To Durf (open letter, if you will)

[Word]

Well, my last words here.
1) The OP is asking you to behave, and numerous other people have told you to let it go, or, in a more rude way, to shut up. Why do you think did they ask you to do so in the first place? Probably not just because they disagree with your "fact-based opinion".

2) and 3)

Suspicions of people conspiring against me isn't the way I would put it.

And yet, that's coming close to describe what you're thinking, right? You're mistaking a disability to interpret sentences and judge meanings like everyone else for having a broader horizon, and thus don't make an effort at correcting yourself. Although you're obviously encountering problems when talking to other people. I don't know how else to tell you since most people learn that as they grow up. Your typing speed makes it look like you just spill out your entire stream of thought, but there's a complete absence of even the most minimal sign of self-doubt that is required for a smoother way of communication. You seem to misinterpret just about anything by reading the worst into people's posts and thus make self-fulfilling prophecies about how everyone with a different opinion or no sympathy for your views is an ass (and in case that didn't convince you, you do the reverse with posts like Tazmania's, which was intended for you to make yourself look like caricature some more).

This is my perception of how you think.



4) I post here because I'm responsible for that team name discussion and what happened here and in the other thread to some extent, and personally I'd feel better if I could do my bit to put the forums back in order (is that delusional? perhaps). But I'm really burned out by now. I haven't said you are a problem but you seem to have a few that need to be addressed in some way, and I had locked this thread as well from the start (as I said, I wouldn't even have started it...), but we'll have this discussion again at some point, so I might as well say it all here and have less to write later.

edit: Oh, I didn't see this.

Posting PM history has nothing to do with any previous thread. It is in response to this thread and not meant to continue anything from before. Furthermore, I wasn't comparing anyone to Nazis

That was a reference to our PM exchange and what you said in the earlier topic in public, and how you later made a martyr out of yourself (you said something along the lines of "Don't you think the moderators and you are doing exactly what the Nazis did because they don't tolerate my infallible opinions?"). Yes, I'd count that as a comparison, even though it's an abstruse one. Nazis wouldn't even have had the courtesy to let you talk at all. You already got your share of ridicule for this so I'll desist from repeating it. Now I don't know what the PMs between you and the mods look like, but if you really think they aren't acting any better than Nazis, you're downright crazy and posting these PMs won't change that if you wrote them with this very attitude.

[Z-Man]

Why does it matter how I responded? Please Z-Man, please explain to everyone how you're not just trying to instigate more bullshit with this question.

I merely found it peculiar and wanted to know. Yet again, you read the worst possible intentions into my words. And I'm the biased hypocrite? If I say "the sky is blue", I fully expect you to jump at me and declare I'm a racist because... because... at night, the sky is BLACK.

On the actual topic you want to discuss: Yep, I have biases. Shifting biases, even. I'm a human making constant observations, changing constantly. Denying that would be pointless, I don't see how I could be anything else. I am also very random as a moderator. One day, I edit out a picture of two trees that vaguely look like people performing fellatio or ban Phytotron for speaking his mind a little to explicitly. Another day, I'll let a mudslinging contest go on for far too long because I find it vaguely amusing. Where I draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a particular instance depends on many things, not least the amount of attention I am paying to the forums at a particular time, how much time I am willing to invest. You are absolutely entitled to dislike that or start a petition demanding my (moderator) head for it, or demand that I change (though, if I change, I'd probably get more hardline). I don't do this moderating for fun or some power complex. I just want to be useful.
That said, there always have been two lines: The upper hardline and lower laissez-faire line, each with a good and bad side. The good side of the hard line is completely inside the good side of the laissez-faire line and vice versa for the bad side. If you are on the good side of the hardline, I won't touch you ever. To be on that side, your tone cannot be aggressive, you cannot use insults or slurs, among other things. If you are on the bad side of the laissez-faire line, I'd instaban you any day. If you're in between, it depends. Maybe I'll just roll my eyes and read on. Maybe I write a regular reply. Maybe I take moderator action.
But I will always be honest about my opinion on why I think a particular action. Always.
Durf's actions prior to his ban were between those lines. I don't know whether, on that particular day, had I payed attention, I would have banned him. But I know I might have.
And really, perspective. Durf's ban was a day. I don't see an extension in the moderator logs, but don't know if I would; if there was, I already said that it was wrong of Lucifer to suspect everyone left and right of being the spammer, that would include Durf, obv. Doesn't matter as the factual ban length was just one day. Vogue was banned for a week. If she'd make a proportional fuzz about that, we could close the forum for the year.

