The PM History

Anything About Anything...
Locked
User avatar
nsh22
Round Winner
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:12 pm
Location: eating, cooking or writing (about cooking).
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by nsh22 »

What in the ******* hell is this bullshit?
Durf is cancer from what I've seen in all these posts.
Lucifer wrote:I think you got the wrong thread, this thread is the one where we're debating banning sinewav and dubStep until they have a threesome with dubbie's mother.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Word »

Hey Neal!!!!

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Gonzap »

What about durf apologizing to the moderators D33P? He has been insulting them nonstop everyday since a few weeks.

User avatar
ConVicT
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:33 am

Re: The PM History

Post by ConVicT »

I feel like I've read the same thing over and over again.
Durf was wrongly banned, (I'm not the only one who thinks so) and there'd be a lot less headaches if people just admitted it.

If you're going to bash on someone's private conversations, then why don't we start on some other things, like, the public-for all to see, rules!

Let's start with this forum's number one rule:
Don't be an idiot.

Am I / we supposed to evaluate our intelligence before joining these forums because you don't want idiots?
I thought I was quite a bright person before I joined here and was called many things on these forums that I find much more offensive than sexism. How come I was never banned for being an idiot?

Rule number seven now:
"It was meant to be funny" is no valid excuse, unless the moderators think it was funny. Do you want to take your chances with that?

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

Don't even get me started on rule number five :o BAN EVERYONE RIGHT NOW, including yourselves!

@Durf In my opinion, you should end ever single post that has to do with this with:
Image

Durf
Match Winner
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

First I'd like to interject a note about something somewhat relevant:
Remember when I said I wouldn't put it past the moderators to use sock puppet accounts?
Remember Z-Man's criteria and how I said it wasn't good enough? (besides a real sock puppet being able to avoid it - it's fairly specific)
I personally believe that the moderators do indeed have sock puppet accounts that pass Z-Man's test simply because they have existed since before December (more than 3 posts - another example of how that criteria is faulty anyway).
That being said, the only way to verify that you aren't is for someone who can be trusted to verify the continuity of each account involved in this thread (and as painstaking as this process would be, it is required since Z-Man's criteria are complete bullshit - I would be glad to look into it myself so Tank wouldn't have to, but I somehow doubt that even if I was given the access, that my findings would be trusted unless they agreed with Z-Man's opinion).
This is partially what I was referring to with my conditions regarding a verdict (depending on mere numbers agreeing with you is stupid - depending on fact will always be more reliable in the end); given that you can't be trusted - it isn't too bad of a request to consider the facts instead of the number of ignorant users.
Given the possibility that you might have pre-existing sock puppet accounts that pass your own criteria, denying this very simple request seems VERY suspicious (obviously a tyrant will try to manipulate proceedings in their favor). I'd say "nice try" if it was - but this is getting pitiful.

All in all, the above makes it even more hilarious when you do something like remove a user's post because you THINK they are a sock puppet account.
Granted, you admitted to it, but this should bring to light your pattern of behavior and your overall paranoia and hate. If you just did your job, things would be better around here. There's no need for you to fight anything Z-Man.


Next, this could be an example where the TLDR bbcode could be used. I would encompass each response in it's own tldr tag. Means you probably wouldn't have to scroll to see both the top and bottom of my post.

. . . .
On to responses:
@Vogue: I think you mean restraining orders.




@Gonzap: Please >_> Stop thinking that I'm the one that didn't let this go. Z-Man asked for this thread. In actuality, I was attempting to discuss another issue entirely (unrelated), and he was the one to bring up this old stuff. So please Gonzap, your selective ignorance is borderline insulting - I thought you'd be able to see how ridiculous this is by now. (if I didn't post it, people would get mad at me; turns out they do even after posting it. <_<)
That being said, your methods are drastic, and I'm not even sure they'd be effective.
I don't appreciate users like you going "this has blown way out of proportion" because it's a line like that that perpetuates a false image that the thread is just drama and not of value - 1) there is a serious issue to discuss 2) this serious issue is unrelated to the original ban dispute featured in the PMs, so it's not "this" that has blown out of proportion; "this" is something else 3) "this" is only here because Z-Man doesn't want to deal with ANOTHER (third) case of moderator abuse (also of which is an issue to be taken seriously, and not just "drama").
All I ask is that you try to understand that ^, and try to see how this is ridiculous from my point of view too.




