To Durf (open letter, if you will)

[|CPU|]

TL;DR
DURF SHUT UR MOUF

[Vogue]

I'm gonna regret responding to you..

If you got banned suddenly without any apparent reason, wouldn't you like to know why?

You didn't get banned "without any apparent reason", the moderator had a very clear reason; you just didn't agree with him. Also you got banned for ONE DAY, get over it you pleb.

If their reasons were complete bullshit, wouldn't you debunk them?

K, you tried to debunk them. Are you done now? They're allowed to have a different opinion than yours, besides, you're unbanned. Get. Over. It.

Or do you just bend over for a corrupt moderator? Show them that you can play ball. Because THAT'S rewarding >_>

Yeah, if a troll like me has existed for over 6 years in this community then you can see the staff isn't that unfair. They're very lenient and hands off for the most part, so I don't agree with Monkeys statement either, you'll be fine here. They're very forgiving.

They may not owe me anything, but I'll be happy to shine a light on their hypocrisy free of charge.

The problem is, we've known them a bit longer than you have and the only people who see the "hypocrisy" are your fast track minions. The rest of us have respect for the mods/admins.

Shall I post some PM history?

No. Please shut up.

[ConVicT]

get over it you pleb. Get. Over. It.

Gonna have to side with Durf here. Just the fact that you keep telling him to "get over it", when in actual fact he wasn't even the one that started this thread.
You expect him to take a back seat, take everything in, and shut-up?
Knowing him and reading what you've read from him, does that seem likely?

You can't just presume he wasn't over it and y'all got him started again.

[Vogue]

Yeah, that would make total sense if I didn't have the knowledge that he's still PMing the staff about his miniscule, irrelevant problems.

[*16]

Even if I was sexist / racist / white supremacist (I'm not btw), banning me for that reason is martyring (which does wonders for a reputation btw) me unless I've actually committed an offense against the forums rules. So far they haven't been able to prove that I committed any offense to any rule.

I'm probably gonna regret posting here but huh...

I wonder how you want they would prove you would be sexist / racist / ... Since people have different opinions on what is sexism/racism etc, I don't think you can ever 'prove' someone is racist/sexist. But someone can be seen sexist/racist in the eyes on the population/community.

I like to compare with a bully who sometimes doesn't even know he's bullying and whatever you show him as examples of him bullying, he doesn't see them as bullying but as merely teasing.

I'm not taking any sides here, I'm not accusing you of being a sexist/racist, neither am I saying that you aren't, but I to point out that I think not everything can be proven. In my opinion it isn't just black or white.

[Z-Man]

Vogue: To be fair, my inbox has been Durf-free for the last 48 hours (Edit: Shattered dreams...). Of course, now comes this, so...

Shall I post some PM history?

No. Moderator order. As much as I'd love people to witness what I had to endure, in this case, witnessed pain = shared pain = n-fold the pain. Just to be clear, no hard feelings: do not post any of it. Deeply bannable territory.

Edit: Durf asked for clarification, asserting I was trying to hide something. Here it is, in full:
You really don't get it. Look at the main theme of the thread the post was in, look at the overall length of your PMs. Publishing them would do you no favour. Plus, <on second thought, this bit reveals stuff about the PMs you don't already know, so snip.> Most of it is continuing the discussion from locked threads. So please, don't be an idiot.

[Durf]

@Phytotron and dinobro: You are both hilarious. You get worked up over a single word. Do you know what the word "if" means? I was posing a hypothetical scenario... IF these forums are so corrupted such that I get banned forever simply for being who I am, then my response of "martyr" isn't something to be surprised about.

Martyr (noun:2): a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

Martyr (verb): to kill (someone) for refusing to give up a belief or cause

Analogously, if I was banned forever, that would end my tron "life" so to speak. Similarly, the act of banning any tronner simply for being who they are is martyr (the verb).
So keep laughing, I'm not the one who looks uneducated / ignorant.
@dinobro, it has nothing to do with attention...I don't even know how to begin telling you all the assumptions you'd have to make to come to such a conclusion just because I used that one word. I'm certainly not seeking attention here, this thread wasn't even created by me. So do you expect me to respond or not? Seems like whatever action I take, you will have a problem with it.



