The PM History

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

The PM History

Post by Durf »

The PM history will be posted here shortly...
Give it time until you see "end of PM history", there may be many posts until the end.

There may also be a few other PMs conversations that split off from the first. Give me some time to post it all.


This is currently being posted without any conditions (as nothing was agreed to at this point); I suspect that our compromise can be met by the time all the history is posted such that we can abide by the 96hour limitation. Otherwise, the moderator's own refusal to compromise will ensure there are no conditions.

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Gazelle »

Durf wrote:The PM history will be posted here shortly...
Give it time until you see "end of PM history", there may be many posts until the end.

There may also be a few other PMs conversations that split off from the first. Give me some time to post it all.


This is currently being posted without any conditions (as nothing was agreed to at this point); I suspect that our compromise can be met by the time all the history is posted such that we can abide by the 96hour limitation. Otherwise, the moderator's own refusal to compromise will ensure there are no conditions.

I haven't exactly been reading much of anything... Is there really still drama going on here?

User avatar
aP|Nelg
Match Winner
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The PM History

Post by aP|Nelg »

/* ignore this post */

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

<edit: snipped out useless stuff from the top here - ignore this line>

Beginning with the first message sent to Z-Man, December 2014: (note: this was also sent to Tank Program and Lucifer - nothing omitted)
Durf wrote:Subject: Why...<-- this thread


I realize it's locked...I was just about to post.
I don't disagree that it should be locked (in fact I was borderline about to report for harassment if it didn't stop).

However, some claims were made against me that went unanswered / unexplained. (relevant to the discussions of what's going on; important!)
If you wish to see a somewhat in-depth explanation of what I meant (in regards to the claims made in recent posts), it is available below.

If you don't care or otherwise don't want to look into those specific claims made against me, then please ignore this message. I know you're busy people and I don't wish to waste anymore of your time that you have already been spending on this issue.

Thanks,
Durf


==============================
My response to the now LOCKED topic:
(pretend it's public, because that's how I wrote it, none is directed towards you)
Starting after Phytotron's last post:
Yes, it's long. Take a seat.
==============================


Can you seriously only insult?
I've asked you to stop harassing me and yet you continue to make these insults.
In fact I like the cartoon since it basically described the situation (with the exception that I'm going out of my way to disturb people about this).
If anything this relation could be on account of my condition, by which you would be prejudice against me for it.


The fact of the matter is that your posts are harassing, that aside, I am able to look past that and discuss with you your findings:


Here's a link to the complete post that your quote is referencing.

As you can see, that was a private message (that I did use as a response in that thread, yes).
The language used in that is in the context of the conversation between said individual and myself (they made it clear that they don't want their identity revealed).

Meaning, there was already an accepted "lingo" as it were on what "a giant pussy" meant.
As seen by the quote in your post, I am defining "a little bitch" so as to be clear of this colloquial use.
"Pansy", "Baby", "Child" <- while these words in themselves are not sexist or ageist or prejudice in any particular way, used in a derogatory sense they could be.

As such, my use of the word "pussy" had nothing to do with gender or a person's sex. Rather it was a play on words with common elements of it's first definition (a cat). Which is used when people use "pussy" in a derogatory way towards complaining about something (cultural references) or otherwise unable to handle / cope with something. The other way it's derogatory is when it's in reference to "takes a pounding" or other similar phrasing (a reference of character, not even gender or sex).

So the use of the word "pussy" was not sexist, and taken out of context it would seem that way. Perhaps using a PM as a response was a bad idea. But I figured that people would understand when language used changes to appeal to the listening audience (at least if you're a good speaker you try to).


Here is an example of the word "pussy" being used in such a way.
From this simple sentence, a number of interpretations can be made (many of which ARE sexist, but not all are), but coincidentally no one seemed to have a problem with that. Why's that? It is a response to someone else (in this case calling Lucifer a sexist with the aid of a joke-pic)
My words aren't deliberately singling anyone out, and frankly if you get offended a text on your screen that isn't even directed towards you, you might as well be reading an offensive book and decide to flip out / go crazy over it. (such is the reason for me saying what I said, careful not to turn into something you don't want to be)


Now a "giant pussy" is more or less equal to "a little bitch" in the colloquial senses that those words are used.
GIANT is the adjective to emphasize the intensity and frequency of which the "pussy" is being that complainer.
"A little bitch" in it's colloquial sense is referring to a small female dog. Why is it used in a derogatory way?
Small dogs (as well all should know) have a tendency to be more hyperactive; yipping unnecessarily at times.
The female aspect is that the voice tends to be higher pitched; which only serves as a means to emphasize the 'annoyance' of listening to such 'yipping'.


The last line in the quote is wrong and when used in the derogatory sense IS nothing but misogyny.
To be perfectly honest, I got tired of saying "giant pussy" and figured the alternative "huge vagina" wasn't any different. At the time, it didn't seem like anything, but now I realize that that last thing is horribly worded (for public eyes).





As for the definition of sexism you quoted:
You're quoting it from a 'proud-to-be' biased source, but let's roll with that for a sec..
I actually completely agree with this (not that it constitutes a valid dictionary definition, but is nonetheless a good definition).
First I'd like to point out: "Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.". This definition highly depends on the existence of "male privilege", for if it didn't exist, there would be no excuse for women to discount the possibility that women are sexist (not that that is even right in the first place). Meaning male privilege must be evidently present in order for the definition to be valid. <*footnote*>

That being said, if you are accusing me of being this kind of sexist, in short you would be exhibiting some form of the dictionary definition of sexism yourself.
The website you link me to defines privilege (regular, not "male privilege") as:
"It is a status that is conferred by society to certain groups, not seized by individuals, which is why it can be difficult sometimes to see one’s own privilege." (link)

So first you would be making the assumption (or recognition) that I have some kind of privilege (somehow MORE than what Vogue has - Vogue because that's what the sexist claims are about, that I was so to Vogue) then you'd be making the assumption that my sex and / or gender is male. When have I given you any reason to believe that I am? That in itself shows that you are sexist in the belief that only a male could be "Durf". Furthermore, ostracizing me for this belief is more prejudice.

@dinobro, ^ look at this paragraph, people seem to have an idea of what my gender and sex is without any empirical evidence to show for it...does that mean that they're wrong about what they think? does it make it automatically right? to you what does that mean. If you support them, then you contradict your own post about my findings about Vogue. If you support me in saying that they made assumptions about my gender, then you must also realize that I wasn't being sexist, in either definition's case.
"psychological disposition of a female" - "female" is used is the SEX sense, not the gender sense.
Therefore, if you would like to discuss some empirical evidence, let's discuss that to clear up any confusion of my findings (elsewhere or privately so as not to clog this thread). A basic summary would be in reference to, yet again, the perceptions a female (sex AND gender) has on the world around them. This includes the perception of and/or exposure to "male privilege". Here is a link to the post in question; Note my first 3 - 4 sentences. Overall I was referring to the physiological differences of each sex and how that impacts perception (not gender identity, just perception in general); Vogue's claim simply did not meet my observations and all I did was put her claim into question, never actually demanding proof. Which if you remember was just a challenge to what Roter said (check the link to the fasttrack forums post in my first post).
Lastly, I never 'by default, always assume I'm right'; on the contrary, I am always open to discussion. Presenting my point of view for clarification should not be interpreted as an attack or trying to fight or antagonizing. Any perceptions of such things are most likely do to your own ability to consider that you might have things wrong (pride).