@Goodygumdrops: Actually you were quick to make the relation between what is an "adequacy style troll" and my behavior on these forums. It was arbitrary of you to dismiss my words (basically all my posts) as the words of a troll since you are dismissing the possibility that a genuine user could seem like the troll you describe (linked) but only in appearances. So yes, you were very quick to arbitrarily dismiss and/or devalue my posts.
The reasons why relate to your opinion on the post length / word choice.
You say succinctness is a virtue; a more famous one is patience.
If you don't have the patience to deal with more words than you are used to or expected to, you have no place in trying to preach about virtues.
That being said, it is not an excuse that I HAVE TO use so many words to convey my meaning:
1) You say learn to say much with few words. Would you let me? So far all you've done is complain; what have you done in terms of TEACHING me how to write better? What have you done in ALLOWING me the room (leniency) to learn and better myself? Sufficed to say that I understand the concern, but if this is outside of my capability (due to a condition) then what exactly do you expect from me? I'm already trying.
2) Saying "you suck" is not the same as saying "you suck and here are the reasons why: ...". Put simply, I'm not just going to make myself look as stupid as some other users do (making unfounded claims - encouraging an environment of hate rather than help and improvement)




@Venijn: you are a user account of interest if you ask me, but let's ignore that for now.
If nobody has time for this, then why are you posting? If you cannot add to the thread according to its purpose, what is your post doing?
Though, again, I am inclined to agree - which is why you should be asking Z-Man why he wants this to be dealt with by the public.
Now:
- You say I make assumptions; I ask you to point them out (a quote shouldn't be that hard to do - you did read the "assumption" after all).
- You call me a hypocrite - state your reasoning if you wish that claim to look like it has more meaning than a pitiful troll attempt. I am a reasonable person and will address apparent contradictions.
- You said "trying" to read all my posts, implying that you tried and failed to do so; this tosses your credibility into question (do you even know what you're talking about?)
- Your claims about talking to another player in a server regarding this thread:
-- is true, the thread was mentioned in game
-- it is false that I asked anyone to post for me (frankly this is hilarious because I'm perfectly capable of waiting more than 96 hours and still handing your own ass to you - when you're wrong, you're wrong)
-- it is true that conversation similar to that took place, but you're misguided on it's meaning. I said that it is troublesome to have to put up with the ignorance that would be posted (like people not focusing on the actual topic and just saying "omg Durf why drama"); another user mentioned how they can post for users to stay on topic such that I wouldn't have to (cus that would risk violating the terms of the compromise), and all I've said to that is "that'd be nice" (meaning, it is coincidentally nice that I wouldn't have to deal with that; but it is not a requirement for them, nor was I ever pursuing the idea of them doing it). It is "nice" if people could stay on topic without having to be reminded to leave their emotions before the "reply" button.
-- so what you said is a flat-out lie. Proof? Get the server logs (assuming there are some) - I'd be happy to post them here to show everyone just how you're full of shit.
All this being said, I'm not surprised that you decided to post something like this considering I have a fairly good idea of your true motivation (but that's another discussion)




