums down.

I wanted to skim these forums a bit this lovely afternoon to catch up and I see many threads started by you, seemingly because most of the previous ended up being locked. I'm not trying to put duct tape over your mouth and shut you up, but I do want to slap you across the face and tell you to behave. You're currently trying to ruin a place I like.

Thank you. That is all.

In addition, can't you see that you're overreacting?

[Durf]

Again: it isn't "too good" to not abuse their moderator status. The reason why they can't ban me forever and get it over with is because of how such actions destroy a community.

No one is asking anyone to kiss anyone else's ass (other than the moderators pressuring me to simply "roll over" for their abuse and accept it).

You suggest I'm bringing the forums down, when can't YOU realize that there would be nothing for me to post about if they hadn't instigated it in the first place?
Put simply, who are the real ones bringing it down?

It is not an overreaction:
- The moderators have banned me without warning and without valid reason
- The moderators claim to be fair and just moderators
- I attempt to understand how there was valid warning and how the ban was just (so I can understand and do better)
- There are blatant contradictions in what they say and what they enforce

^ this leads me to think:
a) they are fair and just moderators, so I should try to understand their point of view by discussing it with them.
b) they are tyrants and will say anything they want to maintain their ability to mistreat users as they see fit.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me if they choose to be completely abusive moderators; I'm merely asking for an understanding that allows me to act in an appropriate manner. If they are just abusive tyrants, I will treat them as such; else, I will want to discuss things thoroughly for (mine but also) everyone's benefit.

If I'm not permitted to dispute or discuss the ban(s), that is essentially saying that the moderators don't care for the possibility of a user being mistreated. This affects not only me, but every other user of these forums; a problem that needs to be solved anyway. Sure they don't owe me anything since this is their website, but they are the ones who claim to be fair and just - so let's see it already.
If I am permitted to dispute and discuss the ban(s), then Z-Man should do his duty as moderator (where Lucifer had already failed - he took the responsibility for Lucifer by choice) and go through the dispute until it reaches a resolution (meaning that it was PROVEN to be just or unjust). As you can see (now that the PM history is posted), making the deliberate choice to avoid the issue and give complete bullshit reasoning before abandoning the issue altogether, is not doing a moderator's job (this is part of what Z-Man does to disgrace himself as moderator).


On the contrary, I'm barely reacting at all. You'll know I'm flipping out when things actually start to get damaged.

[Word]

@Word: >_> I am surprised, it's like you try to miss the point:
The example I gave wasn't necessarily my perception, nor am I claiming to be the smartest person of anything...

No, I'm fully aware how that analogy was intended. I just related the example you gave to yourself because you yourself are like a blueprint to see that your analogy doesn't really work, otherwise you wouldn't have to take flak here. And again, your answer is predictable and you just say you were misunderstood. You weren't, and you're just reinforcing my argument now.

Furthermore: being arrogant is "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities" (Google Dictionary)

I suspect that most people on these forums, even if they think that I was an arrogant jerk myself, would say that I know what "arrogant" means. That you're claiming the behavior you describe/exemplify (see above) isn't arrogant because you/the guy from your example is simply an innocent source of untouchable truth while providing me a dictionary definition of the word arrogant - that comes across as, well, you can guess what.
I can't tell whether you have either a good sense of irony, or none at all.

which means that no matter how arrogant you thought someone was, you can only be sure if you actually know their abilities and understand their perception of themselves.

Most of the time it's enough for me to read something as revealing as the sentence above, from my humble experience.

You say things like "once I arrive at a deadlock, I just say that everyone misinterprets what I've said". Actually, this is a case where you're mistaken (again).

Look what you did there, again. But one last time I'll follow down the rabbit hole...

First of all, I never have yet reached a "deadlock". Every dispute/argument/discussion of relevance has ended with a moderator refusing to continue (they are the ones to reach a dead end with their lack of logical thought).

You're like the ghost driver complaining about how everyone else is going in the wrong direction

Show me how your personal bias stems from rationality

OK, what are you referring to now? Women? Nazis? Everything has been said there.

I'm aware that facts can cause emotions, which is exactly why it is abusive for a moderator to act on their emotions (not everyone will react emotionally the same way, and their job is to encompass everyone's emotions in their judgements, not just their own)

That's one convoluted mess of reasoning. "I'm aware A causes B, and because of that C is bad too, because of D."
Leave alone that logical judgment doesn't rule out abusive behaviour in any way, you just wrote that so it fits your strange theory of how a mod has to work so you aren't banned.