[Titanoboa]

Also:
I don't think Titanoboa has even posted twice in this thread. Perhaps they had nothing to say.

Correct! (until now)
My first post is still relevant. I think you should re-read that.


This whole thing reminds me a lot about a typical* family holiday when my nephew was younger. He'd make a fuss and refuse to take a nap and we'd all have to tolerate his little parade for a while.
Durf, nap-time is long overdue for you. Have some rest and come back when it doesn't feel like you have to defend yourself after every single post slightly related to anything you've said.

*typical in my family specifically, obviously.

But really, Titanaoboa, thanks a lot for making another damn thread giving attention and forum to this egomaniacal fool. What about all the other locked threads didn't give you a clue?

sowweh, I actually thought he'd be more receptive. I stand corrected

[Durf]

@word: To be honest word...I'm surprised at you.
1) You're blaming me for responding in a thread directed to me...what did you expect? Should I have not responded at all? That would be your opinion; I'm not you. More importantly...how can you not see that I might as well have "dropped it" already? Like I said before, people instigate a response. Like how you keep posting to tell me I should just drop it...why is that even necessary for you to do? I'm RESPONDING to what people say to me, I'm not going out of my way to start more bullshit and neither should you.

2) and 3)
I'm going to try to keep this short: (it was shortened almost by half)

You're mistaking a disability to interpret sentences and judge meanings like everyone else for having a broader horizon, and thus don't make an effort at correcting yourself.

^ this is a common misconception. Things are not how they appear. "Disability" was the wrong word to use in this instance; not to mention the other assumptions made in the sentence. We can talk about that in particular if you want (this thread probably isn't the place for that).

Like I said, things are not how they appear - the length of my posts have nothing to do with the amount of thought that went into them. This is a misconception which comes from your own perspective. This is why I say to people "not everyone is like you, just because you have the capacity/ability to ... doesn't mean others do". Meaning, you can't come to the conclusion that I'm just spilling out my entire stream of thoughts or that I write without thought; there is no evidence to support this claim other than people mentioning the length of my posts (which doesn't prove anything).
"self-doubt" is NOT required for smoother communication, and no matter how much you'd expect (or would like) a level of self-doubt to exist in anyone's posts, it doesn't make it a requirement. More importantly, I would doubt myself when I have a reason to, like anyone else. How I live my life is guaranteed to be different than how you do - this might account for the differences you see (like the level of "self-doubt" one has).
<snipped an analogy that explains this thoroughly, PM me if you want it. (Markers)>
People are an ass for being an ass - when I am unsure, then I ask questions to determine their motive. Or I simply prove how they are being an ass using empirical evidence. Nothing made up about it, and it certainly isn't for the purposes of making "self-fulfilling prophecies" to work against those who don't share my viewpoint. Get a dictionary.
I'm not looking for sympathy from anyone, nor do I care who agrees with me.
This (all this) is mostly about my business with the moderators, not you. Posts like yours and Titanoboa's are examples of what perpetuates the nonsense that others are blaming me for. Refer to 1).
The part about Tazmania's posts...well I don't know what you're talking about...example please?
Also, I gave you fair warning that you couldn't possibly have an understanding of how I think (it's just nowhere close to what you can expect from someone, and it would take a long time of explaining before you remotely understood.) The more you try to on your own, the more misunderstandings you will cause...if you want to know something about me, just ask. Be prepared to learn some psychology.