@Ratchet (lol): Your first quote and paragraph have little to no value. All you've done is make unfounded claims. The least you could have done is explain how I'm "incapable of reading".
Next, I never claimed to think you have the time or responsibility to read through anything on these forums. What I was saying was that if you expect to have credibility (people to think you have understanding of what happened and the ability to make sound judgement), you actually have to read what it is you're posting about. All you've done is look at the post length and go "oh it's just Durf's nonsense; obviously he deserved it because of the length of those PMs".
I asked you to actually read the entire thread before posting in it as a means of keeping you on topic:
You said "you should have been banned" - this is specifically the kind of thing that was supposed to be prevented as this thread isn't intended for you to give your opinion on my ban(s). If you did a simple thing like read the first few posts, you would know this and not have made an ass of yourself.
You even admit to your opinion being based on irrelevance - the problem is you simply thought you knew what this thread was for and didn't care to be sure.
Lastly, (ignoring how you don't even know what you're talking about), you say Z-Man is right and I'm wrong. So you're saying he wasn't being unreasonable and that he competently handled the dispute quickly and effectively? Besides you supporting a side with no real basis, are you sure that's what you want to support? Perhaps if you read the thread, you might think differently. Remember, this isn't about Z-Man acting within his rights; he can still do that, but also be an unreasonable and incompetent moderator - that is what this thread is for.

Your linked search:
- I could easily make a search request for any user with a similar post count and their word choice. That doesn't invalidate what they say, nor does it mean that the specific word I'm searching for is a crutch.
- Next, if you actually looked at the contents of the search, within the first page alone are multiple examples of how it isn't being used as a "crutch". So referencing the number of pages of results means nothing for your claim (especially since a user that has posted more posts and/or words than me can easily have this method show a similar argument for them and a word they use).
But in direct answer to your concern; it is not my crutch. It is true that people don't know much about me, and that they shouldn't jump to conclusions. That being said, most of the time I've used the word "assumption" is for when people have made a claim against me they cannot prove. By even saying that it is an assumption and asking for them to prove it, that is showing the respect that any individual deserves (a chance to explain themselves). I could simply dismiss posts like that as "oh you're just a hater / troll" - but that doesn't solve anything, nor does it progress anyone's opinion; people remain ignorant by doing that.
So again, it's not a crutch; I will gladly admit to my mistakes if someone can actually prove that I've made one - this should make perfect sense to anyone with a brain. Unless you expect me to go "oh sorry" and attempt to correct my behavior for 100% of the claims made against me without even wondering if that person knew what they were talking about? Not only would that lead to contradictions in the expected behavior, but I would be listening to idiots who (quite literally) only want to think they are right.
No, actually, I don't find that insulting. I completely agree with the actions they took. Never in my mind was I attempting to defend their actions. Was that what this post was for? Oops. I thought it was a thread for us to come after your head and sentence you to life imprisonment. Oh well, there's always next thread. Z-man was NOT unreasonable.
^ I can't, for the life of me, tell if you're joking or not. If you're serious, then why are you even here on these forums? Just to discriminate against users you dislike? Is this some little club? Am I not allowed in? Why? If you cared for this community, you'd do things to HELP it and it's users. Getting ban-happy is asking for the tron community to die out (especially when you choose to be ignorant like you're doing).
Though since you're more on topic now, if you can provide an example where Z-Man has been very reasonable, that would be adding something of value to this thread, as your personal opinion alone isn't enough to reach a verdict (prove your claim).

Now this hilarity:
Ratchet wrote:Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Did you just call me... 'ratchet'? I will NOT stand for this. How dare you insult me? You're making the disgraceful assumption that my name isn't worth being capitalized. Do you think I'm below you or something? That's an abuse of powers, you know that right? How dare you abuse the ability to press (or not press) the shift key when typing the 'R' in my name? Are you serious? I'm filing for user abuse right now. RIGHT THIS SECOND. I'm PMing Lucifer, because he's my favorite admin. He'll ban you for sure.
Did you forget what you wrote before?
Ratchet wrote:your incessant bickering and nit-picking posts to generate arguments
I could leave it as is, but I think you need a more thorough pwning:
1) Autocorrect, you hater - every dictionary thinks "ratchet" is a noun. Typing it with a capital out of place would get corrected.
2) You cannot infer that I think you are below me, even if I INTENTIONALLY used a lower case letter for your name.
3) What powers am I abusing?
4) If you file a case of user abuse, I expect it to be met with diligence, careful scrutiny and for it to be taken seriously and resolved (proven with fact/rules). Do you think the moderators will? Even if they do, do you think your case of user abuse is worthwhile to yourself, the moderators, and the greater tron community?
5) Funny how you have the ability to PM Lucifer, yet I'm not allowed to - this is unfair treatment / Lucifer shouldn't dispute your concern to be fair.
6) If this was a ban worthy offense, then at least 15 or so other users would also have to be banned should the moderators wish to have any integrity. That includes you too.
7) If your concern isn't to be taken seriously, then how isn't it just "incessant bickering and nit-picking posts to generate arguments"? In all honesty, even if you're trying to give me a taste of my own medicine (because you think my posts are "incessant bickering and nit-picking..."), you are contradicting yourself horribly (lol).