(in case you haven't noticed, I'm just a scapegoat for this pattern of accusations - learn to open your eyes and stop mistreating a fellow tronner)

If you were a scapegoat you wouldn't talk about it over and over and over and over, you weren't able to voice your opinion here and wouldn't receive the treatment you do. You aren't mistreated. And as with all conspiracy theories, one wonders what anyone could gain from making you a scapegoat.

A dispute with me is not like talking to a wall, and you don't know what's it's like because you weren't involved in any dispute. Being met with such bigotry is like talking to a wall if you ask me. Try not being an ass when you are in a dispute and actually address what's been said; progress through topics and move on. Complaining and quitting makes YOU the "wall" of unreasonability.

So you don't think you could save a lot of time if you'd just put "NO U!" in all your posts? That quote alone is full of it.

The FACT remains that you're just upset at me, and none of these unfounded claims make a difference; your emotions and opinion of me has no effect on past events and what actually transpired (as mentioned above, your emotional judgement is unrelated to facts).

Correction: "NO U! I got a FACT to prove you're wrong! Which is: You're wrong."

[Durf]

Word, it's like you're trying to make me seem unreasonable / ignorant. Stop being an ass (making assumptions) and at least try to prove your claims against me. (this is part of how you, the community, don't care for truth and simply rather think of me as a bad guy because I've written posts too long for your expectations - in the end, it's your problem, not mine)

@Word: >_> I am surprised, it's like you try to miss the point:
The example I gave wasn't necessarily my perception, nor am I claiming to be the smartest person of anything...

No, I'm fully aware how that analogy was intended. I just related the example you gave to yourself because you yourself are like a blueprint to see that your analogy doesn't really work, otherwise you wouldn't have to take flak here. And again, your answer is predictable and you just say you were misunderstood. You weren't, and you're just reinforcing my argument now.

No you really missed the point (surprised you still managed to). Tell me though, what flak am I even taking here?
Again, the purpose of the analogy is to show how your emotional judgement means NOTHING when it comes to TRUTH. It is only coincidental that, on occasion, what you FEEL is right, actually is. The analogy proves that, and if you choose to be stubborn about emotional judgement, you only show your lack of qualification to even know what makes a good moderator. I know this from experience.

Furthermore: being arrogant is "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities" (Google Dictionary)

I suspect that most people on these forums, even if they think that I was an arrogant jerk myself, would say that I know what "arrogant" means. That you're claiming the behavior you describe/exemplify (see above) isn't arrogant because you/the guy from your example is simply an innocent source of untouchable truth while providing me a dictionary definition of the word arrogant - that comes across as, well, you can guess what.
I can't tell whether you have either a good sense of irony, or none at all.

I'm aware of the irony in appearance. In case you haven't noticed, I don't care. I specifically mentioned that I do not adhere to social etiquette and that you all might be reading into things that simply aren't there. Thanks for proving that for everyone word. Now I ask that you stop going out of your way to label me in negative ways, and read the words I type for their literal meaning.
(Again: no amount of your personal emotion will change what is fact - if a rule was not broken, there is no reason to ban no matter how upset you are - those are the rules. Don't like it? Take it up with the moderators).

which means that no matter how arrogant you thought someone was, you can only be sure if you actually know their abilities and understand their perception of themselves.

Most of the time it's enough for me to read something as revealing as the sentence above, from my humble experience.

^ this is an example of your ignorance. You purposely choose to remain ignorant to the truth of whether or not they (example person) is arrogant or not. If you like to say things without being sure of them, what are your words worth? If you ask me, not much of anything. (you don't know what you're even talking about)

You say things like "once I arrive at a deadlock, I just say that everyone misinterprets what I've said". Actually, this is a case where you're mistaken (again).

Look what you did there, again. But one last time I'll follow down the rabbit hole...

^ are you upset that you make mistakes? Deal with it. At least I'm explaining to you how that is the case. It shouldn't be taboo for someone to say "you're mistaken" as that discounts the possibility of that person actually being mistaken. (meaning, stop being arrogant to think that you're never mistaken - the least you could do when someone makes ANY claim against you that you disagree with, is ask them to prove it - everyone knows the truth hurts, but if you stopped feeling all emotional for yourself, you'd be able to learn such that you don't make the same mistakes in the future [no one would have to say you're mistaken again, since you wouldn't be] ). But the more you get offended that I'm saying you're mistaken without actually discussing the misunderstanding, the more you show your ignorance and bigotry.

First of all, I never have yet reached a "deadlock". Every dispute/argument/discussion of relevance has ended with a moderator refusing to continue (they are the ones to reach a dead end with their lack of logical thought).