@CPU, why are you participating in this thread at all? More importantly, no u.



@Vogue:

You didn't get banned "without any apparent reason", the moderator had a very clear reason; you just didn't agree with him. Also you got banned for ONE DAY, get over it you pleb.

You completely missed the "without warning" part. The ban was sudden. Regardless of any reason (valid or not) the ban couldn't be justified without proper warning. So in effect, the validity of the reason itself doesn't matter to the outcome of the justification of the ban.
Though to respond to you, Lucifer banned me for a day for the reason "Being a sexist ass", which was later extended to a week on the basis that I was the spammer. That was reversed and it was back to a day (which might have been done by that time - so overall might have been more than a day, not sure). Discussing the reasoning with Z-Man has shown that he can't prove that I was ever being sexist, so the ban reason "Being a sexist ass" is invalid, and the ban unjust. He later tries to justify the ban with the reasoning that I was still "harassing". At this point, the argument is beyond recovery for the reasons of lack of proper warning mostly, and the original listed ban reason not being the real reason for the ban. The recent PM history I asked if should post basically covers the alleged "harassment" among other things.
As it stands, the ban is unjust, and there was never any reason to ban me in the first place. There was never any reason to even warn me in the first place, let alone banning without proper warning. Don't forget, it was a sudden ban (no warning).

K, you tried to debunk them. Are you done now? They're allowed to have a different opinion than yours, besides, you're unbanned. Get. Over. It.

Why are you getting involved? Also, opinions are for subjective matters; like what your opinion is of a fact (you like / dislike the weather). You can't argue an opinion over a FACT. The definitions of words are facts; you can form opinion of those facts, but your opinion cannot change a fact (you like/dislike that its raining - it's not an opinion to say "it's raining"). So debunking their claims was much easier than you think. They are arguing with a dictionary.

Yeah, if a troll like me has existed for over 6 years in this community then you can see the staff isn't that unfair. They're very lenient and hands off for the most part, so I don't agree with Monkeys statement either, you'll be fine here. They're very forgiving.

There's nothing for them to forgive. On the other hand, I don't think I will be forgiving them for the mistreatment anytime soon. An apology would speed things up.

The problem is, we've known them a bit longer than you have and the only people who see the "hypocrisy" are your fast track minions. The rest of us have respect for the mods/admins.

Don't perpetuate stereotypes and don't label an entire group of players based on what I say. Yes I originated in fast track, but that doesn't mean that they all agree with me, nor does it mean they are my "minions". Stop being a tron-racist. Also, respect is earned. It is a two-way street and not something that can be given blindly or for honorary purposes. A rank is respected because of the basis by which the person earned that rank. Respect is always something to be earned; and if you respect a corrupt administration, that is your choice. Often times the value of respect you place on others is directly proportional to the value you have for your own self-respect. This basically means that if you respect dishonorable people, you are essentially lowering the bar for yourself and your self-respect; you're cheap. If you have self-respect, typically you'd set yourself some moral standards. Put simply...if they were respectable people, they'd be respected (by respectable people).

No. Please shut up.

It is clear you don't have any valid interest in this thread, nor was any of it ever directed towards you. So like I said to CPU, why are you participating in this thread at all? More importantly, no u.
Also, the recent PMs to staff have been relating to other issues (mostly relating to the topic locks); which yes, seemed to stem from past prejudice and overall hate. PMing them about those issues had nothing to do with the bans. Again, why are you even concerning yourself with this anymore? It's out of your hands.