. . . . .

Lastly, I'd like to point out that is it very possible for women to be sexist towards men. One clear and easy example is when women assume or otherwise falsely perceive male privilege and treat men as if they are being sexist. One could call this female privilege. It is more common than you think (get with the times) simply because of the fact (YES FACT, WE ALL AGREE) that men have HAD power over women in the past. It is because of the lack of equality (in favor of males) that many choose to react in favor of female privilege (one example would be a court sentencing and requiring a male to be labelled as a sex offender simply because the victim was female - jury of peers would certainly allow for that).
Whether or not there is true equality now, remains to be seen.
Responses will be in the next post..
Last edited by Durf on Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Lucifer wrote:This is your last warning. If you PM me again, it's another 24 hour ban.

After that, it'll be a week.

Do not answer this.

Z-Man wrote:Dude, we are discussing things internally. We want no input from anyone at this time. I'm trying to ignore the message because frankly, every time you say something, you are only digging your own hole deeper. And you don't even realize it. Established lingo? Don't establish that lingo. So please, for your own sake, stop.
And quit PMing Lucifer. I respect and will enforce his wish to be left alone. Is that so hard to understand? If you absolutely must PM someone (and you don't), leave it to Tank and me. Or epsy and dlh.


Durf wrote:
We want no input from anyone at this time.
Did not know / didn't realize this ^ I apologize.
I tried to give the option of ignoring it for a reason.


Although, like I was trying to say "established lingo" was between one tronner and myself. This had nothing to do with external conversations at the time it was written. (I keep saying: my words are taken out of context).
When I say "established lingo" I mean we (the participants of the quoted PMs) had an understanding of what those words meant. Explaining such lingo publicly is not even expressing an opinion (in regards to sexism).

However I will stop talking about that with the realization that you don't seem to see or care that Lucifer is and was way out of line. (you say I'm making things worse but like Lucifer you don't show me or explain how, neither can you say how my explanation is invalid)

Z-Man wrote:And quit PMing Lucifer. I respect and will enforce his wish to be left alone. Is that so hard to understand?
Durf wrote:You might find this interesting, if not please IGNORE IT
Why is it that when others in the same situation do a similar offense (not leaving alone), you tell me to ignore it and walk away...yet, Lucifer cannot / doesn't have to? Why does this have to become about yet another ban for something he didn't have to read, let alone reply to.
I sent it to the 3 of you (including him, out of respect for his position).
To be perfectly honest I didn't want to, but that just isn't fair.

I also don't see how it's fair for something I deliberately tried to make those who wouldn't be interested ignore it, and me somehow being condemned for it.
Why is it 100% of the time MY responsibility to "walk away"? (I'm but a user, he is a moderator, yet I have more responsibility? Is he above the rules?)
Why can't the active moderator be reasoned with?
How is it fair for the active moderator to show such bias? (unfounded superiority)

Frankly if you want me out of your community just have to balls to say so.
Literally, look at my entire history on this game, do you really think I would troll?
And really, I've had to deal with enough of "normal people", not understanding the English that I write, in my lifetime.. If this community isn't going to be open to letting my voice be heard, why the hell should I care about the community.
Frankly even when I was doing things to help out, you 3 in particular were never welcoming. Didn't realize this was a little club where people must conform to the leader's morals (I thought we had the freedom to be who we wanted to be).
Finding excuses and rules to enforce is no way to keep players from "retiring".
^ I say this because:

Here is the base of the issue:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I was actually being sexist (and whatever other claims were made).
Where was the warning?
The fact remains that even if I was "borderline" sexist or "full-blown" sexist, Lucifer still acted out of line (as I am unaware of what the crime even was) (see this)
For the sake of arguing, even if I was, at my core, a sexist, I did not instigate any of the conversations regarding such. Condemning me for subsequent violations isn't fair as they were PROVOKED by the "victim(s)".

Shall we even bother with assuming (for the sake of arguing) that I wasn't?
I'm pretty sure you know the case (if I wasn't).
Though consider that I was banned for "being a sexist ass" and this was from Vogue's ban appeal (which I expressed that I was against, in that thread).
Lucifer clearly states that Vogue was the main voice expressing how offensive and sexist / transphobic I was being (keep in mind that wasn't my intention).
Lucifer is proud to admit that he supports feminist rights on the ground of "male privilege". (Vogue abusing Lucifer's sensitivity to trigger his reaction towards me - a method of invalidating my voiced opinion about VOGUE's ban appeal)
Just make sure this isn't "hate" from Lucifer, and "female privilege" from Vogue.
^ gonna stop there, as this is getting to be "input" that you don't want.

Z-Man wrote: If you absolutely must PM someone (and you don't), leave it to Tank and me. Or epsy and dlh.
I'd first like to point out that any recipient also isn't absolutely required to respond or even read (there is a delete button). Condemning me for sending a PM is getting ridiculous. Please consider that. (especially one marked "please IGNORE IT"; how is that harassing?)

That aside, I'm glad you gave me alternatives. I will PM those individuals should I feel the need to PM to someone (about an issue).

I'm getting the impression that you yourself are beginning to dislike me.
I don't know why. You can justify it by saying a "person like me" is just used to it.
A "person like me" has feelings too.
So I hope that we can work things out; that's all I ever wanted to do.
I am open to being in the wrong; as I do not understand how I am.
I only ever request to be shown how so that I may be able to reform.. and THAT is a crime too? Please...


To be perfectly honest; didn't mean to write this much.
I'm sorry (in the sense that you want no input); but I still feel I deserve a voice in this matter (Am I not allowed to represent myself? Who is doing that for me?)

*end of that particular PM chain* (no comment given at this time as a means of appealing to the conditions)
*another PM chain beginning shortly..*

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Durf wrote:Subject: Moderator Abuse

*long PM*
I sincerely hope you take the time to read this. I took the time writing it.
Also, no reply to my other PM? Are you ignoring it? Shall I send it again?
Anyway, PLEASE please please...read this carefully.
It is not my intention to anger you in any way (frankly I'm surprised you get angry at what I say - getting angry at text on your screen = you might as well read an offense book and flip out for it)
My point is, these are just WORDS. Meant to communicate, from one PERSON to another.
I had a relatively neutral disposition when writing this; though that doesn't mean I can't use some words as a means of presenting my case.
Please take this seriously.