4) Don't bring up old topics or locked threads...this is the kind of thing that only causes new threads to get locked without resolution. You basically stated that your motives for posting here are because of previous and unrelated threads - that is carrying the bad with you, and bringing it into a new thread. If you're going to take it upon yourself to put the forums back in order, then at least try to realize who are the ones that actually start bullshit. I was dealing with the moderators, and technically no one else had to jump in - now that things have been quieter between the moderators and myself, why are people like you still posting? What are you accomplishing by bringing things up that might have been dropped had you just left it alone? You say you want to do your bit to help put the forums back in order, so start with yourself. Lead by example. Be the model user that everyone wants. The act of posting in this thread is basically a statement saying that you think that's okay to do - which means you can't condemn me for doing the same thing (regardless of the opinion I post). Your arguments in this post are flawed and/or just past bullshit you're holding onto. The problems you perceive are not being caused by me, nor can you infer that I have any problems just by posting responses (that have "no self-doubt" in them - you can't argue that just because I don't have the same opinion you do that I'm the one with a problem). I thought you would have learned by that taste of your own medicine; you are...just...just stop already xD What are you even trying to do at this point?

edit) This addition made me laugh. I didn't make a martyr out of myself... That's hilarious. I can't make a martyr out of myself, literally by it's dictionary definition, being a martyr is not something I can do alone (I suppose a person can martyr themselves, but that would be suicide). The martyr thing had nothing to do with our PMs, and your quote is not even close to what I said. Words mean what they mean, and that is one of the worst jobs at paraphrasing I've seen. The words used might not be that different (though they seem to be from multiple sentences I wrote), but you changed the meaning of the sentence - I suspect you misinterpreted the meaning of the words I chose. And this thread isn't the place to discuss that, especially since it pertains to another thread entirely. PM me, I'd be happy to elaborate on what I meant exactly. I will make it easier to understand. (My comparison was only to show the hypocrisy of certain actions being taken, nothing to do with me personally or being a martyr).
I didn't say "they weren't any better than Nazis", I was showing the psychological pattern of thinking that is identical in the recent decision making. This in itself does not mean that I was claiming that they have committed atrocities like Nazis have in the war, nor was I placing (a low) value on them as people for their actions. (Also, you implied that I was saying being a Nazi is a bad thing - I didn't say that)
Furthermore, the PMs are sort of unrelated to the team name, at this point, they are more about what's going on between the moderators and myself.. would you like to see the PMs and judge for yourself? Or would you prefer assuming some more? Refer to 1)



@Z-Man: I actually wasn't seeing the worst I could possibly see (frankly you don't wanna know what the worst can be). I typed exactly what I intended to say (rather ask). Why does it matter (that I responded to you via PM and public post)? The lines you quoted say exactly what I meant to - I'm questioning your reasons for being curious in the first place (the thing that motivated you into asking me). To put it in a way you'd understand: asking "are you X?" does not mean "you are X" nor does it imply it (in the context of my post). What is getting "pitiful" is this back and forth without any purpose (the question in itself was off topic - unless you were going somewhere with that..? But I answered your question regardless.).
Not to mention how Lucifer likes to accuse people of hiding behind PMs... Given that history, my response avoided such nonsense from him and/or other users that would antagonize for my decision to partly respond in PM. Yes, the way I asked probably wasn't kind, and it was provoking in the sense that it suggested that questions like those are part of the problem. This is an example of a problem from the moderators side of things, that cause problems from the user's side - if you don't like my wording, talk to Lucifer about the way he sets expectations.
To be clear, it was an actual question (I merely found it peculiar and wanted to know) - I'm glad to see the answer is "no"; that you weren't just doing it to instigate more bullshit. I wasn't claiming you were. Like I said in my post: either you understand that people choose to make some things private (multiple reasons) or you don't...given that you have your reasons not to want our PM history to go public, you should have the understanding that everyone has their reasons. The act of asking me why, while you have this understanding, only serves to show just how limited you are in putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Either that or it was out of spite for me having asked you why you don't want our PM history to go public. If there was some other motive, please enlighten me (I'm curious why you were curious).

If I say "the sky is blue", I fully expect you to jump at me and declare I'm a racist because... because... at night, the sky is BLACK.

^ this is the kind of thing that would lead anyone to ask the very same questions I asked you. How is this meant NOT to instigate more bullshit? How does this prevent it? Likewise, I fully expect you to be so hardheaded that you would think such things. (you're partially right in that I would argue that the sky isn't always blue, sometimes it's red, pink, orange, green, purple, etc.. But that would only serve to diffuse the reasons why you're claiming the sky is blue...assuming you claimed it as if the sky was ONLY blue. Such an argument would only serve the purpose of educating you.)
I think you need some perspective - reading into the worst of I say so as to claim that I'm doing the same, BECAUSE I had originally claimed that you're seeing the worst in what I say... >_> Just stop.