@*16: It's not proving it for the sake of proving it. It is to justify a ban that took place; to prove that THAT wasn't moderator abuse simply because the moderator (Lucifer) disliked that I posted what I had to say regarding Vogue's ban appeal. That being said, it should be a simple matter of pointing out the rule, and showing me where/when I broke that rule.
Ignoring the fact that there was never sufficient warning, proving if someone is "sexist" or "racist" in itself is actually quite black and white (easy to do). The hard part is determining if that's even a bad thing. "Discrimination" in itself means to separate one thing from another based on something different between them. "Racism" and "sexism" are just that, discriminating on thing from another on the basis of race and sex respectively. You could argue that it is sexist to expect Vanna White's replacement (on Wheel of Fortune) to be a female, but is it offensive to expect that? No, statistically speaking (and with comments from the show's producer's) you wouldn't be sexist for expecting them to make a choice they already made (for that position to be played by a female). This is an example of when something can look sexist but actually isn't (statistical probability based on what probably is sexist decisions made by others). Not a bad thing.
Also, you can say it's sexist that the navy won't allow females to have certain positions on submarines (on account of their ability to carry a fetus); and you'd be right. It is blatant discrimination based on their sex. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps to the individual, but there are laws put in place so the military must take the unborn fetus into consideration - by definition the actions they take are sexist, the reasons why are based on the differences between the sexes. Can't pretend they don't exist. Again, not a bad thing.
So overall, proving if something is sexist or not isn't actually the real issue anyway; but IMO that is fairly easy to do. The real issue is if the discrimination (if any) was used in a negative / derogatory way; rather than an objective way. There's good discrimination and bad.

About the moderators proving it: They can't even provide an example of me discriminating against sex (without reading between the lines to assume that the underlying message I was implying was sexist >_> going out of their way to assume something different than the words I used). Really, it's hard to have success in searching for something that isn't there. And no matter how many people believe it is there, it doesn't necessarily make it true. So they can't even fulfill the easy part (is it discrimination by sex) - then the hard part (is it bad discrimination). I've even given them step by step instructions on what they could do to prove that I was sexist and get me to agree that the ban was just...they can't; even avoid it entirely.

About the bully comparison: funny you should bring that up. In some of the recent PMs discussing some of the more abusive posts being made, a moderator attempts to excuse offensive and insulting material as merely "teasing". It's literally what you described...too much relevance, you don't even know.



@Z-Man: In short, no u. You're the only one being idiotic about this.
You say "no hard feelings", but then call me an idiot...are you sure you know what "no hard feelings" means?
The main thread that SOME of the PM history begins from the locked thread "Moderator Abuse".
The act of posting the PM history in itself has NOTHING to do with continuing the locked threads, nor does it have to do with continuing any PM conversations.

They may not owe me anything, but I'll be happy to shine a light on their hypocrisy free of charge.

Shall I post some PM history?

The only purpose for me posting the PM history would be to enlighten these deserving users of the mistreatment they might be subject to if you don't like them.(1/3 "continuing the discussion from locked threads")
The length of my PMs and how YOU THINK they wouldn't do me any favors, really is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with a reason for me not to post them, nor would it be breaking any rules. No amount of people posting "tl;dr" changes what is contained within the PMs themselves. If they didn't read, they have no credibility to have an opinion on what I say - they are judging me for the length of my posts. (2/3 "overall length of your PMs")
There is no material that would constitute a reason for a warning or ban. There are some brief discussions of other people in the PMs, but it's nothing that I wouldn't or couldn't say in public. Unless you're suggesting that there is material to and from you that you don't want the public to see, then there's no valid reason you have to not want me to post it. There is no personal information that would be violating your privacy, you'd be admitting to wanting to hide something. (3/3 complete bullshit reasons debunked - quit abusing your moderator status - quit being the idiot you claim me to be)
"Deeply bannable territory" has only implied further abuse from the moderators. There's no valid reason why I am not allowed to post it. You tried to explain but really you go out of your way to find these unrelated reasons and that in itself only serves to discredit you.

[Gazelle]

Durf bro, just let them ramble on, you've made your points, there is nothing more that you can say to persuade anyone, the people that are on your side are already on your side and vice versa. I understand you don't agree with the ban you were given, neither do I. However, it was only one day and really it just made Lucifer look bad, so let this all go and just stop responding.

[Word]

I usually don't post GIFs but I'm making an exception here...

[TaZ]

Durf, you have a voice. Let it be heard!