"what was right":
1) The ban was NOT justified. Not by a long shot. I was NOT harassing Vogue, and this can be PROVEN:
Google Dictionary wrote:Harass: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.
-make repeated small-scale attacks on (an enemy).
evidence
Take a look at the evidence (the quotes reference this thread).
As is plain for all to see, NOT ONCE did I ever aggressively pressure Vogue or intimidate (intentionally - anyone can interpret anything how they want, that's not a reason to support them). By definition I was not harassing.
"He should not have gone down the 'foolproof' verification route", this is just plain wrong. I consider this to be harassment from YOU. I specifically asked Vogue IF they wanted to prove their identity, I had a method of doing so. If Vogue did not want to prove anything, the conversation would have stopped right there (at this point, Vogue pursuing me to reveal what my methods of proving identity are can be considered as harassment, by definition). STOP condemning me for something I'm not responsible for.
Also I'd like to make it clear, my 'comfortableness' with teamspeak was unrelated. As I mentioned in reference to my 'instructions', teamspeak was not sufficient enough for proving identity. Although yes, I find it easier to type than to speak aloud (Don't see how it relates though.).

2) Let's assume that the ban was justified for a moment (clearly it wasn't as shown above):
Warning, as you call it, was posted at Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:24 pm EST (my timezone) (Lucifer's post)
Keep in mind that was in a thread meant to discredit me. It's sole purpose was to harass ME (on the basis that I was "sexist", not on the basis that I was harassing Vogue).
The email I sent to Tank Program was sent at Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:05 AM EST (my timezone).
First, a PM would have been WAY more noticeable.
Second, not enough time was given to receive said "warning".
a) I was in the middle of posting (as you mention) in the very same thread. I started writing my post BEFORE Lucifer's post was visible to me, and when I went to hit "submit", that's when I saw that I was already banned (it was a long post - as you "can't imagine").
b) The time between Lucifer's post and my email to Tank Program is roughly 10 minutes. (My typing speed shouldn't have anything to do with the time it takes me to write a reply to a thread - I think before I speak so that uses up more time aside from typing). That should tell you what happened during that short time: I) time to finish my reply before realize I could no longer post (5mins max) II) time to write my email to tank (5 mins max).. Unless you're saying that you can do those things (to the degree that I did - verbosely) faster than that, then you have no basis to believe that I ever had a chance to see the warning.
^ this is all assuming that the ban was even justified.
As it was not, there was no reason for any of the subsequent actions.


"What was wrong":
1) I still don't understand how you think I'm the one pressuring people in regards to all this "sexist" talk. If you specifically look at this post, then my post that started it all, you will see that what I was saying was IN SUPPORT of feminine rights! Questioning if anyone has any proof was to work against what RoterBaron1337 was saying.
He explains his amazement of how creative it is (referencing his own sexist ideals that females generally aren't so creative).
I say "sure" as a method of agreeing for the sake of conversation, RIGHT BEFORE questioning whether or not Vogue is what they claimed to be.
("nice weather we're having" - "sure, it's nice, but ..." === conversational tool)
NOT ONCE was I expressing any opinion of mine other than a subtly implied one: that what Vogue was had NOTHING to do with how creative they were.
I am IN SUPPORT of equal rights for all, and that includes Vogue (regardless of where we disagree). All these claims that I have been sexist is harassing to ME. Subsequent bans and extensions, further PMs and threads from other members, being tracked down in-game and trolled by Lucifer under alias = all examples of how I'm being harassed. Now, you say yourself (in reference to me) that it's not right to condemn someone for the answers they were pressed to give. (refer to the first part of my PM reply - this also means that any and all subsequent conversations about "me being sexist" was provoked. By your own logic I should not be condemned, NOR harassed continuously, for said responses. Neither is it fair for Lucifer to be doing so, so as to find a reason to ban me (I'll explain again since you seem to have ignored my other PM)

2) I agree with you. And yes, suspecting me of being the spammer was uncalled for (so was the resulting ban extension - not rescinded)...
What is the problem I have with this then? Lucifer's denial.
I'm sure you can check the administrative logs and see who it was that extended my ban; although he claims that he wasn't the one to do it, that only means that he ALLOWED someone access to his account (and ability).
If you don't think he is denying anything, please follow this link:

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23921&start=45#p289483
(ran out of URLs in PM)


The rest:
"Not that any amout of bad behavior would be an excuse for harassment, mind you." - refer to how I wasn't harassing Vogue (for their bad behavior, as would be implied by your statement) - Given you believe that there's not excuse, then why am I being harassed (intimidation by mods, pressure from mods and users) to "just accept" that I'm a "sexist pig"? That being said, EVEN IF I WAS being sexist, you are supposed to stop the harassment done towards me.

"When one of us feels unable to handle a particular situation, he'll call in the others to take over." - I don't doubt that something like this was already in place. What worries me is (given that Lucifer has made far too many assumptions about me) Lucifer won't ever feel that he won't be able to handle something.
His pride is blatant.

" Durf says he hasn't seen his warning and we have to take that seriosuly." - So where is the apology from Lucifer for unjustly banning me without sufficient warning?
"[ a PM warning ] that can also be missed in the heat of a discussion" - I was in the middle of writing a long post, haven't refreshed the page in a long time, that being said, if there was something to warn me about, I should have gotten a warning ONLY, not a warning and a ban (both in the time I was typing a resonse). Regardless of the ban following way too soon after the supposed "warning", I 'preview' my reply before submitting. And even if I didn't, I should have been able to reply to the warning itself. How is it possible for me to receive a warning, then get a ban without any actual interaction? What is the reason for my ban after the warning was given? WHAT SPECIFICALLY did I do to earn the ban (assuming I saw the warning)?
"Of course, it has to be noted that not every offence entitles one to a warning before getting banned. Some things require swift action to avoid harm, some are just too crass." - this I agree with. Although this doesn't mean that even you moderators / admins can be MISTAKEN occasionally. Unless you claim to be absolutely perfect in your judgments...do you? "Swift action" shouldn't justify Lucifer's actions, especially considering that there was no need for "swift action". Telling me "hey, see this? ____. That is wrong. Why? This reason: ___" would have been MORE THAN ENOUGH warning in this case. Though I suppose that would be me telling you how to do your job(s). Unless you disagree with that approach for warning someone who is being "sexist"...