Your double post:
This is an example of the exact reason why I might use more words to explain something specific. Allow me to explain:
In this case, I would agree with you; what I did was making an assumption (more than one actually).
The thing about the browser version was just forgotten and I didn't re-read the first post because I understood the issue itself (and didn't suspect that the version would be all that important to the solution - reasons why are based on experience). That was a simple mistake, and I'll admit to that.
The assumption made about things like I being browser based or not, are considered leads (pursuing a train of thought AS IF something was true so as to reach it's final conclusion to see if it was the case, and cause of the problem - often done in murder investigations).
Both are cases where I would easily use another (or more than one) word to describe this exact function, but as a means of appealing to recent requests, I simply settled for making "assumptions" without any reasoning to go along with it (trust me, that thread would have been filled a lot more).
I was also not specific enough when saying that people are making assumptions (though I am in some cases); most cases that I say that, you can replace "assumption" with "false or otherwise unfounded claim made against ____" (a person). As you can see, I'm making the effort to use less words and this is what it is costing me; so I think I'll go back to making sure I explain myself more thoroughly so people like you can't make assumptions.
How I'm not hypocritical:
Was I offending or otherwise trying to deface *16? Was I ever trying to devalue their words? No. In fact, I even admitted to it not being browser based by the end of the thread (admitting my earlier mistake). The types of "assumptions" made in problem solving (specifically the way I made them) were not directly harmful to *16 in any way (what would there be to report to a moderator? Nothing).
The assumptions being made of me are devaluing my posts, as well as attempts to publicly besmirch me. Furthermore, they are unfounded and remain unproven.
The "assumptions" I've made have been progressed through until their resolution (PROVEN, and admitted to).
If anything, I'm glad you pointed this out as it shows the contrast in just how reasonable the moderators are vs myself.

The page number thing could easily be a simple mistake; I use a large resolution and didn't notice the specific issue until I matched the resolutions in the photos. What I found was that what they claimed page 6 to look like, page 1 looked like; and vice versa. I never ASSUMED that they got that part wrong; I only ever speculated (and let's be honest, does that even matter? The problem was resolved in the end. Get over your hate.)

Your edit message: Too late. Try not posting such things if you want results.




@Z-Man: I find you to be hilarious. You must have deleted or edited your own post to make yourself sound right xD
This is what you wrote in another thread:
You ask what triggered this, what you wrote in your last PMs. I was willing to let Tank handle this, but then you started slandering us in public again.
Note a few things: if you wanted to make very specific PMs public, you should have specified besides using "established lingo" such as "PM History" (something previously discussed at length on what exactly that was).
That being said, you contradict yourself because you prove how the trigger was the slander, not my most recent PMs to you. You just want to go out of your way to post those PMs publicly, yet you have no valid reason to do so.
This was about proving or disproving my claims (what you call "slander") and should be fairly simple enough for everyone to understand; you are trying to turn it into something else (bring up YET ANOTHER bullshit issue INSTEAD of dealing with the issue being ASKED OF YOU to deal with - you are still proving yourself to be unreasonable, only this time it's in public. GJ)

Your conditions are not 100% of the PMs between us. Don't pretend like they are. I specifically said that I have more PMs that can be used to show how you have ACTUALLY ABUSED your moderator status once before - and incidentally, you were incredibly unreasonable then as well. My point was that if you are going to try to impose a condition like more PMs than are necessary to disprove / prove my "slanderous" claims, then go with 100% and let the community see for themselves how you've been this entire time. Trying to limit these conditions to a specific and unrelated issue is not only uncalled for and extra drama that the community does not wish to see, but it also isn't for what you're even claiming they are for (you're misleading the public - you tyrant).