[Durf]

Gazelle makes a valid point.
At the same time, Z-Man has been making himself look worse too.
The last thing I can offer really (for this thread specifically) is that PM history to show everyone what's going on (regarding Z-Man instead of Lucifer).
At the moment, I'm waiting to hear what Z-Man has to say (sub-topic of reasons not to post PM history); I may or may not post the history anyway.

Thanks for the dose of wisdom Gazelle, but it's not really that much of an issue (burden/pain) for me to respond.
Maybe that's a product of who I am, and you might do things differently; I tend to respond to everything I can.
We'll see how it goes; definitely some food for thought. And yea, it's getting to that point where it's about done.

And thanks Taz it would be nice if everyone could have their voice heard

[kyle]

Durf, Just deal with it, you may not have been; warned of a ban, falsely accused of saying things that were interpreted with a different meaning than what you intended, banned by a moderator who contributed to lets call it the chaos, but the point is this, We the users of the forums, hate when stuff goes into chaos, and even though it was a mod who contributed to the chaos that ended up banning you, even though you were defending who you are, We don't care anymore, We don't want to continue to hear about it anymore. So please just drop it, so we can get back to normal forum, where the users are not afraid to post because it may explode into something bigger.

And i get your points and whatnot, but all they are going to do from here on out is just dig the hole deeper for you, so let it be how it is and more onto the better posts of yours that we enjoyed reading.

[Word]

You already had your voice heard over and over, Durf. (And I don't think Taz is having your right to explain yourself in mind when he encourages you to to spam the forums some more).

[Clutch]

@Phytotron and dinobro: You are both hilarious. You get worked up over a single word. Do you know what the word "if" means? I was posing a hypothetical scenario... IF these forums are so corrupted such that I get banned forever simply for being who I am, then my response of "martyr" isn't something to be surprised about.

Martyr (noun:2): a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

Martyr (verb): to kill (someone) for refusing to give up a belief or cause

Analogously, if I was banned forever, that would end my tron "life" so to speak. Similarly, the act of banning any tronner simply for being who they are is martyr (the verb).
So keep laughing, I'm not the one who looks uneducated / ignorant.
@dinobro, it has nothing to do with attention...I don't even know how to begin telling you all the assumptions you'd have to make to come to such a conclusion just because I used that one word. I'm certainly not seeking attention here, this thread wasn't even created by me. So do you expect me to respond or not? Seems like whatever action I take, you will have a problem with it.



@CPU, why are you participating in this thread at all? More importantly, no u.



@Vogue:

You didn't get banned "without any apparent reason", the moderator had a very clear reason; you just didn't agree with him. Also you got banned for ONE DAY, get over it you pleb.

You completely missed the "without warning" part. The ban was sudden. Regardless of any reason (valid or not) the ban couldn't be justified without proper warning. So in effect, the validity of the reason itself doesn't matter to the outcome of the justification of the ban.
Though to respond to you, Lucifer banned me for a day for the reason "Being a sexist ass", which was later extended to a week on the basis that I was the spammer. That was reversed and it was back to a day (which might have been done by that time - so overall might have been more than a day, not sure). Discussing the reasoning with Z-Man has shown that he can't prove that I was ever being sexist, so the ban reason "Being a sexist ass" is invalid, and the ban unjust. He later tries to justify the ban with the reasoning that I was still "harassing". At this point, the argument is beyond recovery for the reasons of lack of proper warning mostly, and the original listed ban reason not being the real reason for the ban. The recent PM history I asked if should post basically covers the alleged "harassment" among other things.
As it stands, the ban is unjust, and there was never any reason to ban me in the first place. There was never any reason to even warn me in the first place, let alone banning without proper warning. Don't forget, it was a sudden ban (no warning).

K, you tried to debunk them. Are you done now? They're allowed to have a different opinion than yours, besides, you're unbanned. Get. Over. It.

Why are you getting involved? Also, opinions are for subjective matters; like what your opinion is of a fact (you like / dislike the weather). You can't argue an opinion over a FACT. The definitions of words are facts; you can form opinion of those facts, but your opinion cannot change a fact (you like/dislike that its raining - it's not an opinion to say "it's raining"). So debunking their claims was much easier than you think. They are arguing with a dictionary.

