The PM History

[Venijn]

I laughed so hard at this thread. I've been a part of this community for nearly 12 years... This is probably the account I've used the longest though.

I'll probably give a proper response when I get home from work, but I'll just say that you need only read how you respond to people to see that they are full of hypocritical assumptions. That said, I think most people saw that the assumption and hypocrisy comments were directly related.

[Vogue]

Welcome to the real world, Durf, where you can't force people to apologize for something they alledgedly did wrong. Better get used to it because it'll happen a lot in life.

D33P, I highly doubt you would've agreed with Durf on this if you didn't know him and he wasn't your friend. You're not being subjective at all.

[Clutch]

And so the armagetron forums were essentially destroyed because the community couldn't stop responding to one troll, gj team

[Nanu Nanu]

I must confess that I am actually a sock puppet account made by Z-Man. Also Venoms account is a sock puppet made by a sock puppet. Also I love sock puppets. Aren't they just the cutest?

[Soul]

ballsack

[Vogue]

And so the armagetron forums were essentially destroyed because the community couldn't stop responding to one troll, gj team

G5 was right all these years, his team SUCKS.

[Amaso]

D33P, I highly doubt you would've agreed with Durf on this if you didn't know him and he wasn't your friend. You're not being subjective at all.

He finally said something intelligent
+1

[Durf]

@Word:

Z-Man, I have one question - it's not a rhetoric one. Do you mind if we don't read this or is there something that we all should read (I'm not sure why, because the different "parties" on this forum won't really change and I'd rather respect your privacy even if some jerk posts your PMs to reinforce the notion that he's a jerk, either by the act of posting the PMs, or by the content thereof. Then again, Durf will also reinforce that by not posting them and hinting at their super-comprimising content that will expose you as the evil guy..)? In short, I don't know what we others are supposed to do. At this point, Durf's ego doesn't deserve even more attention and he needs to deflate, I think.

Absolutely not! For about 95% of you, it is simply tl;dr. For those in that group: please don't post "tl;dr", just ignore it. Sorry, I wanted to write that in the original post, but forgot.
I think you should read the comments others make. Well, I hope that I'll think that. Not knowing the comments beforehand makes that kind of difficult to judge. Once the 96 hour embargo lifts, I'll definitely have a thing or two to say.

Ok, then I'll proceed as recommended. Thank you for the clarification.

^ Nice to see you showing some consistency (<-- sarcasm)




@madmax: You're nitpicking over something very stupid. Just because I said in one of my posts that I was addressing structural issues, doesn't mean that I am limited to only those kind of posts while adhering to the compromise.
Now that I can post on the actual topic: You aren't disproving the claim that Z-Man was unreasonable. In fact, I love how you call them "too reasonable" because when put up next to evidence such as the PM history, it seems like a joke.
The only ones going in circles have been the moderators; they (and especially users like you) get upset that I actually have the ability to call them out on their bullshit and indulge in their convoluted attempts to avoid the problems.
I never claimed that I'm trying to expose a hidden agenda, nor have I ever claimed that the moderators are evil - funny you should mention that though because on more than one occasion Lucifer has called me evil. Now either you're a massive hypocrite because you allow him to do it and not me, or you're just too subjective of an opinion to actually be of worth to "truth". Prove me wrong.




@Ratchet:

Essentially, what you're getting at is that no one has credibility around here. Unless, of course, they agree with your side of the story. In your head, you're 100% right. No questions asked. Therefore, the only credible information is that in which supports your argument.

How did you come to that conclusion? How isn't that going out of your way to think something so random and hate filled?
I figured what I said would be simple enough to understand, but you chose to read into it far too much and derived your imaginary meaning. Read my next words for their literal meaning: "depending on mere numbers agreeing with you is stupid - depending on fact will always be more reliable in the end". All I'm asking for is something FAIR in which people prove their claims in a way that (no matter who reads it, friend or not) no one can disagree with the findings without seeming like a total bigot (you can't argue with fact - you can, but you will look stupid). THIS INCLUDES the possibility that I am proven to be wrong about Z-Man being unreasonable. I would think that this is a reasonable request on my part.
The only problem I see people having with that is if they had the intention of using numbers to reach a verdict instead of facts / evidence. Obviously everyone can just "react" to the PM history itself, but so far no one has properly supported Z-Man by showing exactly how the claim is false.

Right, so he posted defending your argument. Absolute credibility. Selective, are we?

All I said was that his post was insightful. Again, if anyone that supported Z-Man in a proper way posted something insightful, I would say the same about their post. The comment was just for readers to get over their urge to jump to conclusions and actually READ what is being said. D33P's stance on the matter is actually irrelevant to this behavioral pattern of mine.