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)
- I (one of the involved parties) have not agreed to the PMs release; this should be a standard agreement process - unless you're going to oppress me? Check your moderator privilege.
- 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.
Besides the moral and ethical issues with being that tyrannical, you're introducing more problems to the website itself if you posted them at all (regardless of consent); but I'll let Tank Program explain that one to you.
Posting them without my consent will only serve my arguments as well as be an abuse of your status.
Finally, I know the exact reason why you wish to post them, and I can tell you right now, even if you posted it, it wouldn't serve your argument (you overreacted because of an assumption you've made - I don't blame you, amateurs get easily frightened)

I haven't violated any conditions (but you have). My posts are only there to keep people on topic / to address the people that didn't even read because they saw a huge thread, briefly looked at it's content, and posted based on the assumption made from that brief exposure.
Not to mention that even if I did violate your hilarious conditions, there's not really anything you can do about it; that being said, I am patient and I can wait more than 96 hours before progressing the topic. The amount of time I have to wait is irrelevant to facts. It's funny to think that you actually thought 96 hours meant anything in that regard.
Though my conditions have been violated more than once - alleviating each of those users from the credibility needed to actually dispute the issue; they were easy to understand: "everyone has the understanding of the purpose of the thread that the PM history will be posted in". Everyone that posted in here that wasn't for the reason to determine if Z-Man was unreasonable or not - stepped down from their position as a member of any jury or at the very least, lowered the worth of what they say tremendously (as their post is off topic / in the wrong thread).

You ARE avoiding discussion. You avoid talking about the recent case of moderator abuse that I've posted about.
This entire thread is here BECAUSE you're avoiding that thread. If you're not avoiding anything, then address the concerns and reach a resolution; be the moderator you claim you are. (yes this thread is unrelated to that issue; there are now 2 issues to deal with because that's what you wanted - deal with them).

Finally, you actually have the audacity to remove a user's entire post because they didn't meet YOUR SPECIFIC (and very flawed) criteria for a sock puppet account; when in all actual fact, they are a valid user with their own opinion.
Yes, you realized the mistake; no you did not apologize for the blatant abuse. Do you realize that you effected an innocent user because of your paranoia? APOLOGIZE.
Now besides that; obviously this was done to a post that has an expressed opinion you don't want to be expressed.
We will also be very restrained about moderating this. We will not edit posts by regular users (I explain what I mean by that below) that are critical of us or Durf no matter how rude they are, at least not during the first 96 hours. We will moderate users going at each other as usual, though. We will make sure our edits are extra transparent.

Community: I promise I will not hold a grudge against anyone for saying what they think here. If you are afraid others might, feel free to use a sock puppet account, but please make it transparent to us moderators by posting without masking your IP or informing us via PM, and don't post with your regular and sock puppet account. Pick one and stick to it.

Regular users, in this context, means users that have registered their accounts before (the beginning of) September 2014 and have made 3 or more posts before the beginning of December 2014. Posts from accounts not meeting these criteria or not being identifiable as alternative accounts of users meeting those criteria may be removed without leaving a trace.

So Durf, your move. Expose me. Or, alternatively, stop pestering us.
Again at this time I'd like to point out how your criteria simply isn't good enough. The only person here who is trustworthy enough to say whether or not people are "sock puppets" is Tank Program, and even then I would probably have to help him in identifying the tougher ones to spot; either that or I can get access, check for myself, and tell everyone my findings (clearly I have no reason to lie and accuse anyone of being a sock puppet when they're actually not one - that would be just plain wrong).
So, it raises into question why you even went out of your way to edit a user's post (let alone without valid reason to).

The more you act on those faulty criteria for sock puppets, the more you discredit yourself as moderator (it also allows for pre-existing sock puppets, with more than 3 posts before december, to take part in this thread - again, of which I wouldn't put past you or Lucifer to have).