Yeah, if a troll like me has existed for over 6 years in this community then you can see the staff isn't that unfair. They're very lenient and hands off for the most part, so I don't agree with Monkeys statement either, you'll be fine here. They're very forgiving.

There's nothing for them to forgive. On the other hand, I don't think I will be forgiving them for the mistreatment anytime soon. An apology would speed things up.

The problem is, we've known them a bit longer than you have and the only people who see the "hypocrisy" are your fast track minions. The rest of us have respect for the mods/admins.

Don't perpetuate stereotypes and don't label an entire group of players based on what I say. Yes I originated in fast track, but that doesn't mean that they all agree with me, nor does it mean they are my "minions". Stop being a tron-racist. Also, respect is earned. It is a two-way street and not something that can be given blindly or for honorary purposes. A rank is respected because of the basis by which the person earned that rank. Respect is always something to be earned; and if you respect a corrupt administration, that is your choice. Often times the value of respect you place on others is directly proportional to the value you have for your own self-respect. This basically means that if you respect dishonorable people, you are essentially lowering the bar for yourself and your self-respect; you're cheap. If you have self-respect, typically you'd set yourself some moral standards. Put simply...if they were respectable people, they'd be respected (by respectable people).

No. Please shut up.

It is clear you don't have any valid interest in this thread, nor was any of it ever directed towards you. So like I said to CPU, why are you participating in this thread at all? More importantly, no u.
Also, the recent PMs to staff have been relating to other issues (mostly relating to the topic locks); which yes, seemed to stem from past prejudice and overall hate. PMing them about those issues had nothing to do with the bans. Again, why are you even concerning yourself with this anymore? It's out of your hands.



@*16: It's not proving it for the sake of proving it. It is to justify a ban that took place; to prove that THAT wasn't moderator abuse simply because the moderator (Lucifer) disliked that I posted what I had to say regarding Vogue's ban appeal. That being said, it should be a simple matter of pointing out the rule, and showing me where/when I broke that rule.
Ignoring the fact that there was never sufficient warning, proving if someone is "sexist" or "racist" in itself is actually quite black and white (easy to do). The hard part is determining if that's even a bad thing. "Discrimination" in itself means to separate one thing from another based on something different between them. "Racism" and "sexism" are just that, discriminating on thing from another on the basis of race and sex respectively. You could argue that it is sexist to expect Vanna White's replacement (on Wheel of Fortune) to be a female, but is it offensive to expect that? No, statistically speaking (and with comments from the show's producer's) you wouldn't be sexist for expecting them to make a choice they already made (for that position to be played by a female). This is an example of when something can look sexist but actually isn't (statistical probability based on what probably is sexist decisions made by others). Not a bad thing.
Also, you can say it's sexist that the navy won't allow females to have certain positions on submarines (on account of their ability to carry a fetus); and you'd be right. It is blatant discrimination based on their sex. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps to the individual, but there are laws put in place so the military must take the unborn fetus into consideration - by definition the actions they take are sexist, the reasons why are based on the differences between the sexes. Can't pretend they don't exist. Again, not a bad thing.
So overall, proving if something is sexist or not isn't actually the real issue anyway; but IMO that is fairly easy to do. The real issue is if the discrimination (if any) was used in a negative / derogatory way; rather than an objective way. There's good discrimination and bad.

About the moderators proving it: They can't even provide an example of me discriminating against sex (without reading between the lines to assume that the underlying message I was implying was sexist >_> going out of their way to assume something different than the words I used). Really, it's hard to have success in searching for something that isn't there. And no matter how many people believe it is there, it doesn't necessarily make it true. So they can't even fulfill the easy part (is it discrimination by sex) - then the hard part (is it bad discrimination). I've even given them step by step instructions on what they could do to prove that I was sexist and get me to agree that the ban was just...they can't; even avoid it entirely.

About the bully comparison: funny you should bring that up. In some of the recent PMs discussing some of the more abusive posts being made, a moderator attempts to excuse offensive and insulting material as merely "teasing". It's literally what you described...too much relevance, you don't even know.