Yes, King Durf. I'm sure the devs will get right on that, just for you. The game can wait, it's not like anyone wants game updates anyways.

Stop being a disrespectful asshole for one. Second, you're a mega-asshole for constantly perpetuating this environment of hate when it was because of haters like you that complained so much about my posts that I even tried to fix that problem. Turns out, haters are just going to hate.

You know who has credibility around here? The people who have been here for years making great contributions to this game. People like sinewav, kyle, Word, and the many others who've spent a lot of time around here keeping our community in check. The people like Z-man and Lucifer who are the reason you're even still playing the game. In fact, the only two people who are here to moderate these forums (dlh and epsy probably don't find you worth their time) are Z-man and Lucifer. Good luck convincing us that they're what's wrong with our forums. Everything was fine before you came along. It must be the people who are behind the game's success causing problems, though. That almost makes sense.

Put simply, you're delusional (you want proof? longer post). I technically meet your own criteria for credibility, so what's your point? You say everything was fine before I came along... are you suggesting that I should leave? Am I not allowed here? (note, this is the second time I have to ask you because of your overall demeanor) Though you mention the game's successes, let me put it in a way you can understand: if I were allowed to contribute to this project, it wouldn't take 10 years just to get some mediocre version done. But hey, you can measure success how you want.

Now I'm really confused, then. All D33P did was explain how your ban(s) were unwarranted. But, I agreed with your ban(s). You have got to explain this to me now. Me agreeing with your ban(s) is synonymous with believing that Z-man took appropriate actions. Am I not worthy of this thread because I don't agree with you? That seems to be the idea.

The purpose of the thread is to prove or disprove the claims that Z-Man was being unreasonable. All you've done was agree that the ban was just - a highly off-topic subject. Even if your opinion is synonymous with "Z-Man was reasonable", you aren't PROVING anything and are only filling this thread with spam. Remember the PURPOSE of the thread.

He's incompetent now? And that's the only purpose of this thread, to prove it? No one can disagree? I think your family forgot to whip you as a child. Come on down to Louisiana, we'll teach you discipline. Z-man is far more mature and "competent" than you'll ever be. If you were a moderator then half of the people on these forums would be banned by now from disagreeing with you. You're just ignorant.

I am forced to assume this ^ is an emotional outburst. You show absolutely no reasoning for this thinking and are just perpetuating an environment of hate. The claim that Z-Man is incompetent can't necessarily be proven or disproven directly with this thread, but indirectly as a competent moderator would be capable of FINISHING a dispute as well as being reasonable in doing so. What you think about my family is...well misguided to say the least; if you really knew about my life, I'm 100% confident that you would reform in the way you're approaching all of this (instant change on your part). If I were a moderator, I would uphold and enforce the rules to the letter that they are written - not because people simply disagree with me (in case you forgot, that's exactly what Lucifer did - why would I want to be that despicable?). And why are you even calling me ignorant? You're just name-calling at this point (showing further disrespect for no reason at all) and for what? Were you hoping to stop me from raising concerns of moderator abuse? Were you hoping for me to just accept that a moderator can't finish what they start? >_>

That's exactly what you appear to do to anyone who disagrees with you. The only difference is how many words it takes you to do so.

Yes, I'm aware that people look at a lengthy post and go "oh! that must be flaming!" and react based on that... When I ask you to stop being a hater, it is to prevent you from "fighting fire with fire" because there simply wasn't any fire to begin with. The end result of your hatred is you filling this thread with flaming posts - every time someone has claimed I'm "ruining" these forums, consider this type of action you take.

Believe me, we know. You've never done anything wrong, and we're all senseless (and brainless) to think otherwise. We all just want to think we're right and that you can't possibly be right. That's exactly us. You caught us.

If you say so.

It was in italics. Did your sarcasm radar break? Smarty pants.

Point out what is to be read as sarcastic. Italics don't define sarcasm.

Pwning? Good luck. You're having trouble comprehending posts and self-identifying your lack of maturity. You've still got a long ways to go before you have enough "credibility" to get my panties in a wad. The rest of this block is just... whatever. Yeah. You're right. I have to pee anyways. kbye.

Pwnt. Deal with it. You set yourself up for that one anyway. And the more you try to deny it, the more you will give me to work with. GF

Plus, if Venom (who has what, 200 posts?) is a 'questionable account' (see Durf's post), surely your 18 posts would be a candidate too. Except since, well, you agree with Durf. (I know you're a real person, D33P, just keeping consistency here). Therefore we have to immediately doubt your credibility and competence to a certain extent.