Again, a reminder, you ARE actually avoiding quite a bit. You are avoiding discussions on whether or not Lucifer's recent edit was abuse or not. Do your job as moderator and stop trying to bring up past drama as a means of avoiding it.




@Malachi:
The way the users are reacting to this is unbelievable.
....
I honestly think there ought to be some type of reform during the resolution of this dispute. I just hope the resolution ends in an agreement, apology, and possibly more developers for this game.
+1, well said on that part too. It's always better to solve problems than to avoid them. Shame that your original post was unjustly removed though. >_>




@D33P: All I can say about what you've said (while abiding by the conditions of the compromise) is that you are referring to "policy"; the rules that dictate how and when power is to be used as a means of conforming to the expectations of the owner. As far as I know, none exists for these forums and moderators, and one definitely should.
That's all I can really say for now, until 96 hours is up. Hopefully people won't just go "tl;dr" and actually see the insight you are providing them.




@nsh22: You've made a useless post to this thread. Not only that, it's just a personal attack. Besides showing your ignorance by not even knowing what this thread is for, your post itself is just spam / an unfounded claim / trolling. The least you could have done was say something constructive or give reasons for why you think what you think. Otherwise, stop being a hater. If you don't like my long posts, then I suggest you quit your bitching. My posts won't get shorter with what you had to say.




@Gonzap: If someone did something to you that was well established as something wrong to do, would you want an apology? (or some form of compensation?)
If that was denied, by the very person who did the wrong thing no less, would this not change the level of respect between you two?
Even considering the fact that I'm just "insulting" them, this is after the act that both moderators have already shown MUCH disrespect, and I am still showing them more than they have ever shown me.
Now consider that my "insults" are things like "you're being unreasonable" and "you're disrespectful" and "you disgrace yourself"; each of these claims I can prove with empirical evidence for anyone to understand. So in the end, they are only insulted by their ego's reaction to actual criticism - not simply an "insult".
But in the end, disrespectful treatment is "insulting", so wouldn't that mean that the moderators would have to apologize, not only for an unjust ban, being unreasonable, dragging this issue on for so long and in general avoiding it, BUT ALSO for insulting me? After all, if we're playing by those rules, they not only have a lot more to apologize for, but they were also the ones to begin insulting first.
By all means, I can apologize for the lack of respect I've shown them if they prove themselves as people that should have deserved more. I'm just not seeing that, and the more the days pass, the less likely that image is to be seen (especially at the rate of progression that's going on).




@ConVicT: LOL! It's not my fault they set themselves up for this much failure, but that's funny. Though it would be out of my character to shove it in their face like that; I think having their own ass handed to them is enough as it is.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4163
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Word »

though it would be out of my character to shove it in their face like that; I think having their own ass handed to them is enough as it is.
Image
Last edited by Word on Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:12 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
madmax
Round Winner
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by madmax »

Durf wrote:(speaking of which I am not and will not discuss this topic in any means of progression for 96 hours as a means of appealing to the compromise)
Did the 96 hours pass? Because your last post doesn't look like it's addressing structural issues.

My two cents: the point this got to demonstrates quite clearly that all moderators are not only reasonable, but too reasonable.
I'm surprised you're being allowed to go in circles this long trying to expose a supposed hidden agenda by the evil moderators.
Winner of the How Many Pages Before The Lock® competition and a grand total of 18,93 euros in Euromillions.

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Ratchet »

I seriously don't know why I'm even taking the time to respond. You've shown that trying to talk to you is less productive than trying to talk to a brick wall.
Durf wrote:This is partially what I was referring to with my conditions regarding a verdict (depending on mere numbers agreeing with you is stupid - depending on fact will always be more reliable in the end); given that you can't be trusted - it isn't too bad of a request to consider the facts instead of the number of ignorant users.
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.

