Moderator Abuse...again

Anything About Anything...
Locked
Durf
Match Winner
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Durf »

(I'm putting ### to make it easier to spot the next reply)
(there's 2 for Z-Man and Lucifer)


###################################################
@Word: You're right, a threat is a threat. Too bad I didn't make one. Otherwise you might have a point.
(note: if you want to talk about it, then let's talk - otherwise it will be as simplistic as you leave it; prove what you say)

Next, like I've said with my example of the use of the word "pretentious", you seem to think that saying that to someone is an insult.
You seem to think that being able to prove someone as pretentious is harassment; it's not.
Making a claim such as someone being pretentious (without any support) is nothing but an insult and continuously doing so is harassment.
This is the precise reason why I tell people like you to stop making aspersions / support what you say, because you're only insulting / harassing.
So I urge you, link any post where I am only insulting or harassing other members of this community - show everyone where I only insult without any reason or support for what I say.
Because in the end, you saying that I've harassed a large number of the community is a flat-out lie; but you can always prove me wrong (or can you?).

Calling you ignorant wouldn't be an insult either because I've been attempting to address you directly asking how we can work out our differences / if you can support what you say so we can have a real discussion. You call me irrational, but why have you failed to appeal to reason countless times by now? Why is it that when someone is there to work things out so we can get along, you refuse?



###################################################
@dinobro: Try to put a little more thought into your posts.
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. Second, even if we exclusively use the forums population, there are way more than 10% of users who agree with me.
Your reasoning you use to come to the conclusion of my motive is flawed; assuming (for the sake of your own argument) that I was delusional, I'm only asking to be cured by being shown (explained to) how not to be. Frankly, no one can seem to do that. Regardless of anyone's capability, I can assure you that THAT motivation is genuine. I'm going to get to the bottom of this, and every other issue such that it doesn't present itself as a problem again.



###################################################
@Z-Man: I'm not banned because there is no grounds to ban me. You have assumed that what I've said is a threat and have jumped to all sorts of conclusions from your own assumptions. Furthermore, you disregard any actual discussion to know the truth and try to enforce you wrongful assumptions onto the public by forcing your say in a locked thread.
As Phytotron said: "It's just as bad as locking a thread while giving the offending party the last word.". Only thing is you are both the person to lock the thread and the offending party; you've made a ridiculous claim and are trying to enforce it by keeping the thread locked. I'm here to talk about things but apparently you refuse to listen.
Regardless, you are essentially forced to leave it up to Tank - you have not enough reasons to ban me, and doing so would only build onto the already large pile of things I'm going to dispute with Tank. Regardless of what's on that list, the fact that the list is large already should tell you his approximate reaction; so why do you persist on starting more nonsense? You were the one that couldn't leave well enough alone, TWICE. You are only reaping what you sow.

You try to make note of how I'm a hypocrite, so let's analyze who is the real "hypocrite":
- I make claims in public that you were an unreasonable moderator when handling our disputes, and you continue to show unreasonable behavior
- you tell me (in public) to post the PM history as a means of proving (rather disproving) my "slanderous" claims
- I posted 100% of the PM history regarding the dispute(s) between you and I which shows your unreasonable behavior.
- You were dissatisfied with this, and even took it upon yourself to edit another user's voice in the matter simply because you don't want the community to see how you've been in private (too late now).
- You locked the thread on the grounds that I haven't respected the conditions, when: a) I have by not posting anything about your unreasonable behavior in itself; I haven't once tried to prove my claims and you haven't given me that chance; my posts were only to keep people on topic. and b) you actually haven't by violating your own conditions for the very reasons that you felt you needed to impose the conditions in the first place (you refers to both moderators in this "b" point), and c) that I didn't care about your privacy, yet, you haven't said what it was that you didn't want posted - and in the end, did I? No. I never once violated your privacy - you're being unreasonable still.
- You then post a PM that is out of context / part of a larger PM chain; which is in violation of your own conditions (convenient how NOW you don't want to post "everything") and for what purpose exactly?? This is where you become the biggest hypocrite yet these forums have to see - further proving your unreasonable nature: you posted that PM because a) you "promised" you would, so you never had any intention of honoring a user's privacy; b) you reasoned it with "because you thought the pubic needed to see it" - which only goes to show that you LIED to the public about your intentions for the thread about the PM history to begin with. Your sole purpose was just to try to post that one PM, while hiding behind the reason that it was to disprove my "slanderous" claims; what's worse was how you even tried to lessen the criticism with your uncalled for moderation. If not, then you will finish what you start and reach a resolution because c) you only posted that PM to divert the attention away from you and the issues that you keep causing.
Given your continuous unreasonable behavior, I don't expect your attempts to publicly deface me to succeed (and yes, they are nothing but petty attempts to deface me).
You are conveniently far more concerned with a fake issue that you conjured up from your unreasonable assumptions, than you are with finishing ANY one of the disputes you started.
You, if anyone, are the hypocrite. Unlock the thread and I will post all the PMs between us (for all of time) and people can see everything in context. They will be able to see the times you've blatantly mistreated me and I'VE LET SLIDE - but you and Lucifer are getting out of hand; especially with your directed abuse.
You moderators like to say you don't hide behind PMs - so don't be afraid of what comes then Z-Man - I'm willing to discuss anything you bring up, but you're just a hypocrite.

"compromising security" - even though you've asked how it would compromise security, you refused to get a response. This shows everyone how you care for your own assumption than any actual reason (truth). If there was something worth mentioning before you posted it in public, you made sure it wasn't said. What you don't know is that that is still your responsibility - you are still the one at fault for posting it (whether or not something arises because of it). This is only part of the reason why I call you incompetent, because as moderator, you should be caring about the website itself more than your petty desire to show the public contents of a PM "they need to see" (something to effect a social status vs something that effects the functionality of the website = priorities as moderator).

You prove yourself to everyone with your reasoning (or lack thereof). Shall I even mention about that other locked thread because you thought I was being aggressive? LMAO you've gone overboard and you will forever be known as that moderator who can't keep it together. There was no reason to lock that thread - yet you are also just trying to make a statement. Well you have made it - you're unreasonable and tyrannical.

You claim I'm inconsistent - but I've made myself very clear with my other post(s): The abuse is the trolling as a moderator / overall not doing his job properly. The nature of the edit itself is irrelevant to Lucifer's choice to troll me. I asked Lucifer to explain why it's ok for a moderator to do that. No inconsistencies there. Are you done making yourself out to be that fool that misunderstands nearly everything that is said? Or do you do that on purpose so as to try to manipulate the public opinion?



###################################################
@Venijn: There is a lack of patience. Just think about all the disputes that he left behind. And there is prove that Z-Man doesn't have the patience required to handle a single dispute (not even one!). If you think Z-Man has a lot of patience, then you ... I don't wanna know.



###################################################
@Monkey:
This statement shows that you are assuming that I hate you. I don't; I am just trying to help you. Unfortunately, you don't seem able to take constructive criticism, instead you stubbornly believe that everything you do and say is both correct and necessary. You lack self-awareness Durf. I know from having played with you online that you actually aren't a bad guy. I also don't believe that you are trying to troll these forums. However, until you can see the error of your ways things will get worse not better (this is not a threat, just an opinion).
I meant to say "hate on" which was earlier replaced by "show intolerance towards" (as a means of keeping things shorter); I can assure you that I did not assume that you hate me. It was only a way to illustrate the ridiculousness of being intolerant towards someone solely for the different way they speak.
I dislike how you think I'm unable to take constructive criticism, because that's exactly what I've been asking for. >_> pls
Asking for evidence, proof, support, reasoning, this is the "constructive" part - each time someone has tried to "help" me, they fail to be constructive about it. Believe me, I will GLADLY admit to my mistakes and learn from them; but if you can't teach then why are you the one getting mad? (not you "Monkey", but people in general). I do not stubbornly believe everything I say and do is both correct and necessary (though my threshold for taking "unnecessary" actions might be lower than yours). Above all else, the claim that I lack self-awareness is one of the most ignorant things said on this thread (probably these forums) - and if you actually knew me well enough, you might even laugh at how opposite you have that. It's not offensive, but you shouldn't spread rumors.

