The PM History

[/dev/null]

I gotta start paying more attention to this sub-forum, its full of gold.

[Titanoboa]

[Durf]

Oh what's this? Nothing from Z-Man? Figures...
He's so unreasonable, even playing by his own rules.



@Word:

You're hiding behind PMs and as long they aren't posted in their entirety, the proof won't be available to everyone. That doesn't make my claims unfounded.

The claim is that I'm hiding behind PMs because "the PM history" was not posted in it's entirety.
What makes your claim unfounded is not that "the PMs" (of which you speak) aren't public.

Your claims are unfounded because you have no way of knowing what you're talking about.
The PM history is between Z-Man and myself - so how do you know if there is more or not?
Your claims are unfounded because you're basically going off Z-Man's word (which in this case is already not credible enough).

Regardless of your claim being unfounded, I posted 100% of the PM history that I was saying I would post (this whole time, when Z-Man didn't want it posted, this was the entire history being referred to).
Regardless if there is more or not (trust me, there's more I would also post too, but Z-Man hasn't agreed to those PMs going public), the PMs are posted in their entirety and you can see that for yourself! Go to the last PM. You will see where Z-Man dismisses the dispute entirely and drops it.

The dispute ended there. There is nothing more I would be able to post that would serve the purpose of this thread (other than those other PMs I mentioned - but they aren't allowed to be posted because Z-Man doesn't want them posted).



Now...unless you're trying to make some other sort of claim against me suggesting that there are PMs that would support that claim, there is nothing more you could want from any PMs. This is everything this thread asked for.
If you ARE trying to make another claim, then make it - bullshitting about the PM history being incomplete won't get you anywhere. I've proven how this is the entire PM history regarding the claims that Z-Man is trying to disprove.

Though I should remind everyone about when I asked Z-Man if there was a hidden motive to his persistence on posting more than what was required.
Consider for a moment if he was lying to you from the beginning on what this thread was for.







@Ratchet: First of all, stop calling me an idiot by claiming I'm violating rule #1 - that should be enough as it is (unless you don't mind being an ass).
Second, you violate rules #1, #2, (and #3 by now), #5, #6, and #9 just by making the claim that someone is violating rule #1.
Put simply, the more you violate rules (even questionably) and go unpunished, the more this behavior is defined as acceptable by the moderators.
Unless you're willing to accept a much harsher sentence, there's no reason I should receive any punishment for what you perceive as a violation of rules.
When it comes down to it, you just need to stop complaining - you aren't solving any problems by being the way you are being.

Besides that, how does violating rule #1 make me a hypocrite? I never claimed to not be an idiot - you've made that assumption. Just because I say "you're an idiot" to someone, doesn't imply that I'm not one. (in fact, "it takes one to know one" would imply the opposite)

About answering Lucifer's question: Lucifer has alleviated himself from the expectation that anything he says will even be answered at all. Why? He has set the expectation (level of respect) that one needn't address every point being made - all that matters is what you think matters, not what they think matters.
That should be simple enough for you to understand - your bullshit:

Durf, king of "you still haven't answered my question":
you didn't even answer Lucifer's question. (Any of them, for that matter)

doesn't have any effect (not like you think it would).
Now because you seemed to have missed it:

I ask you to do one thing (and after your response, I will address all the points you've made - if you really want me to)

So unless he is admitting to be way too proud to abide by a very simple request to get the answers he wants, there is nothing stopping him from getting the answers he is after (I am perfectly willing to answer it all - the main reason was only to keep my post short - all because of the people who couldn't stop complaining [either you want long posts that address everything, or short ones that you will still complain about anyway])
I've been answering his posts anyway because it is somewhat amusing when he sets himself up for failure (I'm beginning to think he's doing it on purpose to be funny - such useless behavior; propagating nonsense).
Like I said, I'm still very willing to go through each and every point (or question) in his post - I just ask that we focus on the bit that's a little more to the point first...is that so hard? I said I would address it all after that was done - that shouldn't be a problem or that big of a blow to his ego. Just do it and get it done with.





@Titanoboa: What does your post mean? (<-- genuine curiosity) I do not understand. People seem to like to post nothing but an image - what does that do? What kind of post is that? What am I supposed to interpret from your photo?

[Word]

Your claims are unfounded because you're basically going off Z-Man's word (which in this case is already not credible enough).

As you might have guessed, to most of us that is entirely sufficient.

I've proven how this is the entire PM history regarding the claims that Z-Man is trying to disprove.

Yeah, well done, but nobody really understands it that way. Probably because you didn't.

[Durf]

Your claims are unfounded because you're basically going off Z-Man's word (which in this case is already not credible enough).

As you might have guessed, to most of us that is entirely sufficient.

I've proven how this is the entire PM history regarding the claims that Z-Man is trying to disprove.

Yeah, well done, but nobody really understands it that way. Probably because you didn't.

Even if I trusted Z-Man 100%, I would still question what he says as he is not infallible - you set yourself up for failure with blind support.

My claims were that Z-Man was unreasonable and was incapable of handling a simple dispute.
Z-Man called this slander.
This is 100% of the PM history from the start of the dispute (that Z-Man was handling) until the very end.
There are no more PMs (at all) related to the dispute and Z-Man's unreasonable behavior (there ARE some PMs unrelated to the dispute that show his unreasonable behavior - but that is unrelated and outside of a mutually agreed upon arrangement).