I'd also like to point out that the initial ban was given the reason "being a sexist ass". Not at all for "harassment". Furthermore, no warnings were given for harassing behavior (as there was none). This is about me being accused of being a sexist. So why is it all of a sudden about me being harassing? If it IS about me harassing Vogue, then how is the initial ban justified? ("being a sexist ass" doesn't have to be harassing anyone)


I urge you to either re-read that other PM I sent you (the one you didn't reply to) and/or consider that Vogue is manipulating Lucifer's sensitivities merely because Vogue dislikes that I was one of the more prominent voices AGAINST their appeal for a ladle ban (which again, had nothing to do with what Vogue is. It had only to do with the content they posted in that thread - their appeal itself)
Even considering this to be true for a SECOND should grant you some insight into what's going on here. (Given that Lucifer has displayed an inability to remain calm and think clearly, nearly all of his actions were out of anger - this doesn't mean I disagree with him, it just means that I think he was mistaken)

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23864&p=289082#p289082
^ example of his inability to moderate.
I'd also like to know how saying he would murder us if he could is good for a moderator to say. How is that not harassment? How is that the right thing to do?

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23864&p=289051#p289051
^ example of how he treats me differently for being myself. This is plain prejudice and HATE. What I say shouldn't be perceived as any more or less valuable than what Vogue says. Yet Lucifer thinks so...and why? For my history of being able to reason things in a way that makes sense to others? MY GOD...How is that a bad thing all of a sudden?

Lastly:

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23849&p=288887&hilit=has+the+a+right+to+an+appeal#p288887
^ Lucifer believes I have the right to appeal any and all bans ... unless I'm being treated differently for some reason. Given that Lucifer believes it's wrong for Vogue to break the rules, and yet still has the right to an appeal, he shouldn't be acting so hostile towards my appeal for my ban (regardless if I broke rules or not)

There's yet another post you made, I may or may not send you a PM for that one too.

I understand that much of this was already "agreed upon", however I don't understand how any of this can be agreed upon without the input of the person in question. Please take all of what I'm saying seriously, as I genuinely believe that I was not being sexist nor was I being harassing. Nor do I believe, even if I was both said things, that it constituted a ban.
Throwing reasons on top like "he was excessively PMing Vogue" to justify "harassment" is already wrong in itself since my responses were instigated by Vogue. So as of yet, there is no proof that I was either sexist, or harassing. And there won't be any for you to find. I'm confident that I'm innocent and I find that because I'm even required to have to constantly explain this shows the MAJOR faults in the current staff. What I'm presenting is reasonable, and evident. Yet nothing of the same can be shown for the opposing case. (they are based on false assumptions, all of which stem from the "post that started it all" - earlier in the PM it's linked)
So although much was "agreed upon", by Lucifer's own beliefs, I have the right to have a voice in this matter.

(as far as my inbox is concerned, this was not replied to - I'm fairly certain it was, so we'll see as we go along)
*more PMs coming*

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Durf wrote:Subject: Moderator Abuse
Z-Man wrote:I'll get to Durf, patience. I probably should actually read the two lengthy PMs he wrote... It's just that the very first actual content sentences already make me angry. So maybe I'll read them, get very angry, calm down again, then post.

Anyway. Until then, the next thing I can post about is this from here:
Soul wrote:On behalf of the tron community, I hereby declare the need for an appeal to Durf's unjust and irrational ban. Lucifer has an obvious bias due to all of the shemales he supposedly knows (and perhaps is????). Judge Judy will have none of this. You sir, have been served.
That is open transphobia. I hope I don't have to explain this. And I hope I only have to say once that I want none of it here.

The other thing that was labelled trasphobic was the statement "Men have a penis, women a vagina". That's not necessarily transphobic, that usually just comes from a place of ignorance. "Your definition is narrow minded" would be a more appropriate response. Look. Back when I was younger and in a different relationship, I crossdressed and went to gay and BDSM clubs. I have seen some things with my own eyes. I wanted to make a list, blade runner style, but I'm afraid I have to start and stop at the guy in the full body latex suit. Yet I know nothing. I have only seen the tip of the iceberg of the variety of human expression out there. And all of it is wonderful. There is no need to be afraid. They know they are in the minority, they would never shove themselves into your face uninvited or at the very least leave you alone when asked. Unlike some straight men, I may add. So if their existence somehow makes you uncomfortable, which is totally fine, just leave them alone. Though, of course, the preferable reaction is curiosity (and this forum is probably not the right place for public discussion thereof in full detail). Look at who won EUROVISION 2014. That's outrageous! I didn't know you were allowed to leave your beard on! That would have made it so much easier, any kind of good shave gives me pimples all over for at least a week to come.
(If you want to replace 'they' with 'we' in the above, be my guest.)

*sigh*, I expected more from you. You seem to want to see the worst in everyone, which in turn, would lead you to assume what they mean.
Let's begin:

Yes you should actually read the PMs. No, as moderator/admin, you have absolutely no reason to get emotional for the PMs I send you.
THAT BEING SAID, make sure you aren't getting angry for realizing that you might have been wrong about something. If you can't be sure that's why you're angry, you can't be sure that you're actually getting angry at anything I've said.
But like I asked with implication...what reason is there to get emotional? (even if I'm blatantly wrong, it should require no effort or emotion from you to prove it and reply)



About what soul, then what you, said:
Wikipedia wrote:Transphobia (or less commonly transprejudice) is a range of antagonistic attitudes and feelings against transsexuality and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – Terms for prejudice).
The only thing that soul said that could remotely be classified as "transphobic" is this:
Soul wrote:Lucifer has an obvious bias due to all of the shemales he supposedly knows (and perhaps is????).
Now let's analyze that for it's relation to the definition.. Lucifer HAS stated his bias clearly for all to see. If Soul comments on that as a means of showing how one could be bias, how is that transphobic? Using the term "shemale" isn't transphobic either as BY DEFINITION Lucifer would be one.
Google Dictionary wrote:Shemale: a transvestite.
-a passive male homosexual.
-a hermaphrodite.

Transvestite: a person, typically a man, who derives pleasure from dressing in clothes appropriate to the opposite sex.
Given his position on transgender individuals not being alone (he knows them), it can be surmised that Lucifer knows other she-males as well.
Note, I am not making any judgments about Lucifer. This is about analyzing Soul's post.
That being said, Soul's post was IN NO WAY transphobic. Assuming it is, is cynical and demeaning to Soul as an individual with individual thought. Stop confining people's words to conform to what you believe they are or should be...or stop believing that everyone is such an asshole. You become the unintentional asshole yourself when you get so caught up in your morals that you fail to recognize the words for what they are.
There's nothing to "read between the lines" either. Soul posted exactly what they meant. And regardless of anyone's relation to any community (transgender or not), it is clear. Words mean what they mean. Get a dictionary if you are unsure. (<-- meant as helpful advice on how to ensure you are correct, please don't see it as me acting with superiority or some other attitude. I am genuine.)