So onto the important bit: "the error of my ways". What is the error of my ways? (give me that constructive criticism)



###################################################
@Lucifer: I revealed that I have Asperger's Syndrome as a means of increasing understanding. Apparently all it increased was discrimination. Had I not told you, you would only be further mistreating me for my word choice, or post length, on the basis that I was doing that to troll you or the forums. So no, that should not carry any weight when "dealing" with me. "Dealing" is a problematic mindset to have anyway; you should be "helping" or "addressing" issues. You're moderator to do a job, not to half-ass the things you have to 'put up with'.
I will keep this short and say that your reasoning for taking it upon yourself to treat people differently according to how you see they should be treated is probably one of the reasons why you abuse your moderator status. You give the scenario of a blind person stepping in front of an electric car they can here - when even a person with full vision could find themselves being killed by the same scenario. You don't help them because they are blind, you help them because they need help. Similarly, you see someone fall off their wheelchair; do you help? I've tried it once and was yelled at by them because they saw it as a dependency issue; their pride didn't allow the help because they wanted to do it themselves. So you can NEVER make the assumption that you know better; that you know what's best for someone else's life. The important thing to do is to be there to find out how you can help (if you should).
Going in with a mindset that "you think you know", will only ensure your overconfidence and failure - but being attentive and consciously trying to solve the issue will at least give you a better chance at understanding the problem (and how the best way to help someone is).
Comparing milestones to the issues of moderator abuse shows that you already have an agenda built and that you aren't open to resolving any of the past disputes or cases of abuse; that your only concern is to get me to stop making note of the times you abuse (note, I've been going easy - there's FAR more I could be posting). But you're only letting me know more and more of the situation behind the curtains - this is becoming hilarious because you are only setting yourself up for failure in the end. Just work things out with me like a regular moderator would - finish a dispute - and things can progress.
As to the repeated demands for clear rules that moderators follow, that's never going to happen.
^ we'll see about that. Fairly certain that "Armagetron Advanced" isn't your project to claim - and I will find out exactly what Tank Program expects his website to portray to the public (since neither of you moderators are capable of telling me). Though I am glad you admitted your position this matter. You are indeed more tyrannical than you care to admit, but you try to justify it with bullshit reasoning. Your references to a community growing and evolving as a reason to justify having a lack of structure that protects users from abuse by moderators are what most open source project websites call the development of rules. This would be what's currently happening with ladle rules - as time progresses and users "evolve", the rules are refined until less and less refinements are made because, together, everyone creates a more universally applicable set of rules. Are you afraid of progress? Or are you afraid of the lack of opportunity to oppress others when you feel like it? How do you justify this "freedom" you say is a good thing , in place of a more refined and universal structure that everyone can agree to?
Your mention about moderators being regular people is usually the case - though a website like this could actually HIRE moderators. They would require an active policy as they are not allowed to act on their own - they are essentially robots and you provide instruction. That is the ideal moderator; someone that gets the job done (albeit, even then they are "human" and can make mistakes - but when paychecks are on the line..). Aside from this, any "regular" person could benefit from having some experience - real life experience having moderated something that has a more profound effect on the world around them. Perhaps being a business administrator will teach them the meaning of being an administrator (a lot of people think it's a title that gives you power - it's a title that defines responsibility). I never intended to imply that you should not have been chosen or that because of a lack of experience, that either you or Z-Man didn't deserve the position. The problem lies in you being "stuck" - you can't seem to improve, or at the very least, move past a single issue / dispute. You mentioning the arbitrary nature of how you got the position should mean that you would be willing to allow someone else to be moderator if they can do a better job. What it comes down to is this: Do you care about this website? What will you do to help it? Would you allow them to be mod? Or would you refuse because it threatens your own status?

You mention guidelines that Z-Man posted...can you point me in the right direction? I'd like to see these guidelines so I can learn what I should expect.



###################################################
@Rachet: About the stuff you've said:
I don't believe I'm simply being insulting to those who disagree with me. I'd even "insult" those who agree with me.
However, I think you (like some others) are getting confused about what is an "insult".
You mention that "You can not and will not get many people to agree with you if you can't hold an insightful and able to be criticized stance on a particular topic", but why is it that people consider insightful critique to be a mere insult? Example: I called Word pretentious. He thought it was an insult. I provided reasoning and even offered to elaborate on how exactly he was being pretentious. So tell me, at what point can people stop being offended at everything I say and start accepting criticism and proof? Can't I say that you can't expect me to listen to you because I find your notions to be insulting?
Furthermore, making a claim against someone without supporting it only amounts up to an insult - now consider all the times I've told people they were only assuming, and/or have made unfounded claims, and/or have made aspersions against me...each of these times counts as an insult as they don't have the decency to explain how they even came to their conclusion. Remember "you're violating rule #1"? That in itself is nothing more than an insult unless you explain it. So even though I used wording that matched the level of respect being shown to me, I always explained my words, and always will.
Is it insulting to call a fat person fat? Can they refuse to listen to your reasoning because they think you're just insulting them? Even if they are crushing you with their fat? No, you enable them far too much that way; you give them the opportunity to simply find whatever they dislike to be offensive as an excuse not to deal with it. So if we're after truth, it requires going until the end, regardless of any offensive material.
Now the part I think you forgot is that I've always been here - waiting for people to explain themselves; all I get are people avoiding the issue and being too narrow minded to remember the bigger picture (all the way back since Vogue's ban appeal, until now).
I NEVER called anyone incompetent simply for disagreeing with me. And I never would. I call Z-Man incompetent as a MODERATOR because he can't do his job as a moderator (proof for this can be seen in the PM history thread where he refuses to discuss the issue further and disallows me to talk to him about it - even more proof by his choice to post a PM that compromises the security of the website solely in order to deface me publicly [yes, solely for that reason - why would the public need to see that PM? and how does it relate to the entire purpose of that thread?] ). Anyway, I can assure you that what you find condescending has reason to be there - point to any one of my posts you want to question, and we can talk about it. Try rereading my posts and see how each one EXPLAINS just how I can even use the word (without it simply being a mere insult).
"The "standard" for society is to be accepting of others and prompt conversation and critical thinking. I think you can understand that, no?" - yes, I can. Can the people who respond to me? We've been able to work things out before, but consider that I've tried asking people like Word DIRECTLY to see if we can settle our differences, and each time he seems to blatantly ignore it, or actually refuse. So although I'm aware of the standard, it just isn't prevalent in this community.

Never meant to imply that the gap of misunderstand was due to incompetence - I suggest you reread the illustration if you thought that. It was only because of a difference in disposition. "Most people aren't gallivanting around here and calling you an idiot for having beliefs (even though I believe you think they are), yet you do almost exactly that to most who disagree with you.". But I'm not gallivanting around here calling people an idiot for having beliefs. I'm calling them an idiot for having such flawed beliefs (put simply - when someone in front of you is saying 2+2=3, how do you tell them they have it wrong?). When someone tries to make a claim that I'm a threat to everyone's account/password, how are they not an idiot when they are dead wrong about that? Or am I just not supposed to tell them? Is everyone getting mad at a social faux pas?