1) Z-Man's criteria for a sock-puppet account is simply not good enough; it has nothing to do with the number of posts (stop focusing on that if you want to see my point at all). 2) saying that just because D33P agrees with me means you HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY DOUBT his credibility and competence is a blatant insult to an individual user with individual thought. Stop disrespecting other tronners based on your guesses. No one is immediately questioning the credibility and competence of anyone supporting Z-Man simply because they are supporting Z-Man. Think about what kind of effect your contributions are having and the contrast in "maturity" (as you put it) between the sides being supported. You aren't helping anybody.

Z-man is being far too reasonable. Durf has condescendingly insulted half of the community for not agreeing with him. With a little luck he'll get a longer ban to mature a bit.

1) Z-Man has defined my behavior as acceptable and within the rules. No ban will ensue. 2) being condescending isn't illegal in any country (afaik) and isn't against the rules; deal with it. Insults: just because I make a claim like "you've made an assumption" and prove just how you did, doesn't mean I'm insulting you. Put simply: if you were a fat person, I would call you fat and you would get insulted anyway; that doesn't make you not fat. 3) the previous point has NOTHING to do with people agreeing with me or not - if anyone were to support my claims without any reasoning, I would be just as anal to them about it as I am to others. The point is to actually make a point instead of spewing a subjective opinion (does anyone know how to support what they say nowadays?). 4) You may want me banned - all the reasons derive from your emotions and personal opinion. I'm afraid that's just not my problem.

He clearly stated those were the conditions. But, that's not what YOU wanted. I hope you get banned just for that. He's honoring his side of things, if you haven't noticed. That's called respect. Look it up.

First of all, Z-Man is not doing this out of respect for me (lol); it is a petty attempt to besmirch me in return for the claims I've made against him publicly. The conditions have been met and the history agreed upon was posted. No more, no less.
You keep saying that you hope I get banned - for what? What rule am I breaking? Or are you hoping that I get abused by a moderator again? I don't get it.
You say he's honoring his side of things - what about the no moderating part? What about that post he removed? Are you sure? Your blind support (while I can imagine is appreciated for its sentiment) is only hurting what you're trying to support. Try doing things the right way; support what you say.




@Gonzap:
1) I want Z-Man to move past this issue.
2) ^ that's straight and to the point ^ (details like how, why, when, and any other expectations must be explained with greater details = longer post)
3) Specifically because this was brought up by Z-Man after I brought up another concern (Lucifer's recent abuse); I'm just dealing with his convoluted nonsense and once we move past this, we can actually continue with that other concern (this is an attempt to show how I'm unreasonable if I were to refuse to deal with this convoluted nonsense - you're just being played by the moderators).

I hope that met your expectations.




@Goodygumdrops: You post is an example of blatant assumptions being made. What am I supposed to say to that other than "you're assuming"? And when I do people will only say that is my "crutch". In all seriousness, if you didn't decide to be a total asshat with your post, there wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Not to mention how you're just being off topic anyway - stay on topic.




@Venijn:

you need only read how you respond to people to see that they are full of hypocritical assumptions

By all means, I'd like to know how you can come to that conclusion. But hey, if you're just name-calling, then this opinion of yours isn't worth anything to this thread. But assuming for a moment that I was being hypocritical; that has nothing to do with proving or disproving if my claims that Z-Man was being unreasonable were true or not. In the end, your post served little to no purpose for this thread.




@Vogue:

D33P, I highly doubt you would've agreed with Durf on this if you didn't know him and he wasn't your friend. You're not being subjective at all.

Let's analyze what you've said for a moment:
- if you actually knew me well enough (perhaps like D33P does) you'd know that I'm more open to constructive criticism than you might think. D33P is the type of person I would WANT to point out my mistakes (and he has on occasion - solved issues) because I'm looking to improve. So even if he didn't agree with me (assuming his post still had insight and reason), I would still appreciate his input (because it has VALUE).
- isn't everything you claim about D33P also true of those who are supporting Z-Man? I mean, if you're trying to make a point by saying that he's a friend, then you've only made Z-Man's support more miserable than it already is.
The difference is that, regardless if anyone was friends (pretend no one was), D33P's post has reasoning to support what he says. The posts from Z-Man's supporters, don't. In the end, it's not about protecting your friends, it's about being right and the ability to show it. (similar to innocent until proven guilty - yet alot of you seem to want to condemn me without proof; says a lot about you and what kind of people you are)




<lol what's with the stream of spammers? How am I the one ruining things again? If you're posting in this thread, try contributing to it in a constructive way please @ like 5 people>




...Gonna come back to this later.
As it stands:
- there is sufficient evidence to PROVE how my claims about Z-Man are true.
- Z-Man hasn't had anything to say in return.