What more do you want? What claim are we trying to prove or disprove?
What is your purpose? (because you're not showing how Z-Man was reasonable - if anything the more you are persisting on some off topic nonsense, the more I'm led to believe that Z-Man is pushing you to do this [because I don't believe you're THAT stupid on your own], which would only serve to show how he's being further unreasonable - he can't seem to finish what he starts, or can't seem to have enough integrity to actually be straightforward with anyone).
So..what is it that you want exactly?

[Word]

What is it that you want exactly?

That you stop making mountains out of non-existent molehills?

[ppotter]

Regardless if there is more or not (trust me, there's more I would also post too, but Z-Man hasn't agreed to those PMs going public), the PMs are posted in their entirety and you can see that for yourself! Go to the last PM. You will see where Z-Man dismisses the dispute entirely and drops it.

The dispute ended there. There is nothing more I would be able to post that would serve the purpose of this thread (other than those other PMs I mentioned - but they aren't allowed to be posted because Z-Man doesn't want them posted).

I've proven how this is the entire PM history regarding the claims that Z-Man is trying to disprove.

One of Z-Man's conditions were that you post 100% of the history. Yet since you were the one to pick and choose what to post, one could in fact infer that it is you that has something to hide.

Is that why you threw such a hissy fit at the conditions? There were messages you didn't want people to see? It doesn't matter whether you deem them relevant or not.

Anyway, the conditions:
- post the whole thing (every single PM between you and me from December 2014 to now), unedited, uninterrupted by running commentary.

[Lucifer]

Is that why you threw such a hissy fit at the conditions? There were messages you didn't want people to see? It doesn't matter whether you deem them relevant or not.

I haven't seen the messages, but I have been told they contain threats against these forums and other things.

Durf is hiding something.

@Z-man: You knew I'd say something sooner or later.

[Z-Man]

Durf, you have not respected any of my conditions. I do not feel obligated to answer to you. I will try to answer everyone else, but gimme time. Busy. I'll lock this and the other threads again. I'll unlock this one when I'm done. Needless to say, all questions to Durf are rhetorical (or, "playing dumb" as he would probably put it.)

And no, you won't post the PMs that you're talking about for multiple reasons:
- It is a violation of MY privacy as I reveal information that I do not want the public to know (this isn't what you think, but I can't talk about it in public as it would reveal the very thing that shouldn't be)

You didn't care a bit about violating my privacy. I gave conditions to the release. You did not respect them. I wonder what your justification for that is.

- It would be compromising to the security of this website and potentially other user accounts (that might already be saying too much - but you asked for this), which would only serve to show your incompetence and inept moderating and overall focus on petty emotions over something like a security issue. If you'd rather risk this website because of some petty emotion you have, you only prove why you shouldn't be a moderator.

Oh, how so? There is no compromising information in there. No user account data, no master password. Did you hide some sort of secret curse text in there? "Post this publicly and Candyman cometh?"

- Z-Man hasn't had anything to say in return.

Hey, I have been really busy. Some Bratapfel threatened to hack our infrastructure if we don't bow to his wishes. So (as you noticed), I had to move the Wiki to a more secure location to protect the user accounts. And I'm still not done with everything I need to do in the process.

[Z-Man]

Right, got SOME time now. Before I get to respond to you guys, first the PMs I promised to publish. I weighted his privacy against your need to know and you won.

Emphasis by bolding is mine.

That only means no more PMs if I was actually harassing you. Don't even try banning me for something I didn't do AGAIN.
I'm not harassing you.

You don't seem to know what harassment is; nor can you prove I was harassing you just now.
If I was actually harassing you, then you would have pointed it out, and told me how it was harassing. That is how you teach an offender; not with arbitrary "no more PMs" demands.
Basically you failed to actually assert any authority since I don't know what I'm doing wrong (I'm just bound to do it again); which only serves to show that you aren't solving anything, you're only making things worse. This is why I tell you to do your job.

(btw, it wasn't revenge you dumbass, it was because you fail to appeal to reason; I have many methods of getting information across that falls within the scope of the rules for when reason fails. You are so concerned with your self-entitlement that you can't even see how horrible of a moderator you're being - You care way too much about the idea that you're even a good moderator, that you are blind to how you're not. Seriously, you should be ashamed in the actions you took; it doesn't even matter if I'm your enemy, you still chose to be a despicable moderator.)

Not to mention that it is wrong for you as moderator to alleviate me of my voice in this matter. Given that there aren't a whole lot of moderators, you're basically saying that I can't talk to Lucifer and I can't talk to you. Who does that leave?
A moderator shouldn't limit their jurisdiction like that; more importantly, don't moderate me if I'm not allowed to talk to you about it. You're just a power-hungry tyrant looking to assert yourself over someone else...pathetic. If you weren't, you'd know how to deal with the situation.


Z-Man, this is part of what I referring to as bullshit. You don't even know what you're doing anymore. You are running off emotions.




Plus, guess who will see this PM history? Guess who will see you choosing to do the same as Lucifer and abandon the issue by more moderator abuse?
It's not a question, it's done already. I can post about it on these forums too for the rest of the public to see.
If you are a fair moderator, then you shouldn't have a problem with everyone seeing the choices you've made.
If you are concerned that the public may think of you as more of a tyrant because of this or ANY PM history, then guess what? You made a mistake.