About the edit: "just as you are accusing the moderators of being the problem, most people are accusing you of being the problem. The difference is, most people are at least trying to reason with you. Give them the liberty of reasoning back, constructively. Respectfully." - 1) Certain people like Lucifer have lost far too much respect (because of unjust bans and an inability to talk about it) to have the expectation that people will listen to them (this is because it is known that they care only about what they think - the reason why they run away from proof) 2) You say most people are trying to reason with me...where? Because I don't see reasoning, I see unfounded claims...insults. If you're going to say something about me that I apparently can't see on my own, how do you expect me to see it just because you said it? EXPLAIN IT (not @ you). You say people have been trying to reason, yet there has been maybe 3 users who have ever tried, and 2 of them were in game. Though I have been trying to reason with other users here myself...shall I point you to dozens of posts where I ask a person directly to reason with me? You will see their response being the very thing you accuse me of. I think you've got this backwards.

Moderating: Z-Man: "incompetent and unfit" - this came from my dealings with Z-Man since the start (when he took on the original dispute in Lucifer's place). Frankly, if you went through the PM history posted there, you'd see that my claims of him being unreasonable were not made up - I can provide even more examples than were posted. I can prove his unreasonable behavior. GIVEN that he is (or at least was) unreasonable - that makes him unfit to dispute a case concerning a moderator abusing a user. It allows for the possibility that he would unreasonably sanction mistreatment of users. It was Z-Man's choice to interpret that critique as harassment (merely insults with no real basis) that solidifies the fact that he is unfit to be mod - he is making the deliberate choice to stay unreasonable. Further proof of his unreasonable behavior is how he is dealing with the PM history thread: in a thread meant to disprove my "slanderous" claims of him being unreasonable, he posts a PM that has nothing to do with the disputes, shows his own unreasonable nature, and all to attempt to show the public how I'm a threat to them (publicly defacing me). This is proof of his choice to focus on a petty issue, essentially trying to do harm to a user (reputation) instead of actually disproving my slanderous claims like he said. HE LIED TO YOU and everyone on these forums about the purpose of that thread. Furthermore, the PM he posted contains sensitive information that might ACTUALLY compromise your accounts and passwords!! It is his inexperience that doesn't allow him to put two and two together to see how posting that info publicly introduces risk - this is yet even more proof of his incompetence. FURTHERMORE, he recently locked the "gem in art restoration" thread on the grounds that I was being aggressive, when I was being dismissive at best - but even so, why was it grounds to lock the thread? It is obviously just a means of running from the truth again.
There are countless other examples by now, and if you'd like to discuss them all, I'd be happy to go through it - but otherwise I would appreciate it if you could have the understanding of the bullshit order in which I'm being forced to deal with this. Put simply, it appears as though I can't let things go because they keep targeting and abusing me. Do you expect me to just sit there and not do anything about it? They have disallowed me to PM either of them, making it appear as though I'm bringing drama to these forums and getting the public a reason to start showing intolerance (so as to give a reason to ban - if enough people want me gone, they will reason that it is the overall better thing to do, even if it is abusive to me). They can't seem to finish any single dispute, and even go as far as to start NEW bullshit drama just to avoid the old (for proof, refer to the PM history thread). And get this, they act up even more so because they know Tank is absent for the time being. Given that both the moderators refuse to actually settle my disputes, I'm forced to go to Tank about them - and they are building their lists of offenses to a point where I think Tank will be forced to reconsider the situation regarding moderators.
If he was tolerant, wouldn't he have the patience to finish at least ONE dispute? I'll take any at this point, so long as he actually FINISHES one and we can move on (<-- I want to move past all this - so why can't they talk about it?).
I'm not trying to take away Z-Man's position; I think Z-Man just needs reform. But if he can't improve, then it might be better for the community as a whole if he accepts that he is unable to do the job and steps down. If he makes a mistake, are we just supposed to say "what mistake"? I'm making sure no mistakes occur for anyone else; I'm going to be the last user that is/was ever abused here. Period.

Lucifer: I already mentioned this but, Lucifer has already lost the respect when he decided to abuse me and unjustly ban me. At the time I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he made a mistake - but then I saw him trying to justify his actions without any basis in reality (seemingly just because he wanted to be right and/or not admit to a mistake). More respect has been lost. Then I've had to deal with actual harassment from Lucifer (did everyone forget how he called me pure evil? a sexist woman hating pig?). This is where you should remember how I wasn't the first person to begin using disrespectful words - and I realized just what kind of posts were allowed on here (that seemingly contradicted the reasons Z-Man provides for the ban "harassment" - note that Z-Man said that I deserved it as a reason to allow the harassment from other users). Sufficed to say that there is more than enough reason to not respect Lucifer at this point....don't even have to mention or care about his deliberate attempt to troll me, he's lost enough without that.
That being said, you give an alternative like "I disagree with your actions on this particular scenario" when that is far more than anything I've ever said. I created this thread in response. And what does the first post address? The very problem you would "disagree" with. However, there is one difference: I'm ASKING if this is normal or not. I'm trying to see what this place is before I even agree or disagree with his actions. Your example, in this case, doesn't suit the purpose. Lucifer overreacted to this thread anyway simply because I take things seriously and my serious words have an effect on him like that. Saying that I disagree would have left me open to "that doesn't matter because this place is for trolls!" - so I asked to be sure.

"You can't (and won't) be taken seriously if that's the best you've got. That's degrading, and worthy of a ban in itself." - which part was degrading? Would you like to count the number of times he rage quit from IRC when trying to dispute the original ban there? I can prove how he runs away from his problems, and he might even admit it to you. But hey, you can probably find him talking about his arrest on IRC too. Nothing I've said is a mere insult - it has a very real basis in truth. Feel free to challenge it - I hope you strive to find out the truth. Even if I was saying this for no reason but to insult him - it is not a reason good enough for a ban - this can be determined by the actions of the moderators and other users of these forums - they have set the expectations of what is acceptable and I am within them.

"Back to the insults. It's not a "trolling competition." There's no 'good game'." No insults made - possibilities given based the previous post contents; reasoning. Would someone not be a mental case if they imagined meaning into words that simply weren't there (imagining attacks)? I gave the possibility, that either Lucifer was quite serious about what he thought (which would mean he genuinely perceives a message that simply isn't there = mental case), or that he wasn't serious and was just trolling in that post. IF, he wasn't a mental case, then the very thing he set out to do ("refrain from trolling") he failed to do. That was the "GG" - a sarcastic "good effort" because he seemed to have forgotten what he said since the start of his post.
"like it's a game or a competition to insult others" - I can assure you that is not the case; quite the opposite, one of the first things I've told to Lucifer and Z-Man was that this isn't a game to me. This isn't just something to "win". I'm here to solve a very serious issue, once and for all.

"The negativity around here is a lot more people's fault than just yours and Lucifer's. It's the general attitude that needs to change, and I don't think moderation is a bad place to start." - Hence me talking about tolerance and an environment of acceptance. Trust me, I know these things already. I'm ahead of you on this. I don't think I'm "at odds" with the moderators - this isn't about them or me; it's about solving a problem. The problem exists and will exist regardless if I'm here or not. I don't respect either of them (not nearly as much as you apparently do), and I gave some reasons why... I have more, but this can just be summed up with that I have more exposure to the problems than you do - they are targeting me specifically, not you.

About livening the place up, and being human: you are allowing for error (a normal thing to do). "Error", in the cases I'm bringing up, are cases of abuse of the position. Saying "it's ok to troll" on forums (even to a small degree) only works when all the users are similar enough to understand each other easily (refer to the dartboard illustration). Now unless this is a very elitist community that will permanently ban anyone who doesn't get their trolling jokes (isn't any fun to them), then a user should be able to ensure that they won't be trolled by the moderators...is that so much to ask? IDEALLY, the rules would encompass 100% of people ("people", not "the existing tron community", but everyone in the world); you want this community to grow right? Which percentage of people would you say enjoys being trolled? Enjoys being abused by a moderator? Either it's allowed to do here or not, and asking for a direct answer should not be a crime.
Personally, if the moderators treated everyone like people that didn't want to be trolled, then no one would have a problem and no threads would be created for abuse. There are plenty of other ways to liven the place up - but trolling for the lols should be one of the last considered options; that is the problem as defined by nearly every gaming community on this planet...and we're deliberately allowing it?! >_>

I can give you a better picture than the one Z-Man provided...