Once the 96 hour embargo lifts, I'll definitely have a thing or two to say.

Let's see what he has to say already. I might not even need to prove things myself at this point; it proves itself.

[Word]

Durf: I didn't read your PM exchange with Z-Man, I only reply to your other posts and that of others. Note that my very first one in this thread is directed at compguygene, and the ones that follow don't quote a single PM. You still haven't answered this.

Yes, I'm aware that people look at a lengthy post and go "oh! that must be flaming!" and react based on that...

No, your posts are just devoid of common sense regardless of their length.

it is a petty attempt to besmirch me in return for the claims I've made against him publicly.

Now that is delusional. You keep making a fool out of yourself and even people who thought Lucifer's ban was unjustified turned on you. Our moderators' reputation aside, they don't have anything to gain from making you look bad. To tell you that you are an ignoramus is not so much an insult as an accurate description of what you are; even if you continue to label everything as "emotion"/"hate" to shield yourself. You always drag the entire debate back on the proof vs emotion/assumption level, instead of providing genuine arguments (granted, there was one exception in the previous posts, but that's not a pars pro toto). If you can't change that, we are done talking. You should be glad the others aren't as disrespectful to you as you are to them (well, you have already been the butt of quite a lot of jokes by now I guess).

so far no one has properly supported Z-Man by showing exactly how the claim is false.

Because nobody besides you thinks this needs to be done and that they had a deeper motive, or that there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed. Allegory: Why should I, why should anyone tell you my hair color is brown when you're colorblind and insist that it is green, and everyone else is just an asshole if he/she disagrees with Sherlock Durf? It's just insanity to us.

[dinobro]

Didn't I already say that Durf thrives and needs attention? That's exactly what it is about. Not about Z-man, he just needs people replying to him. That's it.

[Vogue]

isn't everything you claim about D33P also true of those who are supporting Z-Man?

No? If you have issues remembering, there were people who disagreed with your ban and "supported" you in a way.. now most of them also want you to shut up.

[Lucifer]

isn't everything you claim about D33P also true of those who are supporting Z-Man?

No? If you have issues remembering, there were people who disagreed with your ban and "supported" you in a way.. now most of them also want you to shut up.

This is a good place to start.

The ban itself was "just", as you put it. You demanded a user provided proof of her gender, and you earned a ban with that. You can cloak it in whatever weasel words you want to, and none of that matters. Vogue earned a week-long ban in this drama, and she served it without complaint, even though she was the victim. Durf, you, as the perpetrator, got a 24 hour ban, and you continue to complain about it.

Vogue 1 Durf 0.

At the time the ban was assessed, there were a lot of questions about it. One of the most prominent questions was simply "Was Lucifer being too hasty?". At the time, well, maybe. But you have definitely proven that I was NOT being too hasty. You would have argued the point into the ground, and you would have been wrong every step of the way.

Proof? You want proof? All the women in this community are on my side. None are on yours. Your side is a sausage fest.

Z-man supports that, because he's right to do so, and he knows it, and I know it, and a lot of people know it, but you're the kind of person who makes the USA look bad because you don't know this.

Was I too hasty? Maybe. Was I too harsh? Absolutely not. It was only a 24-hour ban. You have now spent more than 24 hours writing about, and this community collectively has spent several hundred hours reading about it.

Is that Justice? Do YOU consider that justice? Don't answer that, I already know the answer. Durf's right and everybody else is an ass.

You had supporters when the ban happened.

Now, those supporters have turned against you. They want you to stop harping on this subject. They all want you to move on. In short, they want you to do as I said you should do: agree to disagree and move on. Our future actions will say who was right and who was wrong.

And here you are wanting to call anybody who disagrees with you a sock puppet, simply because Z-man has identified sock puppets on the forums. I know that Amaso is a sock puppet, but I don't know who he belongs to. Maybe if I reread some locked threads I'll be able to tie it down.

And then you want what you call "proof". But your idea of "proof" is unreasonable, illogical, and otherwise a waste of time. Want an example? Here you go: (not that you'll believe it)

I'm a transphobic asshole. Read above to see where I have rationalized anybody's random usage oof "shemale", even though 99% of the transgender community objects to it.

I'm just an asshole.

So, I tried to get a quote, and ended up wanting to stab you in the heart. Gee, I wonder why that is....

And you STILL don't get it. You want to believe that you can look up a word in the dictionary and get a meaning, and for most words, that is true.