"On the actual topic you want to discuss": You are aware of your bias; you are aware of the flux in your discretion. About what I would want changed: Lucifer pointed me to a thread, and I may post details in there later. Overall, you say you just want to be useful, but the variance in how you choose to moderate isn't so useful in the long run. (allowing yourself those different kinds of responses leaves you prone to exhibiting favoritism - since your mood effects how you moderate, and your mood can vary from person to person)
Regarding my ban and the "perspective": My intention was to appeal for my ban like anyone else could (like Vogue appealed for their ladle ban). What you call "fuzz", I would attribute to those people that didn't have anything useful or on-topic to contribute. The people that bring up older topics in new/unrelated topics. I have had to repeat myself plenty of times to get it in your head that my appeal was genuine, and no amount of garbage surrounding it would change that. In this case, "fuzz" could describe the posts resulting from the controversy surrounding my ban. (I could name names if you want examples)
How you give an example of Vogue making a proportional fuzz, to me, makes no sense. The amount of discussion (and resulting fuzz from that discussion) is more related to controversy / hype (one way to look at it is that every action has a consequence - look at what happened because of the [unjust] actions taken) - if a troll got banned, deep down they know it was coming (trolling is asking for it. I say "troll" because Vogue has admitted to trolling). Only a user that was genuinely wronged would be this "stubborn" (if I was a troll, do you think I would care? if I was a troll, don't you think I would do drastic/obvious things just to piss you off? Really, nothing I did can be considered trolling, which is partly the reason why there was "fuzz"). I guess what I'm trying to say is that, not all ban appeals will generate this much "fuzz", and if you (and Lucifer) actually took the time to develop our conversations until they resolve, then there would have been less discussion, less "fuzz" overall. This is what I meant when I told you that avoiding any issues now will only mean you'd have to deal with them later (even if it means the next time someone is unjustly banned). But solving the issue now will eliminate future problems, since the current policy would (should) be adjusted to account for such "fuzz" problems. I'm just the type to solve problems as they present themselves. That being said, I will probably post in that thread that Lucifer pointed out. Much of our discussions here can be solved there.

I find it interesting just how much of my previous post you avoided. But let's just leave it at that for now.



@Titanoboa: >_> I don't feel that way about every post made to (or about) me. Even if I did, you aren't asking "why" I would be. One example is your post. I will not be receptive to the (wrong) assumptions people make about me, nor will I ignore anyone. You are basically arguing that because you (and some others) are claiming that I'm trying to ruin this place, and me arguing the opposite, that I am being (overly) defensive in my responses...that's just silly. If I were to call you a Nazi, a sexist, a racist, a woman-hating pig, or any of the things that I was called (without any proof that I was those things), would you simply say "ok, thanks for showing me the error of my ways"? And what if you're not any of those things? Would you still be "receptive"? Likewise, your post is basically accusing me of something that simply isn't true.
Also you should not have expected for anyone to be receptive to your thread (regardless of who it was to) based solely of the way you chose to word it. Ignoring that, you are mistaken as to who is the real problem around here. You said I'm trying to ruin the place you like, tell me in simple words: what am I doing? (don't say "you're incapable of just dropping it", answer "what am I DOING?". What are the actions I am taking to ruin this place? Before you post, be sure you correctly identified the cause of the actions I took. Example: You post here, claiming I'm trying to ruin things. My action is to post a response "no I'm not". Yes it is defensive. Is my post the cause of the problem? No.)
More importantly, I think you're mistaking me responding (appealing) to a received ban, as me going out of my way to bother people - furthermore, you are mistakenly associating posts I've made in threads(N4zi) with those other discussions(ban appeals). Whether or not you care, I'm the type of person to solve problems as they present themselves; that includes unjust bans. Like I say to the moderators, I just don't want it to happen again; to me or anyone else.



@Everyone: To be clear, I don't actually have a problem with any of you. You're just text on my screen anyway (not that I'm being insensitive towards your feelings, but none of this will stop me from enjoying the game that I love. Hopefully you too). If the words I type offend you, go read an offensive book, then tell me it's the book's fault that you read it. (freedom of speech; deal with it.)
When it comes to forums, and "ruining" them, I'd point you to the spammer as an example. Even then (technically) nothing was really "ruined". So make sure you're not condemning me for having an opinion that differs from yours or for having typed a post that you would not have; this isn't some club for you to say "no Durfs allowed". (if it is, then this only supports my arguments made in other threads)
And relax, think about why your posting in this thread in the first place (take /dev/null's post for example, he was actually off-topic - adding to the nonsense. As much as they would think they made a difference, it was overall a fairly worthless post in regards to this thread).