It is not my intention to overthrow the moderators...but if they are proven to be required to be overthrown then so be it.
If they have nothing to worry about, then we can settle this without them backing out.

"hacking": Z-Man is defacing me. Pure and simple. If he posted the entire PM chain, you'd see it clear as day. There's a reason why that thread is locked - Z-Man doesn't want to deal with the truth and would rather deface me - posting in a thread, some outrageous claim, and not allowing me to speak for myself?? clearly, he is trying to deface me; it is an aspersion.
I don't think I need to point out again how and why "hacking" was brought up by Z-Man...just to avoid the discussion regarding his unreasonable behavior (did you even notice how you're not thinking about that anymore? You're being played).
Explanation (second time I'm posting it):
This is after Z-Man as refused to dispute and has proven himself to be unreasonable.
I PM Z-Man asking how I could go about contributing to the source code, such that things might actually get done.
I was met with hostility and more unreasonable behavior.
Z-Man said that Lucifer wanted to impose conditions and many restrictions regarding the code I submit, on the grounds that I'm "difficult to work with" (note how that looks after Z-Man was the one to be unreasonable - after Lucifer was the one to rage quit so many times; how many times have I left? None.).
This was just another form of their oppression - it is open source code and a simple question; this was the attitude that made me decide that I won't be contributing to this project. My help simply isn't wanted because they don't like me (their reasoning was bullshit).
This led to a conversation between Z-Man and myself about what his intentions were: solely to make an enemy out of me, or if he was willing to work things out.
I had to ask if they wanted me to leave the community because I simply wasn't sure at this point; they all said "no", so I'm here to stay.
How would it look to you if you were ABUSED by a moderator? Banned for NO REASON? Then denied any dispute, and denied the possibility of contributing to the game that you love playing (which is OPEN-to-the-public source)? The question was simple...does he WANT to make an enemy? Or will he try to fix things?

Let me put it in a way that is easy to understand:
Even if I was actually a threat to everyone's account and passwords - I made a conditional statement: IF I was abused again.
Now, if the moderators are not abusive as they claim to be, then they have nothing to worry about since I wouldn't get abused and the condition would never be met. No threat present. So unless the moderators were fully expecting to abuse me again, there is no problem with what I've said, and if they were at all smart (and just), they'd see how what I said means nothing.

Here's another way:
If I was a real threat, I already possess the capability. If my intention was to go after your accounts and passwords, I would already have the entire list of hash passwords and my computer running 24/7 to unhash them. This alone should tell you that I don't have any malicious intent and am not a threat to anyone's account.

Last way:
Z-Man proved himself to be unreasonable (Lucifer too). If I was banned for no good reason, I don't have the ability to dispute it: 1) because I'm not allowed to with Z-Man and Lucifer in private, and 2) because both have proven to be unreasonable, and tyrannical when dealing with a dispute. This leaves me no real options. If Z-Man was a "friend", I would be able to chalk that up to a misunderstanding we can work out later. But since he insists on being an "enemy", then I have nothing to go on, and I will simply take whatever measures I can to unban myself. If Z-Man continues to try to ban me after that, then I would be forced to ban him back to stop his abusive actions.

It was never at any point a threat; just assurance. Fair warning (because even after all that, I'm nice enough to warn him - or is it because I think he's incompetent and needs all the help he can get? idk...)

Thing is, I don't care if the community likes me. I care when they are all hypocrites and break the rules to try to prove a point they simply can't prove.
The fact remains that people get upset for me doing things that have been previously defined as acceptable. So there is no reason to even question if I'm a bad guy because of it. It's allowed, and you say it's allowed. Deal with it. Even if I wasn't doing it just to address people in the same level of respect as they address me in, there would still be nothing you could do about it; I could very well be unreasonably offensive, and that is allowed. Moderators say so.
That being said, I think when you say "sporadic immaturity and lack of rationale", you ignore how I'm constantly here, and open to criticism - I call people idiotic when they respond to an opportunity to prove what they say with an utter failure. Or should I be calling them inept? As condescending as that is, it is not a lie. Overall though, you mistake principle for "sporadic immaturity and lack of rationale". If you understood the inner workings, it would make sense to you. (example: some of those times I am speaking in like-words; using language that a person has previously used so as to appeal to their disposition - I find it interesting that I appear less mature because of it)



###################################################
@Lucifer:
A good example of this exact thing (similar situation, even) happened a few years back with me and Phytotron, and he's not exactly known for withholding vitriol. Nevertheless, I had trolled him a few times in edit logs, and he basically said something like "Hey, I don't like being trolled in edit logs, or at all for that matter, do you mind?" I don't know if I every answered him directly, but I stopped trolling him in edit logs. Oddly, I remember him later mentioning ironically that he felt neglected because of that, heh.
How is a dispute different? I'm not asking you to stop anything; though right now I would like to take this time to explicitly ask that you never troll me...ever, for anything, or any reason. In a dispute, I'm after the "rule" (specifically). I want to know if trolling is normal, expected, and in general, a part of the Armagetron Forums experience. Why is this so difficult for you to answer?
I guess what I'm curious about is when is a troll crossing a line?
What exactly did you think I was after when I began talking about your edit message? Learn to keep up.
And then we also have Britishers and Canadianers.
^ you recently removed "sexism" in another post (via quote) when it wasn't at all required, yet you make a blatant racist remarks.... If this asshattery was intentional, I consider it to be a form of trolling, let alone insulting. If it wasn't intentional, I expect you to correct the situation.



###################################################
@Gonzap: It's not like you have a say in the matter - "this isn't a democracy" - and for them to start now for an issue they only brought up so as to avoid all the other issues they caused, would be a form of abuse. If the community all felt that it would be better that I go, then I would, on the only condition that the moderators actually finish their disputes, OR cease harassing and abusing me until Tank Program can finish their disputes for them. Frankly it is the kind of intolerance and ignorance you are showing within your post that is a part of the problem. If you guys focused on growth, maybe this community would grow. Instead a lot of you seem to be focused on permanently banning existing members....s-m-r-t
From the other topic: I didn't go to any other level - Z-Man did (if anyone did at all). Even so, you shouldn't jump to that conclusion without the whole history posted. I asked Z-Man if he wanted to make an enemy (because being an unreasonable tyrant is the way to do it), and what would it be like for me to not even try to dispute my abuse the next time.
Either you can be reasoned with, and you can learn the truth, or you don't care and will be ban-happy. Are you willing to discuss things to find out? Or are the words of a moderator who has been proven to be unreasonable more important to you?



###################################################
@ConVicT: SMH, these ppl eh?
I'd gladly admit to a mistake if it could be proven to me - but I've already learned the mistake in admitting a mistake I didn't make or isn't a mistake at all.
Thanks for explaining the part about them causing me to have to explain / go through their convoluted nonsense more - but I don't think they will understand *facepalm* can't help but think it's being done on purpose..



###################################################
@Amaso: +1
But Z-Man thinks it's right to post in a thread and lock it up to prevent any voices but his own... >_>



###################################################
@Vogue: First of all: there is no reason for you to ask for proof. I'm not trying to claim preferential treatment because of it like you & other users were trying to make it seem like being of a different sex meant anything special in regards to making a video apology, or a ban appeal. So regardless of it being proven or not, the result has no effect on the outcome of this thread.
Second: No one has to care what you believe. Believe I'm lying for all I care. Have fun.
Third: Bring it on! I have my doubts about your instructions, but I will meet them regardless so as to satisfy your curiosity. Even so, I would only raise into question your credibility to a) create such a test, and b) to be able to test for Aspergers (one of 5 dif classifications of autism). Furthermore, you would have difficulty fulfilling just about any test because I'm an adult - and I can tell you (bonus! lucky you) that it is harder to test for in adults than in children.
Regardless, I am curious of the result. Not so much to prove anything (because I already got a real diagnosis), but to see what exactly your instructions are and how the end result compares.



