I know it quite well. There's a difference between refusing to roll over for a tyrant / telling it like it is, and being disrespectful (you should know this).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.)
Which leads me to believe that you might not have read the entire PM history, or are perhaps unaware that there are even more instances where Z-Man has showed me continuous disrespect (in more than one sense).
Either way, coming from you, it seems a little ironic don't you think? If it was meant to be effective, it only makes me think that you should understand why I am not able to be banned for the way I've been speaking. It's a deliberate statement of the limitations of the current rules. And if people seem to have a problem with it, nothing is actually done about it...why? The moderators won't actually do their job. They are far too concerned with covering their own asses than actually fixing any problems (maybe that's why rubber never gets fixed?).
Anyway, I hope I don't need to remind you that this was all instigated by Z-Man... it wasn't my intention to cause this, or any form of unpleasantness for anyone.
If they would rather I be useful, then why would they basically refuse any and all help I've offered them? For free I might add..
I can see where you're coming from, and I'm only being forced to think it's because you aren't seeing the whole picture. This wouldn't be my problem if it wasn't being made my problem.
@Word:
^ this seems to suggest that I haven't. What do you think the process of a dispute is for? It isn't meant for me to "prove I'm right" - a dispute is to reach a valid resolution. A final answer; the truth. What you don't seem to get is that even through a dispute, I can be proven wrong, and proven to have deserved a ban.Yeah, it should be pointed out that Lizmatic made an actual effort to restrain herself afterwards.
The dispute itself was an attempt to "restrain" myself from causing the same problems I apparently caused to have deserved to ban in the first place. If you get banned and the reason labelled doesn't make sense to you, how will you know what you did wrong? How will you have a fair chance at learning from your mistake so you don't make it again? The dispute is the very thing you are trying to suggest I haven't done.
Try it. Pick a claim I've made and see what happens.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.
There is a massive difference between assuming someone is wrong, and questioning if they are right. You have just made an assumption yourself. Stop being an ass. I've asked you countless times to cease making your aspersions. Stop your harassing behavior. I shouldn't have to ask you this many times to at least try to support what you say about me.He always starts from the assumption/hypothesis that the disagreeing party is wrong and never, ever questions his own opinion.
More unsupported aspersions. I have always given possibility that others have been right, which is why I pursue their claims to the most detailed conclusions. You mistake countless of unsupported arguments for a stubbornness. Can you conceive that it is possible that I'm just not as gullible as you are? That I will question everything? The reason why I'm so confident in what I say is because of that very lifestyle choice of making sure I know what I'm even talking about. Put simply, I've already learned the lesson of saying something that I wasn't sure of and turned out to be false. The chances of me making that mistake again are very low. Even then, it shouldn't be hard to prove it, teach me, and we can move on. I question my own opinion more than you think. I question it more than you question it. Guaranteed.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.").
In that post about the IQ tests, I'm agreeing with you. You are under a delusion that I simply disagree with everything you have to say. More importantly, what would be the worth in a post that only says "I agree"..? Even so, there have been multiple instances where I've made it perfectly clear that I understand the others point of view, and I do say that it's just plain wrong (note that I don't say I disagree because I am proving it with evidence as fact); there is a difference between fact and opinion. Just because your opinion disagrees with fact, doesn't mean you're fighting me about it; you're fighting reality.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.
Let's find out what you're even trying to do? Assuming that we prove whatever it is you're trying to prove...you're not supporting Z-Man, nor refuting the "slanderous claims" that he is an unreasonable moderator.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?
Each line:
"This is the entire "PM History" that you were afraid of being released." - "PM History" at that time was referring to a term (that was briefly defined by Z-Man and myself throughout our PM exchanges) to signify a portion of the PMs between us. At that time, Z-Man had clearly made the implication that the "PM History" was referring to everything that I said I could easily post in public to prove how he was unreasonable. Z-Man did indeed show fear of this concept from his replies, and subsequent actions. Would it be empathetic for me to pretend like he was perfectly reasonable? Or would it be empathic for me to insist he grow up and do his job? If I were him, I would want this kind of treatment. Then I'd be sure of being able to improve.
"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." - what exactly did you want from this? What does quoting this prove? What is the relation? What empathy is there to show? It's merely giving an alternate point of view since the view that was given was fairly biased. Everyone should try to be a little more open minded; the mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open. Saying the numbers would be reversed in game isn't really a reason to ... idk even know; what is there to show empathy to? I talk to people in game, I know the people who actually PLAY THE GAME, instead of play the forums. Mentioning this doesn't mean that I think they don't; but when you're obviously counting troll posts and other unreasonable / unsupported posts as valid opinions like they had equal weight to opinions that stood by facts, well it's just asking to be proven wrong. The facts are that nobody wants to deal with this nonsense and the moderators hope to get the community angry at me so as to get me to stop (just more of their attempts to hide from their actions / responsibilities - like abandoning disputes). The fact remains that I don't care if the public gets mad at me just because I'm forced to have to post everything in public because I'm playing by their own rules. They won't avoid the dispute (though technically, they've left all dispute up to Tank Program at this point - so anything they are causing now is just bullshit drama for some petty reason) because they can't avoid it.
"You're right, a threat is a threat. Too bad I didn't make one." - No matter who said it - I'd question it. The thing is, since I know what's been said, and who instigated what, I know no threat has been made. My answer would be the same no matter who said it. You actually need to threaten someone to make a threat. Z-Man just made an assumption and acted on it - the assumption alone was bad enough - but now he went and showed the public just how bad he can get.
"It is not my intention to overthrow the moderators...but if they are proven to be required to be overthrown then so be it" - what is there to be empathetic about? Am I supposed to go, "Oh, your poor ego, I forgot! My bad..you can stay as the incompetent moderator you are."? If I was moderator, and this was said about me, then I would realize that what was said isn't really anything of consequence. Saying "if they are proven to be required to be overthrown" should be clear enough as it is: proven to be required to be overthrown. If it is not required, or can't be proven, then I (they) would have nothing to worry about.
I have continuously made my intention clear; it is not to overthrow the moderators - however, if the moderators are merely these abusive tyrants who simply want to abuse for the sake of abusing / validating their own egos, then it will soon be made obvious that they are required to be "overthrown" (as it were).
My sole intention was only ever to find out exactly why I've been banned - yet that was never proven; no lesson was learned.
If the rules weren't clear enough to encompass a valid reason for my ban, then the dispute should improve the rules (not excuse my actions). Yet Z-Man proves that he'd rather abandon a dispute because of an assumption he's made. I don't know about you, but to me, that signifies a terrible moderator no matter who he does it to.
Can YOU show empathy?
But seriously guys - this thread is here because Z-Man forced it to be here so as to disprove my "slanderous claims".
Yet, all that has been continuously proven is how Z-Man is unreasonable.
Doesn't anyone have anything to support Z-Man? Prove how he was reasonable...even once.
If not, can we be done with this? Z-Man, admit you were unreasonable and let's move on. Grow up and admit to your mistakes.