Just because I can actually prove you wrong, that doesn't mean I'm harassing you; just because I show you as much disrespect as you show me, doesn't mean I'm harassing you; just because you don't like dealing with me, doesn't mean I'm harassing you. You fail to understand that this is your responsibility, your duty as moderator. Any hardship that you receive as a result is YOUR OWN FAULT; especially since you took this responsibility from Lucifer by choice. Get over yourself.
Each time you refuse to even read / respond to a PM because you judge it to be harassing, you are being a disrespectful moderator; someone took the time to write to you and you think you're too good to read what they have to say? You are despicable.


I'm going to say this one last time; from here on out, you make the choices:
Don't make an enemy you can't handle; don't abuse your powers, and make sure Lucifer doesn't either.
That is a demand. Comply or force will be used to deal with you incompetent moderators the next time I'm abused.
You failed to appreciate the choices I've made this time around, and you failed to be even a half decent moderator.
If you want to test my capabilities then go for it.
Here's a preview:
Judging by your overall incompetence and the rate of development being done, chances are you haven't updated phpBB in a while. Which means (most likely) there are vulnerabilities that allow me to gain control of the founding administrator accounts (ID: 0 - probably Tank's account). Even if this exploit has been fixed, there's plenty more at my disposal that grant me just as much.

My overall point: I'm not threatening you, this is assurance. Don't abuse your moderator status on me, ever. If you or Lucifer do something that stupid again, I will not hold back at all next time (you will see just how much I gave to you this time around in retrospect).

Since you refuse to deal with this like a normal moderator, I will take it up with Tank; if he doesn't want to deal with it, it will be known by everyone just how tyrannical this place is. But I'm fairly certain he is reasonable.
Now.. I've dealt with all this before, which is why I've been giving you an easy way out this whole time; something you can save face with. But if you really want to see that I'm not just bullshitting you (when have I ever), then go ahead and test it.
I won't be the one who regrets it.

If you're concerned about it, then mention it to Tank Program; ask him if he would rather me be a enemy or a friend (and remember all the times I've given you an easy way out), then tell him how it's your fault that you won't get any help from me anymore. You can also explain to him what it is you think you're doing in these PMs, because I'll be sure to talk to him about it.

Your threat targets the forums Tank Program owns. Yes, he'll decide. I'm also sure he'll be sensible.
Edit (quit complaining about it, btw): And if for some reason, you still do not accept his decision, let's publish this whole (and I mean whole) conversation. I'm really curious how the community will react. I said it before, if they think I'm a horrible mod, I'll gladly step down altogether.

My "threat" was meant to target you.
Meaning if you decide to allow moderator abuse to occur on me, you won't have access to these forums anymore.

This wasn't to threaten the forums, or Tank Program; it was to show YOU that YOU cannot be a tyrant to those who will actually stand up for themselves and do something.
Everything you've done in this "dispute" has been an effort to avoid it entirely; by default you haven't been doing what a moderator should be doing.

Given that you were being completely unreasonable; and that the issue remains unsolved; it is an appropriate assurance that you won't make the same mistake again.

Like I've said, you fail to appreciate the choices I've made in dealing with this (even though I have no respect for you anymore, it doesn't mean I disrespect tron, it's community, or these forums owned by Tank).

What the threat should mean to you:
You took advantage of my kindness (by asserting your fake authority to avoid me trying to follow proper procedure by disputing), and you won't be able to do it a second time.

If you really think you can just fuck around with some random user, expect to have that random user to fuck around with you (if you take unreasonable actions against me, you open the playing field to receive unreasonable actions against you - not a threat, it is the two-way street called respect. LEARN IT).
I gave you plenty of opportunity to be an honorable and fair moderator, you willingly passed it up each time.
You have set the expectations, for me, that you don't care about the moderation policies (assuming there are any) here, and basically will abuse your status to get your way. If that's not the case, then you would have done your job as moderator.
I will say this once again: Don't start what you can't finish.


If you or Lucifer abuse your moderator status over me at any point again, I will not even try to dispute it; I will simply take whatever actions I deem necessary to rectify the situation. (note, I did say ABUSE = if you fail as moderator like you both have done this time around - this doesn't me I'm unbannable, nor would it mean I take advantage of the situation - unlike you, I have integrity)



As for this time:
The ban was unjust, and every argument you try has no real basis in anything.
None of the claims against me can be proven true, and you don't even try anymore (you know you're wrong so just admit the mistake and get it over with).
No amount of you trying to assert your fake authority will change the past, nor will it change FACT.
The more you try to abandon the issue without actually proving the claims, the worse you look to everyone; so yes, people will know about the choices you've made (some already do and let me tell you - they all think you should step down).
I'm beginning to think you're doing this before you choose to retire; no moderator is this much of an ass if they expect to keep their job.

The thing about this dispute is, if anyone actually goes through the process, I will be proven innocent.
So it's not that I simply didn't like your's (or Lucifer's) decision; you abandoned the dispute (you didn't go through the process of proving your claims, you merely asserted your authority and said that was enough).
So, the thing about this dispute is, Tank Program MUST go through the process since both you and Lucifer left it up to him.
Given that he has shown to actually be reasonable, I'm fairly certain he will go through the process (if he doesn't the public will know just how tyrannical this place is - 3/3 people can't dispute a ban properly, nor do they care).
So regardless of the outcome, you should still prepare your apologies.