You're like the ghost driver complaining about how everyone else is going in the wrong direction

That is a horrible analogy. I don't think you know what "never have yet reached a 'deadlock'" means. You make the claim that I simply dismiss an argument with "you're mistaken" and try to end it like that (like as if I'm trying to say "haha I win" - then leave). This could not be further from the truth - you are mistaken (deal with it). One major fact you're overlooking is that when I say "you're mistaken", I explain how. Not only that, I wait for a response to ensure that the other person has the understanding they didn't before. This is not at all reaching a "deadlock" (certainly not to me anyway; if the other person becomes speechless, then I can see how it is a deadlock to them). I keep going until all claims are proven to be true or false. That being said, you're going in the wrong "direction" with your line of thinking. Stop trying SO HARD to accuse me of something you just aren't able to. Use your brain.

Show me how your personal bias stems from rationality

OK, what are you referring to now? Women? Nazis? Everything has been said there.

^ without trying to bring up any past discussions, then later trying to pin it on me... can you elaborate? I'm asking you to show me how your personal bias (I believe you were referring to your emotions) stems from rationality (prove how they are in line with the rules that are to be enforced). (hint: out of all the past discussions you mentioned as example - neither can be proven to be violating the rules; so think carefully how you answer this so as not to seem like an emotional nutcase)
Prove your claim. Otherwise you'll just be considered a hater without any reasoning.

I'm aware that facts can cause emotions, which is exactly why it is abusive for a moderator to act on their emotions (not everyone will react emotionally the same way, and their job is to encompass everyone's emotions in their judgements, not just their own)

That's one convoluted mess of reasoning. "I'm aware A causes B, and because of that C is bad too, because of D."
Leave alone that logical judgment doesn't rule out abusive behaviour in any way, you just wrote that so it fits your strange theory of how a mod has to work so you aren't banned.

^ again, it's like you specifically try to miss the point. I'm fairly certain that most of the readers understood what was said. So please, try to catch up with the rest of the class.
Emotions are caused by facts (as you said yourself - don't get upset that I'm working with YOUR example). That being said, everyone will have their own set of emotions and each person will display their own choice (perhaps not consciously) for any fact. This means that, using emotions as a basis for sound judgement is flawed / asking for the mistreatment of users. This is the reason why a moderator (to be fair for everyone) mustn't make judgements based on THEIR emotions or the emotions of any user. Again, fact remains fact, regardless of the emotions caused (you can get upset all you want that the Earth isn't flat - will it change anything?).
If you continue to fail to understand this, there is no point in trying to tell you again since you don't have the willingness to learn how you're even a misguided fool.

(in case you haven't noticed, I'm just a scapegoat for this pattern of accusations - learn to open your eyes and stop mistreating a fellow tronner)

If you were a scapegoat you wouldn't talk about it over and over and over and over, you weren't able to voice your opinion here and wouldn't receive the treatment you do. You aren't mistreated. And as with all conspiracy theories, one wonders what anyone could gain from making you a scapegoat.

Word, stop being an ass. You seem to consistently forget to look for a CAUSE. Blaming me for talking about something the moderators instigate (basically ask me to talk about) simply isn't fair - I can just as easily blame you for trying to label every thread that doesn't meet your personal requirements as "flaming" or otherwise a garbage thread. In the end, it is users like you that try to label everything as a pointless garbage thread that adds to the bad atmosphere. Instead, just allow people to DISCUSS and resolve their issues. You don't need to act like a complete sissy every time there is an issue being discussed.

A dispute with me is not like talking to a wall, and you don't know what's it's like because you weren't involved in any dispute. Being met with such bigotry is like talking to a wall if you ask me. Try not being an ass when you are in a dispute and actually address what's been said; progress through topics and move on. Complaining and quitting makes YOU the "wall" of unreasonability.

So you don't think you could save a lot of time if you'd just put "NO U!" in all your posts? That quote alone is full of it.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is an excellent example and (believe it or not) that exact thought had crossed my mind.
The thing is, I could just as easily post "no u" and "ur wrong" posts. The difference is that those posts mean nothing to anyone. Yes they are short (enough for your attention span), but they carry no real value. If you're wrong, I'm going to explain exactly how (if I'm mistaken with my reasoning, just explain how - no need for you to see a "wall" of text and get intimidated. Just deal with it like a normal person would [not a lazy normal person] ).
The quote is not full of "it", it explains the situation accurately. I'm constantly making an effort to reach an actual resolution where anyone can see and realize things are proven (results that can be replicated). Making the choice to be ignorant to WHY you're wrong (the person's lengthy post), in itself, is choosing to be a "wall" of unreasonableness. Seriously word, you try to show how I'm full of shit but only prove that very fact for yourself.

The FACT remains that you're just upset at me, and none of these unfounded claims make a difference; your emotions and opinion of me has no effect on past events and what actually transpired (as mentioned above, your emotional judgement is unrelated to facts).