Here's a perfect example of how you don't know what you're talking about:
The other thing that was labelled trasphobic was the statement "Men have a penis, women a vagina". That's not necessarily transphobic, that usually just comes from a place of ignorance. "Your definition is narrow minded" would be a more appropriate response.
Tranphobia has already been defined. Yes you say it wasn't (necessarily) transphobic, though you consider it to be ignorant, when in fact it is not:
Google dictionary wrote:Men: plural form of man.

Man: an adult human male.
-a male worker or employee.
-a male member of a sports team.
-ordinary members of the armed forces as distinct from the officers.
-a husband, boyfriend, or lover.
-a male person associated with a particular place, activity, or occupation.
-etc..
2- a human being of either sex; a person.
-human beings in general; the human race.
-an individual; one.
-a person with the qualities often associated with males such as bravery, spirit, or toughness.
-a type of prehistoric human named after the place where the remains were found.
3- a group or person in a position of authority over others, such as a corporate employer or the police.
4- a figure or token used in playing a board game.

Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
-relating to or characteristic of men or male animals; masculine.

Masculine: (adjective) having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men, especially strength and aggressiveness.
(noun) the male sex or gender.
So although your quote isn't linked anywhere, let's point out:
1) I said "males have a penis" - by definition this is true and CAN'T be sexist or transphobic to say (with the exception that some MALES, that have testes, can also not have a penis - this is semantics)
2) What you quoted was me saying "it's not sexist to say 'men have a penis'...". That in itself is NOT expressing my own opinion in regards to actual sexism. It is in reference to the words. BY DEFINITION, it is not sexist to say that 'men have a penis' as it refers to the masculinity of said organs and individual. The line in which that was used was itself a conversational piece; not an expression of my own views regarding sexism (and males). (it's like saying "its racist to say 'black people shouldn't be allowed to own guns'"...do you automatically think I'M the racist for pointing out what is racist to say? No, you don't. So stop thinking I'm sexist for saying what is and isn't sexist to say - with proof mind you)
So no...it wasn't ignorant at all to say that. Ignoring evidence is ignorant. Not knowing the meaning of the words used is ignorant. Not finding the EXACT quotation to condemn of for something is ignorant.

Next:
Back when I was younger and in a different relationship, I crossdressed and went to gay and BDSM clubs. I have seen some things with my own eyes.
You say this as if no one else does either. Like you are the epitome upholding individual rights and freedoms? Sufficed to say I've seen enough too (not that I'm going out of my way to even mention it). Point is, you saying that is basically assuming ignorance in others. Most of this isn't and shouldn't be "news" to those with the life experience to have been exposed to it.
They know they are in the minority, they would never shove themselves into your face uninvited or at the very least leave you alone when asked.
Actually you and Lucifer have gone out of your way to identify yourselves as part of such a community (or group or classification of people). As of matter of fact, I'm being harassed by Lucifer constantly for "male privilege" when he has yet to show any indication that he even knows my sex/gender.
Who's to say that I am not transgender? I could be anything to you and that's how my words should be interpreted. It is sexist to think that only a male could/would say the things I said to Vogue; further prejudice.


Now here's the part that might make you the angriest, only because it may be the hardest to take in:
Look at who won EUROVISION 2014. That's outrageous!
What does that have to do with anything?
Why are you singling out that individual? What is it about them that makes referencing them even a valid support point in your post?
This is an example of prejudice. Nothing is outrageous about it. An individual won a contest, nothing more.
Here's an analogy for clarification purposes:
It's like a white man being called a racist by his white friend, and he specifically goes to single out his black friend in support that he isn't racist. That in itself is a racist thing to do. It discriminates the black individual specifically for his race.
An appropriate response would be to either question the claim, or simply state "no I'm not". But there is no reason to discriminate...EVER.


To put it in perspective, let's use racism as an example of how people can be unaware that they are being the very thing they are against:
scenario 1 - a white person commits a criminal act. A black officer arrests.
scenario 2 - a black person commits a criminal act. A white officer arrests.
In scenario one, the public might see the white man as "white trash" if at all, and the black man would be perceived as level-headed and did his job correctly (note that that isn't always the case, but public assumptions don't have to abide by reality)
However, in scenario 2, racism is suddenly a big issue (not like racism couldn't be an issue in scenario 1, but this is about PUBLIC assumptions...how it looks to the public). Even if the black person was indeed a criminal, it is somehow racist to say that the are a criminal (because it's a stereotype that demeans blacks). This is an example of how the general public is being racist in that they ASSUME that the white officer is simply being a racist because of the race differences. Like as if the white officer was some scum that didn't deserve his badge (note the relation to how the black officer appears in scenario 1).

Regardless of what actually transpired, the public will always see what they assume to be true. Even if it is utterly wrong.
That being said, treat me, and everyone else in this matter, as individuals. Stop labeling me as a sexist without any actual evidence that I am being such.
And as far as "harassment" goes, I wasn't banned for this reason, so why am I being condemned for it now? Plus the fact that I apparently have to defend myself from all these accusations is a sign that I am being harassed.
Please, Z-Man, I'm asking as an individual, for you to take this seriously and treat us as equals (Vogue and I - Lucifer and I in regards to beliefs and expression of opinion. I understand that he is moderator, but that shouldn't make him above the law, and it certainly shouldn't mean you show favoritism on a VERY SERIOUS ISSUE)


Also stop having your say then locking threads.
If you're gonna lock a thread, just lock it.
You don't prove yourself in any discussions by shutting out other voices forcibly.
That only shows your own bias and inability to listen to reason.
Or if you're going to post about the topic at hand, then leave the thread open to responses.
While I can understand that there may be other reasons for locking a thread, consider how it looks overall to the public. You aren't showing to the people that you can be reasoned with (neither is Lucifer).

Another thing: triumvirates work best when there is NO relation between the leaders, as there can be no favoritism over opinions, no manipulations (through friendship), no extortion over power or position, etc.. While I don't suggest you stop seeing things from Lucifer's point of view, I strongly urge you to try to get some unbiased perspective. As with the examples I gave in racism, the last thing you want is to be utterly wrong because of how things "look" (based on assumptions).

<stopped myself from typing any further, though there were things I still wanted to talk about>
example, look at the time difference between the PMs I sent you today, and the length of the PMs. Although I may type fast, I still take a long time to reply/post.
This should tell you how long I've spent staring at a "compose PM" screen, which is analogous to me having missed any warning (even if it was a PM).
Put simply, waiting 10 minutes (more or less) shouldn't be an excuse to go ahead and ban.
Even if I saw the warning (I didn't), a warning is a warning, not a ban. The warning should be received and understood for it to count for anything.
Given that I am here willing to discuss and always have been, I'm the one going OUT OF MY WAY to look for this understanding. (ban = unjust)

<seriously stopped myself this time, cut out some text>
Assuming you read everything I've said, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to do so. I urge you to consider my words as if I were a robot (emotionless, sexless). Only then will this prejudice against me stop. The fact of the matter is, I shouldn't have to feel the need to be so ambiguous. This is a direct sign of how this community is WAY too prejudice; while I've been making deliberate posts to explain to everyone how sex/gender carries no weight in how I respond to you. Furthermore, I specifically post "let's not be a poison to each other" days/hours before this all started. This should make my position in the matter clear; I'm not here to harass anyone for any reason.