Final note: the only thing you ever didn't like about me in this dispute is that we both know I'm right and you dislike how forceful I am in getting you to admit it; I know you well enough to know that you're not even mistaken, you just want the results of a respected moderator without having to actually be one. If you truly believe that the ban was just, then just step down right now - no one that delusional should be moderator (if you're delusional, you won't even look into how that might be the case = you want to remain ignorant and stupid).
If you decide to moderate me, you better be damn sure you should be doing that.


P.S - get help for your mental health (I would offer but I know what you're answer would be) because you can't even handle a ban dispute. For a (actually two) moderator(s) to be emotionally incompetent...this place is a disgrace; needs some REAL moderators in here. Seriously, it is possible to be able to withstand everything and be able to dispute anything properly and fairly - if you want that ability, I can help you get it. I've only ever been here to help - if you can manage to not be offended, you can receive that help.

So he is.. "announcing" to hack the forums if he ever feels unjustly moderated by me again, pretending it is not a threat, pretending it is only targeting me and not all of you (and especially Tank who would be the one to clean up the mess). And he's asserting that if he does it, it will be all my fault. And he thinks that hacking a forum in response to perceived unjust moderation is a sensible and morally justifiable action. Nothing on my part provoked this.

These forums are like a party we host. Scaled down to typical party length, Durf was asked to step outside for a minute because we was being an harassing creep. His response is to threaten to break into the house and lock me out or do worse (steal your passwords, it seems). That's your hero, folks.

Of course, the bits where he claimed he has been nice and all are pure fabrication from my point of view, especially in the bits of the conversation he did not show you.

(I was planning to write the proper responses to the non-Durfs in this thread and publish it all at once and unlock the thread right away, but plans changed. Answers will still come. Also, anti-Durf PM filter will go up now. He has nothing to say that could possibly interest me.)

[Z-Man]

Since he apparently does not understand: The anti-Durf filter is a PM rule of the form "If Sender is Durf (then) delete Message". It means I can't read anything he PMs me. Past PMs were just filled with threats, abuse, outrageous demands and wild accusations. I'm not interested in more of that. The only communication from Durf I'm interested in is a "It was wrong to threaten to hack the forums", and he can say that in public.
(And, to reiterate what I said before, to him, the work of the filter looks as if I have read his PMs. I haven't.)

[Z-Man]

1) Lucifer apologizes for the rash ban (I think most people are in agreement it was quick and irrational), whether he meant it or not, regardless of his views on what Durf had said.

Yes, and actually, that was at some point part of the plan. I should have pushed him a bit harder to go through with it, an apology would have been the decent thing to do.

That said, I did apologize to Durf for something stupid I said in a PM:

"It's only harassment if it doesn't stop if you stop talking."
Yes, that's clearly a stupid thing to say. Dunno where my head was, probably still in medication heaven. If it offended you, I apologize.
I'm leaving the report open for Tank to handle.

Of course he does not show you that in his chat history because he is cherry picking... that's not the reason I bring it up, though. The reason I bring it up is that even though he initially accepted it, he since completely turned around on that and justifies all abuse hurled my way as "A taste of my own medicine". So I can't think an apology from Lucifer would have changed all that much in the long run.

Regarding me purposefully ignoring input from Durf:

1. Reject input from both Durf and Lucifer - This might not lead to the best decision (lack of information) but it would be fair to both sides, assuming Zman was an unbiased moderator.

That's what I did. See, when you want to decide whether a decision was legit, you only must look at the facts as they were known when the decision was made.
Besides, the ignored messages were on the subject of sexism, which in our final revised reading was not a ban reason any more, it was just part of my personal assessment (two posts later). And, just as I could tell from their first sentences, they made Durf look worse, so he should be glad I did not take them into account.
While on that topic, apparently, this is now considered by Durf "Going out of my way to prove he was sexist." Uh-huh.

How was Durf banned for what he said, and Vogue not for what she said?

She was banned in the same event for other, worse things. In that context, her part of the exchange was background noise. The notion we'd somehow be biased for Vogue, the most often banned person still here, is utterly ridiculous.
Durf violated rule 2 ("Treat others respectfully, like human beings. Even if they violate rule 1.) in that exchange, on top of the whole thing being extremely creepy (no, I can't prove it with "logic", you need a bit of emotional intelligence and empathy for that). He admits it here:

I treat others with the same level of respect they treat me.* That includes you. Remember when I thanked you for alleviating me of the responsibility of respecting your authority? That was when you lost any deserving respect you previously got from me. (note, you still have the respect any individual deserves, which is why I even told you when you lost it. Fair warning.)
Likewise, Vogue did as well...

Now, he'll argue that it was not the worst offence against that rule and worse offences were not banned. He may be right, but as I already said elsewhere, moderation is fuzzy. You can't objectively order offences in order from least bad to worst. He is using his interpretation, his view, and in the view of the offender, their offences are always, without fail, less bad than whatever the others are doing.
And since he also argues that Vogue did it first, he admits he was violating rule 6 ("Don't fight fire with fire.") specifically.

And yes, I aborted the "Dispute" at that point. Because it was not a dispute in the first place. It was clear at that point that Durf would never see he did something wrong, and this was all in PMs, there was nobody but him to convince.