But for words like "dyke" and "***" and "tranny", you know what? The dictionary (whichever one you use, doesn't matter) is put together by linquists. They try to define words as they are used currently, by a majority.

They dont' consider if words are used violently. So, for example, they don't consider if a person grows up feeling like that can't possibly be athletic because their entire lives they've been told that they "throw like a girl'.

Bah.

I'm kinda done talking to you. I have a family, I have a job, I have shit to do and people to care about. Why should I take time away from them to deal with you? Oh, because you think I'm a tyrant? Or you think Z-man's a tyrant?

How many of your posts in the last two weeks have been deleted/censored? If you answer this question with anything other than an integer, I will ban you for the rest of your ******* life. Asshole.

Nobody wants too read 40000 words explaining something when you were asked a direct question: give a direct answer.

[Durf]

@Word:

Durf: I didn't read your PM exchange with Z-Man

^ then what exactly are you doing here? What purpose do you serve?

To keep this post short (because I can actually do so because of the little value your words contain):
Prove the claims you're making - otherwise they are subjective nonsense (obviously you have a problem with me >_>).

Literally, analyze the post you wrote - you don't back up anything you say.
Had I gone through each point you made and discussed it, the outcome would be the same for nearly all of them: you provide no foundation for what you say.
At this point, my response can be summed up with: "prove it".

You say that I'm lucky others haven't been as disrespectful to me as I have been to others. First, I have much proof where others have been disrespectful to me long before I was ever disrespectful to them (in the ways you'd recognise). Second, people can be disrespectful with their actions; e.g. making an unfounded claim against someone that could be harmful to them is disrespectful (if you're going to call a person fat, be prepared to show them exactly how they are "fat" [BMI, weight, whatever] - otherwise you're just insulting them for no good reason).
So if you are prepared to back up your claims, we can go through it all if you'd like. Otherwise, stop pretending, stop fantasizing, and stop indulging in your own delusions; prove it.

Lastly, I ask that you refrain from making such wild and unfounded claims - show everyone your reasoning and stop expecting them to just believe you.
I will address any real concerns you have, but if your entire post doesn't have a single claim with reasoning to back it up, it is nothing but a flaming post and for me to respond to it could be considered "fighting fire with fire", simply because of the lack of reason for me to respond - I'm not about to be setup like that. You break the rules, not me.
Show some valid reasoning for your claims, and we can continue - otherwise, stop causing trouble.





@Lucifer: Everything your post depends on is your credibility regarding the claim that the ban itself was just. Ignoring for a moment how both you and Z-Man abandoned the dispute and no longer have any say in the matter, we can pretend as though you do. (reminder that this thread was to prove / disprove how Z-Man was unreasonable and unable to finish a dispute he took on himself by choice)

That being said, 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):
Refute the evidence; prove your claim that I was being sexist (or more specifically, that I demanded proof of gender [you probably mean "sex" in this case] ).
If you can't do that, you lack the credibility to make such claims (as the ones you've made).

If you can show an ability to be reasoned with, you will regain the respect needed for me to address all of your points.
Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass. So let's pretend you're not and wait for your reply..







@Word & Lucifer: at this time I'd like to ask why the both of you are posting here when we're all waiting to hear what Z-Man has to say. Z-Man said he'd have a few things to say, so let's be attentive and wait for it.

@Z-Man: We're waiting...you wanted this thread, and so far all it has proven was that my "slanderous" claims are true (not slander). How does starting this nonsense (seemingly to avoid another dispute) then avoiding it show you are a reasonable moderator? How does avoiding this prove that you don't avoid things in general (like I claim you do)?
Overall, this was disappointing - what was your motive to begin with? What did you hope to get out of this?






@Vogue & dinobro: You both don't seem to understand my motives. And you're mistaken if you think my feelings depend on the opinions of others / I never asked for support from anyone because I never needed it (not to say that support isn't appreciated - but in this case, I don't care since you should all know the difference between fact and opinion - you should all be able to ask "was a rule actually broken? or am I just upset at them?").

All in all:

shhh-just-go.gif (3.99 MiB) Viewed 3421 times

[Word]

Lastly, I ask that you refrain from making such wild and unfounded claims - show everyone your reasoning and stop expecting them to just believe you.

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. End of debate for me, but feel free to expose my vulgarity as you announced.

[Ratchet]

I'm on my phone and I don't care enough to go through the trouble of quoting anything.

Durf, you're still violating rule #1, you hypocrite.

Boy, typing the same post never gets old, huh Durf? (I ask because, well, you'd know!)

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