<k literally no more, done>

*replies will shortly follow*

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Yes you should actually read the PMs. No, as moderator/admin, you have absolutely no reason to get emotional for the PMs I send you.
I have. They are costing me precious time. For every sentence vaguely uttered in your direction, you write a whole essay of a response. Your discussion "strategy" seems to be to just swamp everyone with drivel. I will not reply to every little thing you write, there just is not the time. That said, I did read them. And look. You are not under trial. I don't think you do it on purpose. I see you tried and failed to stop yourself here. Please try harder and simply let go some time?
Durf wrote:Shemale
Your dictionary definition is lacking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shemale is more to the point, the more common use today.
Durf wrote:Who's to say that I am not transgender?
Hah. Who is to say I'm not a surf instructor on Fiji? You don't seen to understand transgender issues at all. Let me explain.
A child is born. With a penis.
Usually, you'd expect it to grow up to be a man.
Not this one, however. This person wants to be a woman. Say grows up, gets her name and stuff legally changed. She does not want to undergo full transformation.
Maybe she wants to get into a relationship, maybe, if local laws allow, she wants to adopt a child. If so, she would want that child to call her "Mother".
And then you come along with your stubborn old fashioned dictionary and yell at the child "No, stupid kid, that's not your mother, mothers need to be women and women don't have penises"?
Durf wrote:Now here's the part that might make you the angriest, only because it may be the hardest to take in:
Look at who won EUROVISION 2014. That's outrageous!
Quoting out of context AND making assumptions. I was talking about her beard only. Jokingly.

Not quoting your ramblings about pussies and bitches here, but you really think people would believe you that in a discussion about sexism,
a) by "pussy", you refer to the cat, and have the right to naturally assume that people know you don't mean "vagina", or a derogatory term for a woman
b) by "bitch", you refer to the dog
c) SOMEHOW, just out of the blue for a change, you once write "vagina" where you mean "cat".
Durf wrote:Perhaps using a PM as a response was a bad idea
Yes.

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Durf wrote:I think you responded to more than one PM in this one. That's a little confusing.
*Important* The overall matter I wish to discuss is the UNJUST ban that you called JUST. You are supporting a badmin.
There is a quoted PM at the bottom that you seemed to ignore completely. That is what I would like you to respond to (everything please).
The content until then is a response to your most recent PM (mostly explanations - important bit begins at all the ######).

<response>
Z-Man wrote:Your discussion "strategy" seems to be to just swamp everyone with drivel.
Not at all. I tried to make you aware of some of the communication issues I may experience. It isn't fair for you to assume that is intentional. (Not everyone is like you). Nor is it appreciated that you consider it to be drivel. I'm VERY serious and I mean every word of what I type. Frankly I'm surprised you are even a moderator. (said as someone with real administrative experience)
(also you completely misinterpret the point something I say, so it requires explanation*)

That being said...no, you have no reason to get emotional. Just because you (and others) toss around your words so frivolously, doesn't mean that I do. Sometimes more words are REQUIRED to actually articulate and build the REAL thoughts that are to be conveyed. I'm trying to speak to you and you get angry/frustrated that you even have to deal with me?
Any amount of me trying to stop myself from writing a longer PM is me appealing to your sense of impatience. Again, I have to go out of my way to be able to function with you.. What are you doing for anyone?
Get off your high horse. There is a real case of moderator abuse to discuss and you're avoiding it. (see PM below)
The person under trial is Lucifer. Not me. I did nothing wrong yet I got banned for it. (where you see unintentional error, I see misunderstanding)

Put simply...I will not let this go. I'm getting constant harassment from Lucifer even off the forums. Not to mention the propaganda being spread on the forums - nearly everything I post is met with intense hostility and scrutiny (from the unqualified mind you). All because of the public defacing you committed against me. You're the one doing wrong here (mostly because you think Lucifer was right).
The only way to fix the public from being so split up is admittance from the administrative team (Lucifer can apologize for unjustly banning me - that'd be a start).
It isn't right to treat someone unfairly then attempt to avoid any consequences of your own actions. You can't just pretend it never happened. Your's and Lucifer's
names are tarnished with "badmin" and you are okay with that? Frankly, I'd at least like to be sure that such "badmining" won't happen again.

Z-Man wrote:Your dictionary definition is lacking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shemale is more to the point, the more common use today.
I really hope you read that page you linked thoroughly. Not much is different other than the inclusion of the social ramifications of its use. One key difference you don't seem to be aware of is the use of the word SEX and the use of the word GENDER. Sex refers to the physical attributes of the human body. Gender can refer to the internal identity the person wishes to represent themselves as (but doesn't have to). The term "Shemale", as defined on the Wikipedia page, is a term used specifically to reference the physical nature of the person. They even mention how some transgender people find it offensive because of this fact. (really they should be complaining that there isn't another word to differentiate between sex and gender implications).
The fact of the matter is, Soul (I think it was them) is perfectly allowed to post what they posted without it being considered offensive. BY DEFINITION Lucifer identified himself as a shemale (whether or not he would call himself that). There was nothing wrong with that particular post, nor was there anything wrong with the conclusions that Soul was questioning (100% provoked by Lucifer).
*This was about proving Lucifer's bias (acting unfairly towards others - which is based on assumptions btw). So regardless of how you interpret the definition of shemale, Lucifer was acting with favoritism (based on assumptions); specifically bias towards the transgender community as well as giving females an unfair advantage on the basis that they "deserve" it (female privilege).

Z-Man wrote:Hah. Who is to say I'm not a surf instructor on Fiji? You don't seen to understand transgender issues at all. Let me explain.
I'm well aware of the "issues". You're getting so caught up in thinking that I don't that you fail to see what words are being used (to refer to SEX, not gender identity). Words were specifically chosen to avoid this argument, and you still failed to read what was right in front of you.
Z-Man wrote:No, stupid kid, that's not your mother, mothers need to be women and women don't have penises
You are making assumptions about me; which happens to be insulting. Who do you think you are anyway? I've been respectful to you because I felt you deserved it; thanks for alleviating me of that responsibility.