D33P and ConVicT: "Don't be x", in the context of rules, means "Don't act like an x", it's just shorter. x is as x does. Persons of all IQs can act like idiots. I think I was under the influence of an article I can't find now (bad keywords) that classified people into four groups: idiots, heroes, bandits and... can't remember the choice now, so let's say workers. Workers and heroes do good to others, bandits and idiots harm others. Workers and bandits benefit themselves, idiots and heroes harm themselves. And the article stated that the distribution of people among those groups were largely independent of social standing or intelligence. Of course, in that context, "don't be a bandit" would also be a rule, but a implicit-because-it-should-be-obvious rule. Anyway, I'm not sure how big the influence of that article was, but certainly, rule 1 is not meant to be a "your IQ needs to be this high to enter" criterion.
No, ConVicT, you are not an idiot in the sense of rule 1. Just try posting only while sober

So what that tells me is that if you found this so-called sexism funny, he wouldn't have been banned?

Maybe, but just being funny is not good enough. Something can be hilarious, but at the same time offensive, insulting, trolling and therefore still worthy of a ban. Jokes *about* sexism could be fine. Sexist jokes probably not. Anyway, sexism was not part of the revised ban reason.

Edit: Oh, of course I have nothing against Tank scanning this thread for sock puppets of mine, apart from the fact that it would be a total waste of time.

I think that's what I wanted to say. Yes, it took me that long. Remind me if I forgot something important and you're not Durf.

[/dev/null]

Heh, its your forum, **** them. They can suck less or they can die. Its not your problem regardless.

also zman sock puppets, that would be both obvious, and hilarious. Im down.

Durf, treating someone with respect isnt the same as respecting someone. Learn the ******* difference. Treating someone with respect is a silly thing I occassionally eat. They would much rather you be useful.

[Word]

She was banned in the same event for other, worse things. In that context, her part of the exchange was background noise. The notion we'd somehow be biased for Vogue, the most often banned person still here, is utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, it should be pointed out that Lizmatic made an actual effort to restrain herself afterwards.


Here's a thought-experiment. The only person who can perhaps disprove something Durf said so Durf understands it is Durf himself. So Durf could try to reverse-engineer what he says and disprove one of his own claims. He always starts from the assumption/hypothesis that the disagreeing party is wrong and never, ever questions his own opinion. So what if he, for the sake of participating in such an experiment, assumes the other party is right and he is wrong? I say he's unable to even imagine that he's wrong and even if he isn't, he won't actually be able to disprove something he said (he'll say that's impossible, because he is right as always - "OK, let's assume you're right. You aren't."). So far, there's not even a single instance where he said something along the lines of "I see your point, but I still disagree", even if the preceding arguments strongly favoured the side he "disagreed" with. The only way Durf can prove me wrong here is by proving himself wrong. Here are a number of his statements, now he can try to argue in favour of his "detractors". If that helps, he can imagine a person that doesn't happen to be Durf who said this. Can Durf show empathy?

This is the entire "PM History" that you were afraid of being released.

You say 9/10 people disagree with me, when I see very different numbers. First of all, these numbers would be reversed if you take the in-game population.

You're right, a threat is a threat. Too bad I didn't make one.

It is not my intention to overthrow the moderators...but if they are proven to be required to be overthrown then so be it

[Durf]

First I'd like to point out how Z-Man was operating under false pretenses. Further proof of his unreasonable behavior.
How?
Z-Man was pressuring me to post the PM history for the reason of disproving my slanderous claims that he was an unreasonable person.
So, how exactly does that last PM serve to prove his own reasonability? It only serves to show that he cares about something petty and would rather deface a person's social status on false grounds, then actually do his job as a moderator of these forums.
Specifically the parts he bolded have absolutely nothing to do with proving his reasonability; meaning this entire thread was under a false pretense the entire time.
Basically, Z-Man lied to everyone.
Remember, the point of this thread was to refute my "slanderous claims".



But let's assess his actions:

Before I get to respond to you guys, first the PMs I promised to publish. I weighted his privacy against your need to know and you won.

He specifically refuses to get on with the topic at hand merely to start other unrelated drama. Typically this is when the community accuses me of starting it, but then why couldn't they just deal with it privately like many of you suggested? Even if I was starting this extra drama, I'm willing to move past it and deal with all the issues; Z-Man will inevitably run away from this one too as he has no basis in reality with his arguments.
He says that he weighed my privacy against your need to know; first of all, I never thought that was an acceptable thing - this invalidates your claims that I ever violated anyone's privacy; I simply thought they needed to know. And if that's the case, you won't have a problem if I post the countless other examples of your abusive and/or unreasonable actions in the past..?
But that actually doesn't matter anyway because if you look closely: "first the PMs I promised to publish." - he never had any intention of honoring my "privacy" to begin with. His entire claim that he even weighed in my privacy is a poor attempt to cover his unreasonable action to post without consent.

So he is.. "announcing" to hack the forums if he ever feels unjustly moderated by me again, pretending it is not a threat, pretending it is only targeting me and not all of you (and especially Tank who would be the one to clean up the mess). And he's asserting that if he does it, it will be all my fault. And he thinks that hacking a forum in response to perceived unjust moderation is a sensible and morally justifiable action. Nothing on my part provoked this.