###################################################
@Magi: lul



###################################################
@Phytotron:
No. F*ck this guy. Get him out of this community. Seriously.
^ why?
There's no discouragement to future offenses at that point, as they know they'll be able to get away with it, with everything they originally said still visible, each and every time in the future. What's the point then?
Do you people realize why I was able to use words that hurt in my recent posts? Do you realize why I can't be banned for them? Phytotron, you understand the purpose of rules, so you should understand the purpose of a proper dispute. From my experiences disputing, this is how I am supposed to be acting on these forums. Turns out I'm still doing it wrong since I should be trolling more people... >_> (this is not sarcastic, I've been asking and asking about trolling - finally got some explanations, trolling is allowed and expected around here). Buy hey, if you don't see a problem with it, then why do you have a problem with me?



###################################################
@Lucifer:
You know, the kind who pick on others while hiding behind jokes. "Oh, we're just having a little bit of fun!" You know, that sort of thing.
^ like your recent trolling? Don't even try to excuse that as nothing serious because 1) I never explicitly told you that I wanted to be trolled, and you don't know me well enough to know for certain that I want to be trolled 2) you have ABUSED me before by unjustly banning me; this was your sad attempt to "test" my condition and decide to abuse me again with your trolling. The action in itself (real edit), is fine, the action as it looks (trolling), is somewhat bad, but the public statement you are making (that you are still harassing me, and testing to see who cares - turns out no one) is the worst part. Now either this was a massive mistake on your part, or deliberate. In either case, you are "the kind who picks on others while hiding behind jokes".
Do you remember to apologize if you happen to offend your family? I'm certain they'd appreciate it (such a small gesture can do so much). Do you even admit to it as a mistake? Or only the excuse for your action: "you thought it was funny before you said it out loud" - trying to excuse a mistake will ensure you are going to repeat it again.
There, I removed the sexism and left the idiom intact. See how easy that was?
Except that there was nothing to remove....the idiom isn't "taking it" it is "taking it like ____". There is a reason why people say to "take it like a man" and that reason is the very same reason why it is an idiom. You did NOT leave the idiom in tact, you destroyed it. There was no sexism to remove. There was not even a harmful stereotype present.
Um, there was a post of Vogue's I edited that Durf objected to me editing that clearly falls under this statement. I knew damn well Vogue would get a laugh out of it, or at the very least not be offended.
1) I was after the specific ruling. You say you don't treat anyone differently (leaving aside all the contradictions made since), so I was looking for something more absolute to understand. Having to memorize who allows trolling to be done to them and who doesn't can get to be a hassle. 2) Like I previously mentioned, I find any abuse you do as an offense. I don't want to use a forums website with a moderator that can only seem to abuse. which brings me to 3) is it okay to offend other users so long as it's funny to some (the whole problem with rule 7 again)?
not worth the risk
^ fairly certain that you are talking out of your ass - or you just just learned this lesson (probably from the PMs you got).
Whatever else can be said about my edit log message that spawned this thread, it wasn't inherently hurtful. In fact, had I written something like "This guy failed his speech class", Durf would probably have just passed it right up. The reason I don't think it was inherently hurtful is because I think the edits made clearly show that the post needed moderator attention. Had I done it as a prank, then my edit log message might cross over into inherently hurtful.
After what you just finished saying, you should know that you DON'T know if it was inherently "hurtful"(harmful*) or not. I've explained why it was offensive, and you've admitted to trolling me. What has been done about it? Nothing. Have you too much pride to get this over with? You are focusing far too much on the wrong reasons. You proved yourself to be abusive and you're trying to make a deliberate public statement by trolling me. It wasn't a ban, so I didn't have to do anything to correct the immediate situation, but nonetheless, you are going too far yet again. Pushing your luck will only take you so far - when you run out, you will be far too indebted to that luck to be able to save yourself from the consequences of your own actions. But I was only after understanding - if you can admit to being an abusive moderator, then I can work from that expectation; I wouldn't try to dispute anything with an abusive moderator. Else, I'd prefer you take things seriously.



###################################################
@Z-Man:
Durf does not know when to shut up and can't ever, ever admit he was wrong. (Convict is wrong, of course. Every normal person can admit when they have been wrong.) And because he does not accept who runs this place.
Z-Man...if you would finish a dispute, I would stop. If you didn't abuse or harass me, I wouldn't start. What's so hard to understand about that? Everyone here knows that you abandon your dispute; you are proven to be unreasonable. Are you sure you're not the one that can't accept who runs the place? Now here is where your posts become the same ol' drivel: You say that I can't admit when I was wrong - yet you are the one that has yet to admit your mistakes to begin with. I will gladly admit to my ban being just if you can prove it. Prove I was being sexist, prove I was harassing Vogue, prove ANY reason for the ban being just....all you have been doing is making an ass of yourself, unable to explain himself. You say (basically) that I'm wrong...can you say about what? Can you prove it? You say convict is wrong, but why are you proving him to be right? And personally, I have accepted who runs this place - you're becoming far too consumed with such petty things to think I even care who runs it. This has always been about the contradiction between what you SAY and what you DO. You guys have been discriminating against me for having Asperger's Syndrome without knowing the hardship that comes with it - part of that hardship is having to be told things directly. So when there is a contradiction like I get unjustly banned, and you say you moderators aren't abusive...well there needs some explaining then. This isn't about WHO is running the place, it is about HOW the place is being run. Don't like it? Step down. Willing to take responsibility for your actions? Finish your disputes.
One of Durfs complaints was that we did not follow proper procedure
The next sentence is total garbage; public hogwash. Did you forget to mention that I asked what the specifics of any existing policy is? What procedures were in place for disputes/bans? Stop trying to avoid the fact that you were unprepared - after more than a decade of this website's existence, only now you realize your unpreparedness (smh). Not to mention your bullshit:
But we did follow the common sense procedure of escalating an issue to the next higher authority. If you're unhappy with the service at a store, you ask to see the supervisor or manager. Here, if you're unhappy with a moderator, you go to the forum admin (Tank).
You both are leaving far too much up to Tank because you can't or don't want to handle it. You don't realize, but he has PMs and emails waiting for him. There is a long list of things I'm going to discuss with him, and you guys only make the list longer. You may think I haven't noticed each instance where you have abused and tested your limits, but I have. I haven't been trying to dispute them with you for all the reasons you've ensured - I can't PM either of you, and you've made sure to make the public think I'm just starting drama by posting publicly. You both are way in too deep at this point.
two of the three triumvirate members were already previously involved. It was a theoretical problem because the actual decision was unanimous, but we can do better. The more serious problem is that he was then still unhappy and would not shut up about it.
There was a decision made without any input from myself. So unless that's what you call fair and just moderation, then you took that opportunity to force the decision to be unanimous by ensuring Tank Program never got a chance to see things from my point of view.
the bit you sign off when you sign up telling you that you agree to us being allowed to moderate you whenever and however we please. We didn't because a) I had totally forgotten about it and b) it's a bit of a dick move.
You didn't point to it because you would be answering my question: what is the policy / am I expected to be abused? The reason why you think it's a dick move is the reason why I dispute your abuse. Stop making dick moves, and there won't be anything to dispute. Now the thing is, you could have easily just admitted to that policy - be the dick! I don't care! It's the contradiction that doesn't make sense. You say one thing then do another. If you're going to pull that dick move, then do it already! I'd rather you be a dick that admits to being one, than one that pretends not to be...are you lying to yourself?
Your "for the future" note, #2: "cap on protest" - the problem with that is that you couldn't do a single dispute, not one. You were unable to be reasoned with - therefore, NONE of that should count towards the allotted amount of "protest" as you weren't listening to it anyway. Such a ruling gives possibility for you to do the very same thing as last time, say "no you're wrong" without reasoning and simply trying to end it at that. Once enough appeals to your sense of reason have been made, you can simply refuse their appeals on the grounds that enough protest has been given...how despicable. Either come up with a rule you can't abuse, or you will be known to be a little weasel who sets things up JUST to be able to abuse in the future...seriously have you any honor? Can you be a good moderator? Or only an abusive one?
Now, of course, even with those implemented, Durf would still have been unhappy about the decision in the end.
Z-Man, unless you want longer and longer replies to you, you're going to have to stop being that big of an idiot. I've repeated too many times now that I'm after specific ruling. Just to know what not to do - proof of abuse / not abuse; the limitations for users and moderators. YOU are the one that was proven to be unreasonable - stop trying to turn it around on me by saying I would have been unhappy either way; I'm perfectly willing to accept a ban if you can actually justify it... It's the fact that you haven't been able to justify ANY of your actions lately that proves to everyone how you're at least too incompetent as a moderator to know what you're doing, let alone your true understanding of why.