[Lucifer]

Durf: for future referenc, when a mod asks for last words, tthat's ONE POST ONLY.

If anybody else has last words, pm them to me and I'lladd them here.

[Lucifer]

One day, I ... ban Phytotron for speaking his mind a little to explicitly.

You make it sound like it's something of a regular occurrence. In my defense, I think I've only been banned once or twice, and that was like 4 years ago when I was under constant, concerted harassment from a certain group of scumbag trolls.

[Z-Man]

Sigh. I really wanted to spare you all, but priorities have shifted. As you can see, he started to essentially construct reasons to attack us for pretty much anything we say. My own work on the project has been massively impaired by Durf's activities, private at first, now public again. This has to stop.

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

Posting it all in a single post is probably going to break the forums; you are allowed and encouraged to split it up. Posts by others that go between your parts will be removed by us.
You can also leave the publishing to me if you like. I can keep the thread locked while I post the individual parts so nobody interrupts the flow. Then you only have to honour the 96 hour limit.

We will also be very restrained about moderating this. We will not edit posts by regular users (I explain what I mean by that below) that are critical of us or Durf no matter how rude they are, at least not during the first 96 hours. We will moderate users going at each other as usual, though. We will make sure our edits are extra transparent.

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

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

So Durf, your move. Expose me. Or, alternatively, stop pestering us.

[Word]

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

[Z-Man]

Do you mind if we don't read this

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

[Word]

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

[compguygene]

If this can bring some peace and resolution to all parties, then I think that it's great. To much emotion about too many silly things has happened here.

[Durf]

lmao Z-man.
No conditions apply. I can and will post them when and how I choose (and where I choose). There is no privacy of yours being violated other than the unreasonable (tyrannical) behavior you try to hide from the public - but that isn't even violating privacy; that is evidence to a claim I've made against you. And it's true; you are unreasonable and refuse to actually justify my ban(s). You have only ever shown that you don't care if a user gets abused and/or falsely accused; you specifically try to dismiss it because you think I'm just trying to argue. Anyone who was unjustly banned should be pissed off (note I said unjustly - even a troll that knows they deserved a ban expects it and is less likely to dispute it / won't have EVIDENCE to prove their innocence - so there is no reason for you to dismiss it), understandably, so you even take further disrespectful actions when you choose to dismiss the VALID concern of an INNOCENT user because of an assumption you've made.
Stop trying to abuse your status over me - there are no conditions and you're just going to have to deal with that. There is nothing about it that breaks any rules so there is no reason to ban me for it, no reason to impose conditions, and no reason to hide it from anyone.

Word is right, there is incriminating evidence in those PMs that shows your unreasonable behavior as moderator. The reasons why you pose conditions in the first place is because you hope that people will overlook the very simple and overall fact that you refuse to dispute my ban(s). There isn't really a need to post it anymore since your incompetence has already been proven to enough users. But by all means, go ahead and post it if you'd like - I'll be sure to correct any edits you try to make.

So stop trying to impose conditions because the fact remains that if you have nothing to worry about, then you have nothing to worry about. If you're trying to call me out on this hoping I won't post it, you're sorely mistaken.
In fact I will do you one better:
Did you forget that IRC has logs? Did you think that no one would notice how you and Lucifer talk about me behind my back?
There is PROOF of your unwillingness to even listen to what I have to say or take it seriously - proof that you refuse to do your job as moderator because of a personal opinion.
Seriously Z-Man, don't even try to fight it anymore - if you want to be brutally shown the errors you make, I can be a lot worse than I am currently being (beleive it or not, my recent posts have shown restraint - as did all my PMs to you).
The facts remain facts - and this is effortless for me since you are arguing with facts like what you said (which are evident in logs). So really, you're arguing with your own pride at this point.