I haven't announced anything remotely close to that. I haven't even specifically said that you would be a target. Furthermore, the type of exploit that I mentioned would leave no mess at all (just stop being ignorant, and maybe you'd start having a point to make). I am not asserting that my actions will be your fault. I don't think you know what "hacking" means. You are mistaken that there was even something provoked. I never tried to claim you provoked anything.

For proof, I will be glad to post yet another PM history thread so as to refute these claims. Note, I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter, but seeing as how it's an unreasonable moderator's word against mine, I have little reason to even try to refute his claims. Even if a large portion of the community felt the need to ban me...on what grounds? Because Z-Man scared you with his propaganda?

Besides any of this, note how this was brought up for a reason: my "slanderous claims". So, if the purpose of this thread was never to refute the claims in the first place, this is proof of what I've been saying all along. Z-Man will start more bullshit drama as a means of avoiding a current issue.
Remember what was being discussed at the time? Z-Man instigated this under the false pretense of refuting my "slanderous claims" merely to start more drama, as a means of publicly defacing me for the various claims I've proven about them.
The next time you try to ask me to stop creating more drama, TALK TO Z-MAN.
This should be the last time that I should have to warn you not to listen to Z-Man's propaganda as he is just having a tantrum anyway.

So back to the claim itself:
He took a PM (one of the very last ones) from a longer PM chain that, if posted in it's entirety, would not only serve to refute Z-Man's claims, but also give further proof of his unreasonable nature and show everyone how this thread was essentially orchestrated by someone who thought they had something on someone, but actually didn't.
I warned him not to grasp at straws.
In the PM chain, I ask Z-Man how I could go about contributing to the source code, so this game can really progress and get some real updates done.
There was a lengthy and unreasonable conversation about imposed limitations and restrictions to my contributions - seemingly only mine.
This led to a discussion between Z-Man and myself where I ask his what his motives / intentions are.
His recent unreasonable actions has led me to believe that he is unable to act as a friend / someone who can be reasoned with in the case of a misunderstanding.
I asked him quite clearly if he wanted to make an enemy out of me; incidentally he didn't say "no".
Since the conversation wasn't going anywhere (looping around his unreasonable, cyclical words), I decided to end it by simply stating where my intentions stand as he left his expectations for me quite clearly.
As it stands: If I am to be abused (we all know what abuse is, and people even know for a fact that Lucifer did abuse), knowing that I don't have the ability to reason it out with anyone, I have other options available to me that I can use to unban myself. This is what I meant by "Z-Man fails to appreciate the decisions I've taken in dealing with this". He seems to think a dispute is just someone trolling, but I was trying to handle this issue the right way to begin with. Put simply, if you had my capabilities, you might have done far worse by now.
Note, this is not a threat as I am not going to inflict harm to anyone or compromise anyone's accounts. Albeit, the exploits grants me more access than what Z-Man has, that doesn't mean I intend to abuse it. I would think my attempts to even dispute the ban in the first place is evidence of that.
So no, I haven't made a single threat to anyone, nor this website (as nothing would be affected or changed), nor anyone's passwords.
Z-Man's claims are merely an attempt to cause enough hype to grant him "reason" to ban without an actual reason. Like I said, even if a large portion of the community wanted to ban me...on what grounds? Because you all dislike me? Because I've committed a social faux-pas? If you can't prove your reason to someone else without having to rely on their emotional reaction to a misinterpretation you've had, then you have no valid reason to ban. This is the exact kind of intolerance that kills a community.

These forums are like a party we host. Scaled down to typical party length, Durf was asked to step outside for a minute because we was being an harassing creep. His response is to threaten to break into the house and lock me out or do worse (steal your passwords, it seems). That's your hero, folks.

In you analogy, you should change "was being a harassing creep" to "was thought to have been a harassing creep" at the very least. Stop perpetuating your abusive actions as if they are already justified.
My response was specifically if YOU made the bad decision to abuse your status on me - if YOU had no valid reason to ban me that you could easily prove (c'mon, it's not that hard if you're right), then given that I wouldn't have a fair chance at dealing with the problem, I would simply unban myself. If you insisted of abusing your status on me again and again, I would be forced to put a stop to it by banning you. Alternatively I suppose I could just demote you.
There was never any threat made to anyone's passwords - you were the one to come to that conclusion Z-Man; and you acted on your assumption with this thread, only serving to prove my claims once again.
Funny that you call me a hero - you're the first person to mention it. I think the word you are looking for is "nemesis" since you seem to think I'm your enemy and you're fairly adamant about trying to justify abuse against me.

Of course, the bits where he claimed he has been nice and all are pure fabrication from my point of view, especially in the bits of the conversation he did not show you.

You said you wanted the whole PM history, but you yourself fail to post everything and try to hide behind PMs by saying that I'm the one not showing them everything...pitiful. You haven't posted everything because you know you're full of shit, you just want to see how many ass kissers are left for you. Even if what I've said is pure fabrication, you do absolutely nothing to refute it (I know by now it's because you know that I'm not full of shit and can back up what I say). Start speaking for yourself, because I find it convenient that you claim I'm the one fabricating things right after posting your own ridiculous claims. Stop hiding behind your excuses and finish what you start. Even if we go through this issue and no matter the result by the end, finish what you start, and finish the other disputes, including answering for your unreasonable behavior.