@Z-Man: In short, no u. You're the only one being idiotic about this.
You say "no hard feelings", but then call me an idiot...are you sure you know what "no hard feelings" means?
The main thread that SOME of the PM history begins from the locked thread "Moderator Abuse".
The act of posting the PM history in itself has NOTHING to do with continuing the locked threads, nor does it have to do with continuing any PM conversations.

They may not owe me anything, but I'll be happy to shine a light on their hypocrisy free of charge.

Shall I post some PM history?

The only purpose for me posting the PM history would be to enlighten these deserving users of the mistreatment they might be subject to if you don't like them.(1/3 "continuing the discussion from locked threads")
The length of my PMs and how YOU THINK they wouldn't do me any favors, really is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with a reason for me not to post them, nor would it be breaking any rules. No amount of people posting "tl;dr" changes what is contained within the PMs themselves. If they didn't read, they have no credibility to have an opinion on what I say - they are judging me for the length of my posts. (2/3 "overall length of your PMs")
There is no material that would constitute a reason for a warning or ban. There are some brief discussions of other people in the PMs, but it's nothing that I wouldn't or couldn't say in public. Unless you're suggesting that there is material to and from you that you don't want the public to see, then there's no valid reason you have to not want me to post it. There is no personal information that would be violating your privacy, you'd be admitting to wanting to hide something. (3/3 complete bullshit reasons debunked - quit abusing your moderator status - quit being the idiot you claim me to be)
"Deeply bannable territory" has only implied further abuse from the moderators. There's no valid reason why I am not allowed to post it. You tried to explain but really you go out of your way to find these unrelated reasons and that in itself only serves to discredit you.

\

This and the martyr are the funniest things I've ever seen on this forum so I thank you for that at the very least

[Durf]

@kyle & word: (this reply was shortened)

Gonna have to side with Durf here. Just the fact that you keep telling him to "get over it", when in actual fact he wasn't even the one that started this thread.
You expect him to take a back seat, take everything in, and shut-up?
Knowing him and reading what you've read from him, does that seem likely?

You can't just presume he wasn't over it and y'all got him started again.

Also, take it up with Titanoboa

Then, reread my previous post, I'm basically saying I don't have much else to contribute / waiting for Z-Man in particular. We'll see. People instigate a response. Plus the mods seem to have dropped the issues for now.

I think you're both completely misguided on the actual cause of the "chaos" and "spam". To put it simply, a group of people are only trying something else to besmirch me ("tl;dr","shut up" etc.); my posts are not spam. By bringing the chaos and slapping it around my posts for no real (on-topic) reason, they are giving you bad associations; it will make you think that I'm causing all the chaos when really it's there because of their hate and prejudice (haters are going to hate).

And who's "we"? (kyle) No one should be afraid to post for any reason. Ever.

In the end, you are the one that clicked into this thread. You read the thread title, read the first post; surely, you had some sort of idea on what the thread was going to be about. If you considered it to be spam, or otherwise didn't want to have anything to do with it, then don't get involved. By clicking into the thread and posting, you are agreeing to expose yourself to it's contents, and open the floor to any responses to your post. You have every right to respond how you want, and you have every right to complain about what you saw. But you also have the right to "just drop it" just as much as I do; Smokey the bear says, "Only you can prevent forum fires". (flame wars)

As much as I agree with you that the "chaos" should stop, I don't believe I am in that kind of control since I cannot make the decision to post for other people. And I'm not about to sacrifice any personal freedoms (the same that every user has) to make the trolls stop (trolls being the people posting those useless, off-topic posts, adding to the flame wars I guess; chaos), nor will I refrain from posting when I actually want to have a say in something. These are public forums.


@word only: I'm not spamming and even if I was Taz would still be right since (again IF it was spam) the moderators could just delete the spam / ban me (I'd expect a ban if I was actually spamming, after a warning of course - none of my posts can be edited or deleted for the reason of spam).
Also, get over it. You say "over and over" but like I said before: take it up with Titanoboa. Certain people keep asking for more of my voice, don't get mad at me for replying to their posts just as I would to yours.



@Clutch: Perfect example of how to see the better side of things without starting anything more. +1