###################################################
@Titanoboa:
If I start attacking you, Durf, and claim that you're unfit to use these forums and try to get rid of you (for the well-being of these forums, of course), would you see that as acceptable behaviour?
In all honesty, I would want to discuss it with you further. I would see your approach to the problem as acceptable (if you managed to speak with substance, not just "you are ___", but also "because ..."). The second you are unable to actually prove what you say, or be unable to discuss things in such a way that I could actually LEARN and change, that's when it becomes unacceptable (rather, just insults or harassment at that point since there is nothing of substance).
You say Lucifer and Z-man are unfit to moderate these forums, you're doing your uttermost to get rid of them and the list of insults towards them is ever growing. And this is acceptable, why exactly? And without trying to put words into your mouth, I'm going to assume it's because they have been violating your right to use these forums and express yourself in whichever manner you see fit.
Yes I do say that; no I'm not doing my uttermost to get rid of them, frankly they can keep their jobs and DON'T even have to change!!! I'm only after the exact rules since they aren't written anywhere for me to see. I've been asking if abuse is to be expected...no answer yet. The "list of insults", as you call it, probably refers to things like me calling them incompetent. If you recall my answer to your first question, you can see why I don't see them as insults. I'm perfectly willing to discuss how I came to the conclusion that they are incompetent...they just don't care - they never cared to dispute anything with me - that makes them incompetent moderators based on the expectations I originally had of this website, and it also means that they also don't care about "insults" (supported or not). So what does it matter if I were to just be only insulting them? I'm not breaking any rules even if it was for no reason. So what's your point? I'm not "insulting" them; I am informing them of their behavior to try to appeal to their consciousness; try to talk to the individual, rather than the mindless tyrant who's only there to "win" something. Answer this: how do you tell someone who is being unreasonable, that they are being unreasonable? If you know for a fact that person will consider that to be an insult (because they think they were being reasonable), how are you supposed to be able to discuss it? Saying something like that should never be looked at as an insult - especially by moderators who have admitted to just absorbing all insults anyway. It should be viewed as acceptable to be able to discuss any topic such that the parties involved can reach a conclusion (was that person actually being unreasonable or not? we should be able to find that out in a civil manner).
it's not your right to use these forums; it's a privilege
Wasn't trying to claim either way. Like I keep having to repeat to everyone (pay attention pls?) I'm after UNDERSTANDING. If they are going to be abusive tyrants, then admit to that so I can expect that. But saying they aren't, then abusing me later will force me to question what I was told and dispute the issue. I don't get how that is hard for you to understand. Am I supposed to expect that I can be banned at any moment for no reason?
we wouldn't just bend over and take it. We'd let them know
Did you forget that out of all the disputes, both Lucifer and Z-Man have refused to deal with ALL of them. Z-Man himself has started new drama (not a dispute, but just drama) at least twice all on his own. Lucifer has done it even more so. So unless you're admitting to turning a blind eye to this type of stuff, you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'd be happy to share each and every example I have so the public can come to a valid decision, but as was proven, I wouldn't be given a fair opportunity to do so; the thread would be locked; my voice removed. If they control the content, how do you expect to see their abuse when they want to hide it from you?
we'd all eventually stop coming here, or they would adjust
^ I have asked Z-Man if they just want me to leave or something, because their abuse is out of hand. Just like you describe. I was told "no"; so I am here to stay. Even so, you're basically saying that they can control who uses these forums through their abusive behavior (like an alternative to banning someone, they can just treat them like shit until they leave).
Lucifer might have made mistakes, but none of them are unforgivable. So, I'm sorry to say it... and, mind you, this is coming from a Christian... but Lucifer is really the lesser of two evils here.
going out of his way to unjustly ban a user so as to start all this vs what exactly? What mistakes have I made, and which ones are unforgivable as you implied..?
You're causing a communal headache here. I might have been wrong to accuse you of doing it on purpose, but will you please get over yourself and stop it?
Stop what? I don't understand..

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

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Durf »

###################################################
@Phytotron:
Phytotron wrote:The difference is between the person who sincerely says, "oh shit, sorry, didn't mean it that way / to upset you" and the person who says "lol why u mad fgt itz just a joke grow a thicker skin i didnt do nething wrong."
Interesting you should mention that - when have the moderators ever apologized for their mistakes? Even the offensives ones? How is avoiding every issue ever brought up not like that second response you illustrated? Let alone trying to justify an obviously unjust action..
Your viewpoint isn't all that different than mine - seems to be just a difference in bias..