Since he apparently does not understand: The anti-Durf filter is a PM rule of the form "If Sender is Durf (then) delete Message". It means I can't read anything he PMs me. Past PMs were just filled with threats, abuse, outrageous demands and wild accusations. I'm not interested in more of that. The only communication from Durf I'm interested in is a "It was wrong to threaten to hack the forums", and he can say that in public.
(And, to reiterate what I said before, to him, the work of the filter looks as if I have read his PMs. I haven't.)

As everyone can see, I do not have the ability to dispute anything in private with Z-Man, and most assuredly Lucifer as well (as he asked me not to PM him). Don't ask me why I can't settle this in private; as the moderators why I am unable to settle it in the first place.

1) Lucifer apologizes for the rash ban (I think most people are in agreement it was quick and irrational), whether he meant it or not, regardless of his views on what Durf had said.

Yes, and actually, that was at some point part of the plan. I should have pushed him a bit harder to go through with it, an apology would have been the decent thing to do.

Gee, and you wonder why you moderators have lost so much respect.. >_>

That said, I did apologize to Durf for something stupid I said in a PM:

"It's only harassment if it doesn't stop if you stop talking."
Yes, that's clearly a stupid thing to say. Dunno where my head was, probably still in medication heaven. If it offended you, I apologize.
I'm leaving the report open for Tank to handle.

Of course he does not show you that in his chat history because he is cherry picking... that's not the reason I bring it up, though. The reason I bring it up is that even though he initially accepted it, he since completely turned around on that and justifies all abuse hurled my way as "A taste of my own medicine". So I can't think an apology from Lucifer would have changed all that much in the long run.

Z-Man, this is unrelated nonsense and doesn't serve to support any argument. Saying "look look, I did the right thing here!" doesn't make a wrong you've done right. It's simply unrelated - stop trying to hide behind your bullshit and deal with the shit you're called out on. What are you afraid of? Apologizing for something stupid you've said in a PM to me should be expected regardless of any other apologies being expected from Lucifer, and it certainly does not excuse him from apologizing for his mistakes.
You say I'm cherry picking, but I've posted the entire PM history for the purpose of the thread - this was the expectation you set and I wasn't about to post more than that as it was off-topic and, knowing you, you'd only see that as an excuse to lock the thread and blame me somehow. Your false pretense, put together with your unreasonable abusive history, has led me to be forced to that range of PMs. I don't mind posting 100% of all the PMs between you and myself.
You're developing a bad habit of saying to others what you should be saying to yourself: you're the one who cherry picked in the PM history just so you could try to support your claims that I'm even a threat.
I haven't accepted anything, I've only ever questioned it (assuming I even knew what you were talking about with that sentence, you weren't clear on the subject). I never justified abuse hurled you was as a taste of your own medicine - 1) because there was never abuse to begin with. You think telling it like it is, is a form of abuse. Guess that must mean you think real life is abusive. 2) I've specifically told you that other users have been just as, or more, abusive and you have allowed it (and have even gone as far as to say I deserved it). That being said, you clearly define that it is within the scope of the rules and no punishment follows such wording.
An apology from Lucifer isn't supposed to change me (are you ******* kidding me right now?). You don't say "sorry" to change the other person's feelings. You say it because you feel what it feels like to BE sorry for the actions you took. In the long run, even if Lucifer gave a fake and half-assed apology, it would change the community as a whole from the current state it's in: a state where a moderator clearly does something wrong and never apologizes for it, quite the opposite, spend more time than should be trying to justify actions they can't, looking for an excuse to say "hey hey look! see what he did? That means that ban that happened 3 months ago was deserved!!" - no...learn to admit your mistakes, then learn to feel sorry for them, then learn to apologize...then learn to grow as a person.

Regarding me purposefully ignoring input from Durf:

1. Reject input from both Durf and Lucifer - This might not lead to the best decision (lack of information) but it would be fair to both sides, assuming Zman was an unbiased moderator.

That's what I did. See, when you want to decide whether a decision was legit, you only must look at the facts as they were known when the decision was made.
Besides, the ignored messages were on the subject of sexism, which in our final revised reading was not a ban reason any more, it was just part of my personal assessment (two posts later). And, just as I could tell from their first sentences, they made Durf look worse, so he should be glad I did not take them into account.
While on that topic, apparently, this is now considered by Durf "Going out of my way to prove he was sexist." Uh-huh.

You haven't responded to the main argument being made: how were you a reasonable moderator?
Also, yes the post you linked is exactly going out of your way to label me as a sexist. It is perpetuating a false assumption you've made. Considering that you haven't accepted any input from myself or Lucifer, you make it clear that this is just your opinion. Let alone the rest of the errors you're trying to perpetuate as truths like as if you actually know what sexism is (I say this because you have proven time and time again that you only think you know, and you only want to do the right thing, but you're not sure of anything). Let alone how you've said it before locking the thread to prevent further discussions on the matter or the possibility that I'd actually refute it for people to see just how full of shit you are with your constant harassing aspersions. If you considered that I didn't need moderating, you wouldn't be abusive to begin with.

How was Durf banned for what he said, and Vogue not for what she said?