Exhibit A: D33P. Someone that remotely defended the potential accusation that Z-man abused his powers.
Durf wrote:Hopefully people won't just go "tl;dr" and actually see the insight you are providing them.
Right, so he posted defending your argument. Absolute credibility. Selective, are we?
Durf wrote:Next, this could be an example where the TLDR bbcode could be used. I would encompass each response in it's own tldr tag. Means you probably wouldn't have to scroll to see both the top and bottom of my post.
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.
Durf wrote:@Venijn: you are a user account of interest if you ask me, but let's ignore that for now.
Uh, Venom has an account of interest? That's cool. Hey, Venom! You're interesting :D
Durf wrote:if you expect to have credibility (people to think you have understanding of what happened and the ability to make sound judgement)
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.
Durf wrote:You said "you should have been banned" - this is specifically the kind of thing that was supposed to be prevented as this thread isn't intended for you to give your opinion on my ban(s).
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.
Durf wrote:Remember, this isn't about Z-Man acting within his rights; he can still do that, but also be an unreasonable and incompetent moderator - that is what this thread is for.
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.
Durf wrote:I could simply dismiss posts like that as "oh you're just a hater / troll" - but that doesn't solve anything, nor does it progress anyone's opinion; people remain ignorant by doing that.
You're on a roll now... isn't that precisely what you've done?
Durf wrote:Also this is the last time I'm going to ask you nicely to stop harassing me with your bullshit reasoning.
Stay on topic, stop being a hater.
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.
Durf wrote:So again, it's not a crutch; I will gladly admit to my mistakes if someone can actually prove that I've made one - this should make perfect sense to anyone with a brain. Unless you expect me to go "oh sorry" and attempt to correct my behavior for 100% of the claims made against me without even wondering if that person knew what they were talking about? Not only would that lead to contradictions in the expected behavior, but I would be listening to idiots who (quite literally) only want to think they are right.
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.
Durf wrote:I can't, for the life of me, tell if you're joking or not. If you're serious, then why are you even here on these forums? Just to discriminate against users you dislike? Is this some little club? Am I not allowed in? Why? If you cared for this community, you'd do things to HELP it and it's users.
It was in italics. Did your sarcasm radar break? Smarty pants.
Durf wrote:Did you forget what you wrote before?
No, I was going to be much more comical and write 3000 words about nothing in particular to demonstrate how any argument with you goes. I just didn't have the motivation.
Durf wrote:I could leave it as is, but I think you need a more thorough pwning:
1) Autocorrect, you hater - every dictionary thinks "ratchet" is a noun. Typing it with a capital out of place would get corrected.
2) You cannot infer that I think you are below me, even if I INTENTIONALLY used a lower case letter for your name.
3) What powers am I abusing?
4) If you file a case of user abuse, I expect it to be met with diligence, careful scrutiny and for it to be taken seriously and resolved (proven with fact/rules). Do you think the moderators will? Even if they do, do you think your case of user abuse is worthwhile to yourself, the moderators, and the greater tron community?
5) Funny how you have the ability to PM Lucifer, yet I'm not allowed to - this is unfair treatment / Lucifer shouldn't dispute your concern to be fair.
6) If this was a ban worthy offense, then at least 15 or so other users would also have to be banned should the moderators wish to have any integrity. That includes you too.
7) If your concern isn't to be taken seriously, then how isn't it just "incessant bickering and nit-picking posts to generate arguments"? In all honesty, even if you're trying to give me a taste of my own medicine (because you think my posts are "incessant bickering and nit-picking..."), you are contradicting yourself horribly (lol).
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.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

User avatar
D33P
Average Program
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:20 am

Re: The PM History

Post by D33P »

Ratchet wrote:Exhibit A: D33P. Someone that remotely defended the potential accusation that Z-man abused his powers.
Ratchet wrote:Now I'm really confused, then. All D33P did was explain how your ban(s) were unwarranted.
To clarify, my post was an effort to undoubtedly prove that Zman was unreasonable and an incapable moderator during Durf’s dispute. If you (or anyone else) read through my post carefully and still don’t agree that Zman was unreasonable and incapable of being a fair and just moderator, I would like you to point out the parts of my argument that are incorrect/invalid, so that we all (ideally) can come to an agreement on what happened.