###################################################
@Lucifer:
Lucifer wrote:When you mentioned the threat to "exposing hypocrisy" via publishing PMs, the entire reason I said it might be worth doing was to give Durf enough rope with which to hang himself. I believe that milestone has been reached, so after you've found the time to write the other answers in the other thread, and a suitable period of having it unlocked for more discussion, I believe the next milestone is going to be figuring out what to do with him.
Before anything; even figuratively speaking, you're basically telling someone to go kill themselves by expressing your intent to make them suicidal.
Now, first of all, no hypocrisy to be found; even if there was, Z-Man has done nothing to expose it. Second, the PM provided 4 different ways for me to prove how Z-Man was both incompetent and unreasonable. If you think I was trying to prevent that one PM from going public, you're wrong. I said that my privacy would be violated because I didn't want the public to know that I had started that PM chain by asking Z-Man how to contribute to the project (you should know this); I didn't want to give the community the impression that I would be contributing sometime soon and it had nothing to do with the part Z-Man considers to be a threat. Now it doesn't really matter either way, and I'm willing to post any and all PMs on my account; because "I don't hide behind PMs". Plus, Z-Man attempted to use the same excuse to prevent having the PM history that would prove he was unreasonable go public; I was making a point, and Z-Man has shown yet again that he can't even play by his own rules.
About "figuring out what to do with him" - neither you nor Z-Man can do anything about it. To think you both would rather try to prove that ridiculous instead of trying to disprove my claims, instead of trying to refute any disputes, instead of actually solving issues, you're only proving how this is some kind of game to you and you just want to have something on me (grasping at straws). It also proves much of what I've been saying. All you can do is avoid when you're under public judgement; you can't avoid it by trying to point the finger to someone else, you did what you did.
But everyone will see IF Z-Man will actually respond to everyone in that thread, and IF he will actually leave it unlocked for people to post in. Z-Man started this, so why can't he finish it?
By my count, we've had only one user who seemed to have difficulty with this, and his difficulty is that y'all didn't take his side.
There's more than just one user with a problem with what you're doing; you forget to factor in how the both of you are excessively abusing your moderator status far too much with (only?) me. By my count, there's at least a dozen issues I have to talk with Tank about simply because neither of you are capable of dealing with it or I'm not allowed to dispute it with you. And nice try with "his difficulty is that y'all didn't take his side" - but I've made perfectly clear that my difficulty is that you just abandon the dispute. It's not that you didn't agree with my side of things, it's that you have no side to begin with and call it "resolved". My difficulty isn't that you didn't take my side, it's that you couldn't support yours in the slightest and you still claim to have been just. My difficulty is your hypocrisy.
Durf might have gotten a partial apology if he hadn't turned around and proved to the world that my hasty actions were righter than they appeared at the time
Actually I never proved such a thing. If you're talking about disputing my ban in itself causing me to deserve a ban, then you are saying that no one has the ability to dispute any ban, and that in itself is a bannable offense..? If you're referring to the spamming that occurred around the same time, then you are STILL trying to justify an unjust ban by claiming I've used an extra account to spam the forums...I don't use any extra accounts. And condemning me, or banning me because of it is also abuse (yet something else you have to apologize for). Even then, you made a mistake and even if I make one immediately afterwards, it doesn't mean that an apology for yours is any less deserved than it was before. And after all that was said and done, all that was proved was that you unjustly banned me. Which is still going to be disputed by Tank Program anyway - so pretending like a verdict has been reached (like you just did to excuse yourself from an apology) is only further proof of your tyranny.
Considering the cost to everybody but Durf of the 24-hour ban, putting in a properly defined procedure for appeals (particularly if it has to meet Durf's standards) could lead to a chilling effect for moderators, or the abuse of the procedure to retaliate against the ban (you know, by wasting more than 24 hours each for the other people required by the procedure).
If such an appeal process was created to meet my standards, I could assure you that even I wouldn't be able to abuse it; guaranteed. I understand perfectly well how users might simply want to retaliate against their bans simply because they can - I was made fully aware when you and Z-Man made it perfectly clear that your entire reasoning for ignoring my dispute was that BECAUSE I wanted to dispute it, you knew it was just (that anyone who was banned deserves it without question). Put simply, if either of you could have actually provided proof - then I wouldn't be able to argue against it. I'd end up looking like you do now.



###################################################
@Vogue: Does growing a pear count? Seriously though, the use of one's voice or not has nothing to do with it; that is just (might be) your preferred way of communicating. Everyone has a preference and you harassing them or trying to peer pressure them into deviating from their natural preference is the cowardly way. Your backwards logic won't work with people that have a brain.

Venijn
Round Winner
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Venijn »

Image

My comment was more about the fact you haven't been banned yet. You can't make a threat and just ignore it when called out.
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).
Just because you say it isn't a threat, doesn't mean it isn't one.

It's like me pointing out my loaded gun next to me, and suggesting I might use it on you.... it's not a threat though.
Click. Image

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

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Durf »

@TL;DR: I never expected you to read everything, but there is a reply to what you've said in there somewhere...
My comment was more about the fact you haven't been banned yet.
There's no reason to ban me.
You can't make a threat and just ignore it when called out.
The only one ignoring it is the person that is keeping the thread locked.
Just because you say it isn't a threat, doesn't mean it isn't one.
Just because Z-Man thinks I made a threat, doesn't make it one.
It's like me pointing out my loaded gun next to me, and suggesting I might use it on you.... it's not a threat though.
For what reason would you use it on me? It's certainly not a threat if you say that you'd use it on me if I turned into a zombie...now is it? I don't plan on turning zombie anytime soon, so what do I have to worry about?

Like I said, just because Z-Man thinks it's a threat, doesn't make it one.
The context of the entire PM chain will clear things up - assuming that Z-Man will actually keep his word.
Plus, Z-Man is making it seem like I'm a threat to the website as a whole and this community (user accounts)...the thing is that's just stupid. If I was after that, then this place would already be "hacked" and I would already be working on unhashing all the passwords. The "threat" is only to Z-Man's pride because I made myself clear after countless attempts to try to work things out with him, Z-Man is stubborn about being unreasonable. Given that he would only be unreasonable if I were to be abused again, there's no point in me trying to dispute anything, I will just do what I can to correct the situation, no questions asked.
So in the end, the purposes for him even bringing up this issue (to avoid the case of moderator abuse, notice how he can't actually finish what he starts), means nothing and his claims fail before they begin. But assuming Z-Man will keep his word and unlock the thread, you will all be able to see the rest of the history in full context. Which will essentially prove how Z-Man was only trying to start more drama, not me.

Venijn
Round Winner
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Venijn »

Durf wrote:@TL;DR: I never expected you to read everything, but there is a reply to what you've said in there somewhere...
My comment was more about the fact you haven't been banned yet.
There's no reason to ban me.
You can't make a threat and just ignore it when called out.
The only one ignoring it is the person that is keeping the thread locked.
Just because you say it isn't a threat, doesn't mean it isn't one.
Just because Z-Man thinks I made a threat, doesn't make it one.
It's like me pointing out my loaded gun next to me, and suggesting I might use it on you.... it's not a threat though.
For what reason would you use it on me? It's certainly not a threat if you say that you'd use it on me if I turned into a zombie...now is it? I don't plan on turning zombie anytime soon, so what do I have to worry about?

Like I said, just because Z-Man thinks it's a threat, doesn't make it one.
The context of the entire PM chain will clear things up - assuming that Z-Man will actually keep his word.
Plus, Z-Man is making it seem like I'm a threat to the website as a whole and this community (user accounts)...the thing is that's just stupid. If I was after that, then this place would already be "hacked" and I would already be working on unhashing all the passwords. The "threat" is only to Z-Man's pride because I made myself clear after countless attempts to try to work things out with him, Z-Man is stubborn about being unreasonable. Given that he would only be unreasonable if I were to be abused again, there's no point in me trying to dispute anything, I will just do what I can to correct the situation, no questions asked.
So in the end, the purposes for him even bringing up this issue (to avoid the case of moderator abuse, notice how he can't actually finish what he starts), means nothing and his claims fail before they begin. But assuming Z-Man will keep his word and unlock the thread, you will all be able to see the rest of the history in full context. Which will essentially prove how Z-Man was only trying to start more drama, not me.

I didn't mention Zman. He posted what you wrote. I'm capable of having my own opinion (does that shock you?) I believe it is a threat, and you can dress it up as you like, clearly it is.

I won't reply anymore, because you interpret things in a skewed manner to fit your response. My analogy implies I felt you had wronged me.
Click. Image

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4168
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Word »

I admire Venom for his talent to nail jelly to a wall in just a few sentences. I hope more people notice what Venom asked and what Durf replied. "If a threat directly threatens your existence, do you consider that a threat?" - "No, what if I'm a zombie afterwards", says Durf. He just can't wrap his head around the idea that he's wrong.
Last edited by Word on Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
F0RC3
Core Dumper
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:33 pm

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by F0RC3 »

Everyone arguing at this point is like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqTvN_jddaM

User avatar
Magi
Match Winner
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:35 pm

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Magi »

F0RC3 wrote:Everyone arguing at this point is like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqTvN_jddaM

Image
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye

User avatar
desgorn
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:04 am

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by desgorn »

Durf wrote: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.
get tanks account to do what exactly? at this point it sounds like you are bullying the mods? yes, the irony.
Durf wrote: Like I said, just because Z-Man thinks it's a threat, doesn't make it one.
The context of the entire PM chain will clear things up
while that is an excerpt from a larger conversation, that's a threat.
Durf wrote: 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).
what is it exactly they have to do again in order for you to fulfill your threat?