So go ahead and post it, because if you don't, I will. I'd be glad to prove to everyone your unreasonable behavior and unwillingness to actually do your job as moderator. I'll be glad to show everyone your own abusive nature just because you refuse to admit Lucifer's. And I'll gladly give everyone valid reason to be concerned with the current moderation staff. If you are so confident in your choices, then show us how you're even a half decent moderator.
(I'd like to note at this point how you refuse to deal with a ban dispute, yet you're [only now] more willing to deal with proving your competence as moderator instead of dealing with a valid concern - if you focused on what mattered, this wouldn't be happening right now and my ban dispute would be resolved by now).
If you want to try and show how I've been insulting to you, I will gladly PROVE to everyone that what I say isn't insult, but fact. When I say things like "you disgrace yourself", it's because you do; when I show you disrespect, it's because you're not a respectable person. If you really want all of your faults you've made perfectly clear to me to go public, I won't hesitate. Instead, I've been offering you the choice to actually do your job as moderator; that's gone now since you clearly choose not to.
You better be prepared to do a lot of explaining.
You dug yourself a grave in trying to support Lucifer's actions without thinking with your own brain; you will need to use that brain in order to explain your way out of being a tyrant who refuses to address a dispute (good luck, if I were in your position, I'd probably just admit to the mistake and move on).

If you're a just moderator who did the job correctly, there wouldn't be a need for conditions. (What are you afraid of? Why does that fear even exist? Realize the answers to these questions and realize how you caused these problems for yourself.)



@word: Arrogant and egotistical behavior is often perceived when it does not exist. Unless you can prove that what I post is because of ego (only), your claims are empty.
Example: Say there was the smartest person in the world (or any trait, doesn't have to be "smart" - and they were measured and determined to be the most of this trait). If that person were to walk down the street and say to another person "I'm smarter than you"; it would appear arrogant to the listener (obviously), but is it? No. Not in the slightest - in fact it could even be perceived as helpful / informative, and yet, what would the listener perceive? Question is, WHY would they perceive that arrogance? Because of THEIR own ego defending their self-image attributing the possibility that they might indeed be smarter than the smartest person in the world.
Also, don't encourage abusive moderators please; if they are a good moderator then they can prove it without even trying to. Don't you want this community to have decent moderators? So regardless of the concern raised, they should all be met with the same diligence as any other concern. The concerns that are useless will die out in the ordinary procedure; whereas valid concerns will actually make changes around here and improve things in the end.
There is no reason to dismiss this concern. Don't encourage bad moderators; the least you could do it believe in their ability to moderate and encourage them to take on the "challenge" (as some of you seem to think this is).
Well either that or you don't care if the moderators happen to be abusive; you might if they decide to unjustly ban you.
Put simply, it's not "ego", it's just a part of my function; I solve problems, and I have identified a problem - question is, will anyone put any effort into fixing it, or will no one care for change for the better?




@everyone (including Word and Z-Man): Stop trying to devalue my words on a false basis. You don't understand.
The closest you can come to understanding is if you can understand the following:
My perception (how I see existance / life / everything) is different than what how you and a majority of people see it as. The reasons you do things are FAR from the reasons I do things - I would have what is classified as "abnormal psychology" which basically means that the things you'd normally expect just doesn't happen (and sometimes other unknown things happen).
If you can understand that we are on different levels (not meant to compare ability or anything, just the separation between us) kinda like a language barrier, then you can understand that everything I say is SERIOUS in an attempt for better communication (like how you might try to use simpler english for someone who can't speak it too well).
That being said, my posts are quite serious and are not something to be dismissed or ignored on the basis of it being fake or some ego-trip; I have a valid concern (as you did word, when you asked Z-Man your non-rhetorical question) and you can't dismiss my concerns without showing some kind of favoritism (moderator abuse; clearly he answered your concern, but not mine) / some conjured opinion (assumption) of the purpose of my post.



@comguygene's recent addition:
I agree.
Why do the moderators avoid resolution? Seriously why? What possible motivation could they have to avoid it? Oh that's right, because they KNOW they're abusive but don't want to have to admit it.
I agree that this is all silly, and yet, a problem won't get solved by avoiding it.

The fact remains that if the moderators choose to ignore a valid concern, (so far) it has been because they don't want to (or otherwise can't) admit to having made a mistake / trying to maintain an image of competence that just doesn't exist.
Like I said, if all is in order, then there is no reason to ignore a dispute/concern, and all will be proven to be in order by going through the process.
As it stands, nothing the moderators do (have done lately) can be justified, nor do they even try (clearly abuse).