I asked the question "who's to say I'm not transgender" to show just how much you assume about others. You have no proof that I am or am not.. Furthermore, you haven't shown any reasoning - only assumptions.
Frankly I haven't mentioned very many personal details about myself because of this fact. You, Lucifer, and a lot of the community are nothing but hostile...all based on assumptions you make about the people you're playing a game with...smart.
</response>


###################### important #######################

Overall, aside from you trying to excuse yourself from such stupid things (and failing), I'm looking for a reply to the following PM, the actual issue at hand:
(feel free to not respond to anything above - you can if you want, but below is more important)

Please refer to the link to the thread when you read this. Each number refers to a number in your original post.
Durf wrote:Subject: Moderator Abuse

*long PM*
<snipped to be shorter>
Please take this seriously.


"what was right":
1) The ban was NOT justified. Not by a long shot. I was NOT harassing Vogue, and this can be PROVEN:
Google Dictionary wrote:Harass: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.
-make repeated small-scale attacks on (an enemy).
evidence
Take a look at the evidence (the quotes reference this thread).
As is plain for all to see, NOT ONCE did I ever aggressively pressure Vogue or intimidate (intentionally - anyone can interpret anything how they want, that's not a reason to support them). By definition I was not harassing.
"He should not have gone down the 'foolproof' verification route", this is just plain wrong. I consider this to be harassment from YOU. I specifically asked Vogue IF they wanted to prove their identity, I had a method of doing so. If Vogue did not want to prove anything, the conversation would have stopped right there (at this point, Vogue pursuing me to reveal what my methods of proving identity are can be considered as harassment, by definition). STOP condemning me for something I'm not responsible for.
Also I'd like to make it clear, my 'comfortableness' with teamspeak was unrelated. As I mentioned in reference to my 'instructions', teamspeak was not sufficient enough for proving identity. Although yes, I find it easier to type than to speak aloud (Don't see how it relates though.).

2) Let's assume that the ban was justified for a moment (clearly it wasn't as shown above):
Warning, as you call it, was posted at Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:24 pm EST (my timezone) (Lucifer's post)
Keep in mind that was in a thread meant to discredit me. It's sole purpose was to harass ME (on the basis that I was "sexist", not on the basis that I was harassing Vogue).
The email I sent to Tank Program was sent at Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:05 AM EST (my timezone).
First, a PM would have been WAY more noticeable.
Second, not enough time was given to receive said "warning".
a) I was in the middle of posting (as you mention) in the very same thread. I started writing my post BEFORE Lucifer's post was visible to me, and when I went to hit "submit", that's when I saw that I was already banned (it was a long post - as you "can't imagine").
b) The time between Lucifer's post and my email to Tank Program is roughly 10 minutes. (My typing speed shouldn't have anything to do with the time it takes me to write a reply to a thread - I think before I speak so that uses up more time aside from typing). That should tell you what happened during that short time: I) time to finish my reply before realize I could no longer post (5mins max) II) time to write my email to tank (5 mins max).. Unless you're saying that you can do those things (to the degree that I did - verbosely) faster than that, then you have no basis to believe that I ever had a chance to see the warning.
^ this is all assuming that the ban was even justified.
As it was not, there was no reason for any of the subsequent actions.


"What was wrong":
1) I still don't understand how you think I'm the one pressuring people in regards to all this "sexist" talk. If you specifically look at this post, then my post that started it all

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23849&start=45#p288690
, you will see that what I was saying was IN SUPPORT of feminine rights! Questioning if anyone has any proof was to work against what RoterBaron1337 was saying.
He explains his amazement of how creative it is (referencing his own sexist ideals that females generally aren't so creative).
I say "sure" as a method of agreeing for the sake of conversation, RIGHT BEFORE questioning whether or not Vogue is what they claimed to be.
("nice weather we're having" - "sure, it's nice, but ..." === conversational tool)
NOT ONCE was I expressing any opinion of mine other than a subtly implied one: that what Vogue was had NOTHING to do with how creative they were.
I am IN SUPPORT of equal rights for all, and that includes Vogue (regardless of where we disagree). All these claims that I have been sexist is harassing to ME. Subsequent bans and extensions, further PMs and threads from other members, being tracked down in-game and trolled by Lucifer under alias = all examples of how I'm being harassed. Now, you say yourself (in reference to me) that it's not right to condemn someone for the answers they were pressed to give. (refer to the first part of my PM reply - this also means that any and all subsequent conversations about "me being sexist" was provoked. By your own logic I should not be condemned, NOR harassed continuously, for said responses. Neither is it fair for Lucifer to be doing so, so as to find a reason to ban me (I'll explain again since you seem to have ignored my other PM)

2) I agree with you. And yes, suspecting me of being the spammer was uncalled for (so was the resulting ban extension - not rescinded)...
What is the problem I have with this then? Lucifer's denial.
I'm sure you can check the administrative logs and see who it was that extended my ban; although he claims that he wasn't the one to do it, that only means that he ALLOWED someone access to his account (and ability).
If you don't think he is denying anything, please follow this link:

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23921&start=45#p289483
(ran out of URLs in PM)


The rest:
"Not that any amout of bad behavior would be an excuse for harassment, mind you." - refer to how I wasn't harassing Vogue (for their bad behavior, as would be implied by your statement) - Given you believe that there's not excuse, then why am I being harassed (intimidation by mods, pressure from mods and users) to "just accept" that I'm a "sexist pig"? That being said, EVEN IF I WAS being sexist, you are supposed to stop the harassment done towards me.

"When one of us feels unable to handle a particular situation, he'll call in the others to take over." - I don't doubt that something like this was already in place. What worries me is (given that Lucifer has made far too many assumptions about me) Lucifer won't ever feel that he won't be able to handle something.
His pride is blatant.

" Durf says he hasn't seen his warning and we have to take that seriosuly." - So where is the apology from Lucifer for unjustly banning me without sufficient warning?
"[ a PM warning ] that can also be missed in the heat of a discussion" - I was in the middle of writing a long post, haven't refreshed the page in a long time, that being said, if there was something to warn me about, I should have gotten a warning ONLY, not a warning and a ban (both in the time I was typing a resonse). Regardless of the ban following way too soon after the supposed "warning", I 'preview' my reply before submitting. And even if I didn't, I should have been able to reply to the warning itself. How is it possible for me to receive a warning, then get a ban without any actual interaction? What is the reason for my ban after the warning was given? WHAT SPECIFICALLY did I do to earn the ban (assuming I saw the warning)?
"Of course, it has to be noted that not every offence entitles one to a warning before getting banned. Some things require swift action to avoid harm, some are just too crass." - this I agree with. Although this doesn't mean that even you moderators / admins can be MISTAKEN occasionally. Unless you claim to be absolutely perfect in your judgments...do you? "Swift action" shouldn't justify Lucifer's actions, especially considering that there was no need for "swift action". Telling me "hey, see this? ____. That is wrong. Why? This reason: ___" would have been MORE THAN ENOUGH warning in this case. Though I suppose that would be me telling you how to do your job(s). Unless you disagree with that approach for warning someone who is being "sexist"...