She was banned in the same event for other, worse things. In that context, her part of the exchange was background noise. The notion we'd somehow be biased for Vogue, the most often banned person still here, is utterly ridiculous.
Durf violated rule 2 ("Treat others respectfully, like human beings. Even if they violate rule 1.) in that exchange, on top of the whole thing being extremely creepy (no, I can't prove it with "logic", you need a bit of emotional intelligence and empathy for that). He admits it here:

I treat others with the same level of respect they treat me.* That includes you. Remember when I thanked you for alleviating me of the responsibility of respecting your authority? That was when you lost any deserving respect you previously got from me. (note, you still have the respect any individual deserves, which is why I even told you when you lost it. Fair warning.)
Likewise, Vogue did as well...

Now, he'll argue that it was not the worst offence against that rule and worse offences were not banned. He may be right, but as I already said elsewhere, moderation is fuzzy. You can't objectively order offences in order from least bad to worst. He is using his interpretation, his view, and in the view of the offender, their offences are always, without fail, less bad than whatever the others are doing.
And since he also argues that Vogue did it first, he admits he was violating rule 6 ("Don't fight fire with fire.") specifically.

In the context you mention, you say her part of the exchange was background noise (as if to excuse it). Which is the entire notion of you being biased for Vogue. Just because they are the most banned person still here, doesn't mean they should be excused from correctional treatment. Put simply, if you allow Vogue to do it and not myself, that is clearly being bias.
I did not violate rule #2. I was not creepy either. The fact that you can't prove should say enough. I'm aware of the emotional context, and it too is mistaken. If you were capable of seeing things from my point of view (even emotionally), you would laugh at your own stupidity. I don't "admit" to breaking rule #2; that quote though is a good example of when I made the realization of the minimum level of respect required to give a person without being banned for it. The fact that I even told you about that is fair warning, and a form of respect in itself. I could have easily not told you and lured you into abusing your status once again. You fail to see how I've given you countless opportunities to not be an ass; you disappoint each time.
You can objectively order offences from least to most offending. This isn't my interpretation, and you're so full of shit that you seem to have forgotten that you supposedly "weighed" my privacy against the public's need to know. If such a thing was true, then you have objectively given the content of my PM a certain weight and can relate that weight to any other offense. You have just created a paradox for your own argument (good job). If one is true, the other is false.
Moderation should never be "fuzzy" - that is such a bullshit cop-out answer to a very real problem. Frankly, nearly every other internet community has a moderator that actually does their job; which is why I was surprised to find out what Armagetron's forums are like. What's so hard about improving moderation policies? Aside from letting go of that massive pride you have, there should be nothing stopping you from being the best moderator there is.
"in the view of the offender, their offences are always, without fail, less bad than whatever the others are doing" - this proves that you never even once considered the possibility that I was falsely accused / innocent. You simply thought I was the offender, and because of that have dismissed everything I've said because you just think I will think that anyway since I'm the offender. Do you realize just how wrong you are? Do you realize how much you have proven to be unreasonable (in the ironically appropriate thread) with your consecutive attempts to deface me publicly?
Plus, your last attempt to find a rule that was broken is also total bullshit. Don't fight fire with fire = don't fight fire with fire. If Vogue used fire, how would it be fighting fire with fire if I used fire on you? Regardless of any of that, I haven't flamed at all. No rule has been violated. Consider though, that your aspersions are a form of fire - and even if what I did was fire, I didn't fight fire with fire, you did.

And yes, I aborted the "Dispute" at that point. Because it was not a dispute in the first place. It was clear at that point that Durf would never see he did something wrong, and this was all in PMs, there was nobody but him to convince.

Admitted. Stamped it, doubled stamped it, no erasies.
Seriously though. He admits to abandoning the dispute (on the grounds that it wasn't one to begin with). It wasn't a dispute to begin with because (as shown in the above paragraph) Z-Man never gave possibility that I was an innocent user who was wronged. He was only ever after getting me to see what I've done is wrong (and failing miserably to do so). I was open to the possibility that I've somehow broken the rules, but I only ask to be shown how so that I learn how not to break them again; if you can't then I'm left with the reason that it was unjust and abusive.
Put simply, Z-Man is abusive. This was the closest he has come to admitting that he actually did something wrong. Kinda too late for him to try to consider me innocent though, since he abandoned the dispute.

So what that tells me is that if you found this so-called sexism funny, he wouldn't have been banned?

Maybe, but just being funny is not good enough. Something can be hilarious, but at the same time offensive, insulting, trolling and therefore still worthy of a ban. Jokes *about* sexism could be fine. Sexist jokes probably not. Anyway, sexism was not part of the revised ban reason.

"revised ban reason" - should tell you enough. The initial ban was unjust, and they know it. They have since gone looking for reasons to slap on to try to justify it. Reasons that they would have otherwise never used, simply because they refuse to deal with their pride and admit to having wronged an innocent user. But apparently they would rather try to cover their asses than to be decent people. Anyway, even their revised ban reasons cannot be proven - further proof of what I've just said. Grasping at straws.

Edit: Oh, of course I have nothing against Tank scanning this thread for sock puppets of mine, apart from the fact that it would be a total waste of time.

What about registered accounts, and in other threads? Do you really think you can manipulate people so easily? If we're looking for multiple accounts, it won't be limited to the areas you tell us to look. By your own logic, we can't trust what you say since you're the offender.

I think that's what I wanted to say. Yes, it took me that long. Remind me if I forgot something important and you're not Durf.

^ So I'm not allowed to talk to you in public now either? I don't get it. Get off your high horse..?