@everyone: the PMs will only show Z-Man refusing to address my ban(s) dispute after Lucifer had already refused the same. All in all it is evidence of unruly behavior from the moderators and their inability to actually care if a user was potentially abused by a moderator.
If anyone wants to read it they can, regardless if it gets posted here or not; no limitations or conditions apply (because I am actually confident in it's contents, I needn't try to restrict your perception / I realize that everyone can think for themselves and everyone can read what's been said).
The thing is, none of that matters if Z-Man (or Lucifer) actually addressed the dispute until it's resolution in the first place. So the fact that the PMs are to be posted is evidence enough that the moderators didn't care in the slightest for a concerned user that was banned without valid reason to be.
(unjust ban = moderator abuse; blindly supporting moderator abuse and dismissing a dispute on the basis of a user's opinion not being worth as much or otherwise ignoring evidence simply to assert authority = moderator abuse)
To be perfectly honest, I'm indifferent to the PMs being posted as all I want is a resolution to my ban dispute (currently being left up to poor Tank because these two moderators can't handle a dispute), but if they are, I will certainly feel relieved to know that their behavior is public knowledge; it will serve to disprove a LOT of the claims made against me (in the topics during the time after my ban).





@moderators: you like to say you don't hide behind PMs, then why did it take you this long to be willing to post? Why doesn't Lucifer want to post his PM history? What possible bullshit reasons can you come up with to explain such hypocrisy?
I expect:
- you to post the PM contents, no conditions apply, the community will post as they please (that includes either of us)
- you WILL address the concerns made recently (regarding the abuse)
- and you WILL address the original dispute in the PMs (though you verdict wouldn't decide anything at this point because that dispute would only serve to [dis]prove your competence as a moderator - you abandoned the responsibility, therefore you have no credibility to give a valid resolution; the resolution regarding my ban dispute itself is being left up to Tank since you abandoned it)
- you WILL do your job as moderator
Why can I even expect these things? Because you try to call yourselves moderators; you try to say your actions were justified (regardless of how stupid those actions make you look, you still try to be "right" no matter how wrong you are).
So I expect you to SOLVE the issues instead of avoiding them as usual.

We could have easily finished our dispute in PMs, but hey "no hiding behind PMs", right? I hope you are happy with your choice (as it certainly won't serve you well).

[kyle]

Durf your excerpts don't truly paint the full picture, so make the full canvas by posting them all for use to see since these moderators are such terrible people. Without doing so, what you may be hiding could be something very important. Hiding part of the story, looks a little like this.

With that said, I did have a Final thought on this / other threads

It's very easy to miscommunicate, when we are only communicating via written words. So we all need to be more accepting of what people write on this forum. They way each one of us reads someone else post may be entirely different than someone else. We may not capture the way the message was intended to be delivered causing disputes. For example the whole fork of tron came because of a simple misunderstanding, nsh22 asked for root password to the forums, himself not even realizing what the root password was. But we have to accept that there may be a misunderstandings and miscommunication, and resolve them privately.

Edited to fix the horrible typos that i had (bolded)

[Durf]

Aside from me having a somewhat difficult time understanding the english you used...
You contradict yourself when you say that I should post the PMs publicly for all to see, then to say that we should resolve the disputes we have privately.

The issue is BECAUSE they refused to deal with the dispute at all (let alone privately).
The abuse is when they don't care about misunderstandings or disputes, they only care for their word over others.

Z-Man is going to post the history apparently (if not then I will) so we shall see. We shall all see.
I never had a problem with it, in fact I want it to happen; you people need to see just how disputing an UNJUST ban would play out.
The facts remain that if you were abused by a moderator, they don't care in the slightest; this will be proven shortly for everyone.

Everything I've ever done has been for this community; not once did I make a post with the intention of causing problems, but only to solve them.
(Making tron tools has solved some problems, and there are more to be solved - I was exposed to the problem of moderator abuse by their actions. I'm still doing what I did before but for a different kind of problem. Funny how a simple dispute can take longer than making a tron tool takes - you'd think a moderator would be able to deal with one quickly)

[kyle]

Fixed my typos, I'm just saying since you posted parts and pieces, just post the full thing if you are going to continue to bring up parts of them.