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Ratchet »

You're right, D33P, perhaps my wording there was poor. I didn't intend to make it sound like you weren't disagreeing with Z-man's actions. I meant "remotely defended the potential accusation that Z-man abused his powers." in the sense that you were someone who made a valid (to some) proposition to Durf's side of the story, minus the immaturity.

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.

Also, I have to agree with Madmax.
madmax wrote:Did the 96 hours pass? Because your last post doesn't look like it's addressing structural issues.

My two cents: the point this got to demonstrates quite clearly that all moderators are not only reasonable, but too reasonable.
I'm surprised you're being allowed to go in circles this long trying to expose a supposed hidden agenda by the evil moderators.
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.

Durf wrote:Your conditions are not 100% of the PMs between us. Don't pretend like they are. I specifically said that I have more PMs that can be used to show how you have ACTUALLY ABUSED your moderator status once before - and incidentally, you were incredibly unreasonable then as well.
Z-man wrote:So, Durf: Go ahead, publish our (clarification: between me and you; I am not speaking for Lucifer or Tank here) private conversation. We will not ban you for violating my privacy. Under the following conditions, we will not ban you for the countless insults, we will not ban you for continuing locked threads and not for the blackmail or any other thing I said here I'd ban you for if you publish them. Now, that does not mean there are no pending possible ban reasons and it does not mean you're immune to bans for those reasons in the future, but whether they will take effect does not depend on you publishing our conversation 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.
- no introductory statement, no closing statement either.
- nothing but the pure PMs as they were written and read. Yes, I make that three points to make myself clear.
- after you have posted everything, you will wait at least 96 hours before posting again on this or any (even tangentially) related topic, publicly or via PM, no matter what. Of course, we moderators, all of us, will also not post anything during that time window. Let the community have its say first.
I specifically see the following conditions violated throughout this thread:
- post the whole thing (every single PM between you and me from December 2014 to now), unedited, uninterrupted by running commentary.
- after you have posted everything, you will wait at least 96 hours before posting again on this or any (even tangentially) related topic, publicly or via PM, no matter what. Of course, we moderators, all of us, will also not post anything during that time window. Let the community have its say first.


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.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by Gonzap »

ok so can you please tell me in 3 sentences max what the hell do you want at ths point? Do you want Lucifer and Z-Man to step down as mods? Do you want them to apologize? Do you want to ridicule them? Explain me in 3 sentences what you fu.cking want Durf. If the answer is longer than 3 sentences I won't read it, we want you to be straight to the point, for once please go to the point.

I know this post was promoted by Z-Man, I don't care about that. I want to know what good you expect to get out of this.

Goodygumdrops
Round Winner
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:39 am

Re: The PM History

Post by Goodygumdrops »

Gonzap wrote:ok so can you please tell me in 3 sentences max what the hell do you want at ths point? Do you want Lucifer and Z-Man to step down as mods? Do you want them to apologize? Do you want to ridicule them? Explain me in 3 sentences what you fu.cking want Durf. If the answer is longer than 3 sentences I won't read it, we want you to be straight to the point, for once please go to the point.

I know this post was promoted by Z-Man, I don't care about that. I want to know what good you expect to get out of this.

Disruption, chaos, drama. He's already getting everything he wants.

User avatar
Gazelle
Match Winner
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:06 am

Re: The PM History

Post by Gazelle »

I just don't see what anyone is planning to get out of any of this, just let him ramble on? Stop responding. Eventually he will just stop.

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Lucifer »

Based on this post: http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 28#p291128

At this time, there's just under 21 hours left on the 96-hour no-comment period for Durf + moderators.
Last edited by Lucifer on Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Had the time wrong by an hour, due to a bad configuration of my timezone on the forums.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
Ratchet
Match Winner
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by Ratchet »

<on second thought, this post doesn't really contribute to the overall discussion and I personally think it's irrelevant, self snip>
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

Locked