Correction: "NO U! I got a FACT to prove you're wrong! Which is: You're wrong."

>_>
Are you trying to be an ass? Please stop. Since when has anyone given you the impression that you shouldn't take this seriously? Since when was it acceptable for you to joke around and deliberately try to propagate misinterpretation. You aren't doing anything to help the community or these threads with your efforts. You are only antagonizing. So what are you even doing here besides failing miserably at that? Try shutting your mouth and learning a thing or two before you go emotionally reacting to everything I type. I guarantee that, unless you're sure of what you say, you will only be publicly discredited as I will disprove your claims all too easily. If you insist on being an ass (in this case I mean deliberately looking for a fight without even trying to help the situation), then you could at least put some effort into it.

[Word]

Prove your claim. Otherwise you'll just be considered a hater without any reasoning.

That has already happened in the relevant threads and PMs, you're just unwilling to accept that.

The thing is, I could just as easily post "no u" and "ur wrong" posts. The difference is that those posts mean nothing to anyone.

It's not like the longer versions have much more substance to them...

You don't need to act like a complete sissy every time there is an issue being discussed.

According to you I act like an ass and you're a self-proclaimed martyr and scapegoat, so yeah.

You seem to consistently forget to look for a CAUSE.

So you're saying all your posts have no purpose at all?


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.

[Z-Man]

This is currently being posted without any conditions (as nothing was agreed to at this point);

Not how it works. Durf in the electronics store: "Hey, I really like that TV, but 1200$ is a bit too much. Tell you what: I'll take it home, then we'll negotiate a discount, and if we can't agree, I still keep the TV". Post the whole history, keep quiet for 96 hours. You're awfully vague about what your additions to the agreement actually mean, especially WHO gets to decide when it can be over. I've got the feeling you want it to be you exclusively.

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.

I figured if I stop explaining every claim within the post that I make them,

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.

The actual user (not a sock puppet) criteria were:

Regular users, in this context, means users that have registered their accounts before (the beginning of) September 2014 and have made 3 or more posts before the beginning of December 2014.

Neither me nor Lucifer can backdate posts or registration dates. So if we don't have eligible accounts readily prepared (I, for one, don't), we can't make them.

[ppotter]

Word, it's like you're trying to make me seem unreasonable / ignorant. Stop being an ass (making assumptions) and at least try to prove your claims against me. (this is part of how you, the community, don't care for truth and simply rather think of me as a bad guy because I've written posts too long for your expectations - in the end, it's your problem, not mine)

That's actually not true. You as the author have a responsibility to engage the reader. If you want your posts to be read in full, make them worth reading. You said in another thread that you purposely avoid your posts having "charisma", maybe you should rethink this. People don't want to spend an inordinate amount of their time reading a monologue when you can make the same point in a few sentences.

[Durf]

@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).

[ppotter]

Four lines is fine, I'd argue that the second mini paragraph ("Don't spend..." onwards) isn't necessary, but either way it's easy to digest.

The only way you'll succeed in your crusade to improve moderation standards is if you get the community to see your point of view and back you up. If they can't even make it through your posts or interpret them correctly you won't succeed. You say people misinterpret your posts, again the onus is on you, make your point less implicit.


For the record, I'm perfectly happy with the moderation of the forum and nothing you've posted has made me think anything different.

[Durf]

For the record, I'm perfectly happy with the moderation of the forum and nothing you've posted has made me think anything different.

Here's an example of moderator abuse in the public where everyone can see.

Scroll to the bottom of this post, to see where I'm STILL asking them to address / acknowledge the issue (and notice just how many times in that thread I've asked it, and how each time they change the subject / avoid the issue rather than having the decency to address it with reason or to just admit to the abuse).

And answer me this:
Are you "perfectly happy" with users being mistreated on these forums? Is that okay to you?
Even if we ignore the abuse; are you satisfied with a moderator who is far from a model citizen?
What do you expect from these forums with that kind of example being set?

Really, I'm just trying to get a better idea of what I should expect from this place.
Asking the moderators to explain an apparent contradiction doesn't seem like such a crime to me.
But perhaps you know something I don't; either way I need to learn, so enlighten me.

[compguygene]

I think that in the above post, you have shown the complete difference of viewpoint about the mods and their actions that you hold vs. the rest of us. Specifically, in regards to this post. To most of us, this is the perfect example of Lucifer fulfilling his role as court jester and taking an already kinda funny post and making it much more funny. It would not have worked had he not noted that he edited it and why. Also, the poster, Liz, even acknowledged that she didn't care about the edit. She probably laughed along with the rest of us.
This seems to be your best example of "Moderator Abuse", yet we don't perceive it as such.