User avatar
Soul
Match Winner
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:45 pm

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Soul »

illuminati
Chief Justice of the Armagetron Advanced Judicial System.
---------------
Notable Bans Issued:
Vogue - 12 month ban(x2)
Lucifer - 1 Day

Monkey
Match Winner
Posts: 725
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 12:36 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Monkey »

Durf, I'm quite tired from reading all of this but I'll answer the points that you raise, even though I doubt you'll be satisfied with my answers.

The "errors of your ways" and "lack of self-awareness" issues:
Firstly, the threats that you have made. The threats are real Durf, no matter how much you try to make them seem like they aren't threats (such as calling them "assurances"), they are. Desgorn's and Venijn's quotes show this well so I won't repeat them. When you say that you aren't making threats, you're either lying or you lack the self-awareness to realise that you're making threats. Which is it?
Secondly, you write far more than is necessary. Unfortunately, this is something that is hard for me to "prove"; it should be something that you just "get". Some people do get it, some people don't. Unfortunately you are one of those that doesn't get it. I suppose in theory I could take some of your posts and rewrite them to show you how much more concisely you could write to get all of your points across. In practice, however, it would take such a long time to do so (because they are so long) and I can't be arsed.
There are other examples too although I can't remember any off the top of my head. I might keep an eye out while reading your future posts and point them out if they occur. Then again, I might not, i'll see how I feel.
Playing since December 2006

User avatar
Nanu Nanu
Core Dumper
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:20 am
Location: Witty comment about location here

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Nanu Nanu »

Durf wrote:Further proof of his unreasonable behavior is how he is dealing with the PM history thread: in a thread meant to disprove my "slanderous" claims of him being unreasonable, he posts a PM that has nothing to do with the disputes, shows his own unreasonable nature, and all to attempt to show the public how I'm a threat to them (publicly defacing me). This is proof of his choice to focus on a petty issue, essentially trying to do harm to a user (reputation) instead of actually disproving my slanderous claims like he said.
It is troubling that you consider threatening these forums (which includes all of its members) to be a "petty issue."

Maybe you're right, just Z-man claiming something to be a threat doesn't necessarily make it one. However, everyone else that reads the specific PMs he posted that you are referring to, can decide for themselves whether or not what you're saying is actually a threat. This is an assumption, but I do believe it's very likely that most of the users feel threatened by what you have said. Simply saying it's not an issue as long as the moderators don't abuse you doesn't make what you said okay. I should hope that as users of this forums we all have some mutual idea that this place is useful if not enjoyable to us, and that we would not like to see any harm come to it. You obviously do not have this level of respect for the community if you are willing to threaten it. Now, I expect you to think that you are just targeting Z-man as you specified in the PM history, but messing with the administration of any website is a potential danger for the entire website.

You speak of the necessity of Z-man and Lucifer learning from the mistakes they have made, but are you willing to do the same? I understand that this cannot be done unless you accept what you have done as a mistake, but hopefully we can convince you that threatening in general is not appropriate.

While you may be right that this issue distracts from the issue of your ban appeals, it's very hard to find value or meaning in your claims of doing things for the betterment of the community when you threaten that same community.
Prema wrote:The second match starts, a new beginning,
Nanu and Prema, Sui and Ninja,
versus those same old hoes grinning.

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

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Ratchet »

@Dufr:

First of all, you misspelled my name. I take offense.
Yes, I misspelled Durf on purpose to be funny and ironic. I think I'm hilarious.

Second: you repeatedly express that stating you'll take over Tank's account if you feel wronged isn't a threat:

Consider this: America creates a devastating missile and aims it directly at North Korea; the only thing separating the entire country of North Korea from annihilation is the press of a button. Next, President Obama contacts Kim to say "ah, yeah, we're not threatening you. We just want you to know that if we disagree with something you do we'll wipe your country off the map."

In case you can't predict the outcome, a very large scale war would likely ensue because we threatened the safety of North Korea. In your head, the opposite happens:

America: "But, we'll NEVER launch it unless you do something we don't like"
North Korea: "Oh, okay, we're cool then"


Also:
Durf wrote:When someone tries to make a claim that I'm a threat to everyone's account/password, how are they not an idiot when they are dead wrong about that?
Durf wrote: I already possess the capability. If my intention was to go after your accounts and passwords, I would already have the entire list of hash passwords and my computer running 24/7 to unhash them.

"Should I bother talking about the psychology behind verifying one's own intelligence (with fake tests)? Nah, I'll just leave it at that."


Should I bother talking about the psychology behind boasting one's ability to do something malicious and then claiming it's not a threat (and that you would never do such a thing)?

Regarding the list of things to discuss with Tank
As previously mentioned (and as has been quoted for the umpteenth time): you clearly (no questions asked) stated that you'd take over Tank's account to modify your account as well as, potentially, Z-man's. And you expect Tank to reason with you and consider removing one (or both) of his moderators? Seriously?

I'd be surprised if Tank even finds you worth his time to respond. And, if he does, believe me: you'll wish he hadn't. I think all you're going to find is that Tank wholly trusts Z-man and Lucifer, and certainly won't send them packing. I could see him trying to reason with you, and MAYBE apologizing on their behalf, but it'd mostly be to get you to 'shut up', so to speak.

Proving that you're wrong
That is, by the nature of your arguments, impossible. Literally. You ask if you're wrong and if someone will kindly point out your faults, but only rhetorically. (in an oh wait, you can't type of tone)
Durf wrote:You say most people are trying to reason with me...where? Because I don't see reasoning, I see unfounded claims...insults.
Durf wrote:I'd gladly admit to a mistake if it could be proven to me
Durf wrote:@Word: You're right, a threat is a threat. Too bad I didn't make one. Otherwise you might have a point.
(note: if you want to talk about it, then let's talk - otherwise it will be as simplistic as you leave it; prove what you say)
Durf wrote:but you can always prove me wrong (or can you?).

And, finally, a quote I thought that was worth addressing:
Durf wrote:I NEVER called anyone incompetent simply for disagreeing with me. And I never would.
I think this post encapsulates that pretty well.
Image
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean

User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11257
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne, Jabber: [email protected]
Contact:

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by Z-Man »

Durf wrote:- You were dissatisfied with this, and even took it upon yourself to edit another user's voice in the matter simply because you don't want the community to see how you've been in private (too late now).
Another fine example of this:
discussion1.png
discussion1.png (3.67 KiB) Viewed 626 times
discussion2.png
discussion2.png (3.41 KiB) Viewed 626 times
discussion3.png
discussion3.png (3.82 KiB) Viewed 626 times
The post was initially edited because it did not fit previously stated conditions. I revised that decision because even though those conditions were not met, I thought the user deserved to be heard. No mention any more of that I changed my mind. I move one pace forward, Durf moves ten back.
And, of course, he attempts to censor by proxy (via reports) whatever he does not want to hear.
I gave him the reasons why I think he was misbehaving. Instead of going "Oh, I see, I won't do that in the future, then" as he claims he naturally would, he dismissed them.

And, of course, I did not permanently lock the other thread to "get the last word". I specifically said I would unlock it again, which I now did. I locked it to slow the discussion down to a manageable speed and shut the one shouting the most up for a bit, you know, doing the job of a moderator?
And I did give Durf the license to post context to the messages I posted. I don't think it will help him in any way, so I did not do it myself.

Durf completely misrepresents what I said and did. The things mentioned above are just the cases where it is reasonably easy to demonstrate.

User avatar
/dev/null
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:28 pm
Location: Chicago-ish

Re: Moderator Abuse...again

Post by /dev/null »

Gigantic wall of useless text.

Adding more words doesnt make it any less hilarious.

If you want to roam here, youll need thicker skin than you seem to have.

Locked