I'd also like to point out that the initial ban was given the reason "being a sexist ass". Not at all for "harassment". Furthermore, no warnings were given for harassing behavior (as there was none). This is about me being accused of being a sexist. So why is it all of a sudden about me being harassing? If it IS about me harassing Vogue, then how is the initial ban justified? ("being a sexist ass" doesn't have to be harassing anyone)


I urge you to either re-read that other PM I sent you (the one you didn't reply to) and/or consider that Vogue is manipulating Lucifer's sensitivities merely because Vogue dislikes that I was one of the more prominent voices AGAINST their appeal for a ladle ban (which again, had nothing to do with what Vogue is. It had only to do with the content they posted in that thread - their appeal itself)
Even considering this to be true for a SECOND should grant you some insight into what's going on here. (Given that Lucifer has displayed an inability to remain calm and think clearly, nearly all of his actions were out of anger - this doesn't mean I disagree with him, it just means that I think he was mistaken)

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23864&p=289082#p289082
^ example of his inability to moderate.
I'd also like to know how saying he would murder us if he could is good for a moderator to say. How is that not harassment? How is that the right thing to do?

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23864&p=289051#p289051
^ example of how he treats me differently for being myself. This is plain prejudice and HATE. What I say shouldn't be perceived as any more or less valuable than what Vogue says. Yet Lucifer thinks so...and why? For my history of being able to reason things in a way that makes sense to others? MY GOD...How is that a bad thing all of a sudden?

Lastly:

Code: Select all

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=23849&p=288887&hilit=has+the+a+right+to+an+appeal#p288887
^ Lucifer believes I have the right to appeal any and all bans ... unless I'm being treated differently for some reason. Given that Lucifer believes it's wrong for Vogue to break the rules, and yet still has the right to an appeal, he shouldn't be acting so hostile towards my appeal for my ban (regardless if I broke rules or not)

<snipped to be shorter>

I understand that much of this was already "agreed upon", however I don't understand how any of this can be agreed upon without the input of the person in question. Please take all of what I'm saying seriously, as I genuinely believe that I was not being sexist nor was I being harassing. Nor do I believe, even if I was both said things, that it constituted a ban.
Throwing reasons on top like "he was excessively PMing Vogue" to justify "harassment" is already wrong in itself since my responses were instigated by Vogue. So as of yet, there is no proof that I was either sexist, or harassing. And there won't be any for you to find. I'm confident that I'm innocent and I find that because I'm even required to have to constantly explain this shows the MAJOR faults in the current staff. What I'm presenting is reasonable, and evident. Yet nothing of the same can be shown for the opposing case. (they are based on false assumptions, all of which stem from the "post that started it all" - earlier in the PM it's linked)
So although much was "agreed upon", by Lucifer's own beliefs, I have the right to have a voice in this matter.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you don't want my replies to be long, don't argue over stupid things, don't make assumptions about me or what words mean (a dictionary isn't a scarce resource - use it), and more importantly... don't avoid the actual issue at hand.
Lucifer was out of line and I want to discuss that with you to make sure it doesn't happen again - if you don't think it was out of line, then you are just as bad (considering you don't care to hear any explanations or see any real evidence) and I'm here to clear that up.
I'd like to get this resolved.. Please take this seriously since a corrupt administration is a serious issue.

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Z-Man wrote:Yes, I am replying only to what I want to, which is very little. Deal with it.
Durf wrote:
Z-Man wrote:No, stupid kid, that's not your mother, mothers need to be women and women don't have penises
You are making assumptions about me; which happens to be insulting.
No, that was not meant to be taken literally. Answer me: Is the person in question the child's mother?


Durf wrote:Why are you avoiding responding to certain things? Is you position in the matter so weak that it cannot withstand the slightest debate?
I specifically ask for you not to avoid the issue at hand (which is moderator abuse).

So how does your question relate? What will it prove?
Let's find out, and then I'd like for you to be a respectable person and actually have the decency to reply to a real concern I'm bringing up.

Furthermore, if it wasn't meant to be taken literally, why didn't you make some kind of effort to differentiate that as sarcastic? Are you too proud to apologize for making derogatory statements? Would explain why you're avoiding the discussion..

The answer to the question you asked:
"Is the person in question the child's mother?" - There is actually not enough information to come to a valid conclusion to that answer (rather any answer would be some form of sexism / transphobia).
To be specific, it depends highly on what SEX the person is, as the term derives from female (referring to sex not gender). On the other hand, the verb "mother" (as in to mother a child) would be perfectly acceptable regardless of sex/gender/transgender.
So you kind of asked a loaded question since you didn't actually provide enough information.
To be more specific, greater detail on the progress of "transformation" would clear up any confusions on the semantics of which word would be appropriate to use.
That being said, I remind you that a male (father) can mother a child. (verb tense)


In conclusion: If you're looking for a yes/no response, you didn't provide enough information. For an open ended response: a simple term like "trans parent" (transgender parent, not "see-through") would suffice, instead of "mother".


Now what exactly did this prove for you?

Furthermore, I'd like for you to actually address the issue I PM'd you in the first place for....moderator abuse. Why do you think things like #forktron exist? You can't seem to be reasoned with (which is why people refer to you and Lucifer as tyrants...are you okay with that?)
Be reasonable, discuss Lucifer's moderator abuse please.

Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Why are you avoiding responding to certain things? Is you position in the matter so weak that it cannot withstand the slightest debate?
No. I do not have the time to endlessly debate with you. The PM you wanted me to reply to every single bit of is two pages long. My reply won't be much shorter. Your reply to my reply (let's not kid ourselves, there would be one) would be eight pages.
All I wanted to say about the issue, I said publicly.

Durf wrote:
Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Why are you avoiding responding to certain things? Is you position in the matter so weak that it cannot withstand the slightest debate?
No. I do not have the time to endlessly debate with you. The PM you wanted me to reply to every single bit of is two pages long. My reply won't be much shorter. Your reply to my reply (let's not kid ourselves, there would be one) would be eight pages.
All I wanted to say about the issue, I said publicly.
This is another reason why people call you a tyrant ^ You get to have your say while you disallow others (in particular, the person in question) their say.

Also the PM I wanted you to reply to, I still want you to reply to. You can argue that you have no time for it which only serves to show how you avoid everything that would prove your hypocrisy. You disgrace yourself.

Lastly, you made a public claim that the ban was justified. No it wasn't. Not by a long shot. Stop defending the mistakes made by Lucifer. I can understand that you may be buddies, but actions like this will ruin this community. Take responsibility, even if you have to take it for him.
The ban was unjust, I provided proof and you refuse to discuss it on the basis that it's a "waste of time"...get off your high horse and do your job. If you can't get someone else to do it for you; you're clearly unqualified.
If you won't spend the time to resolve a dispute which was said that I have a right to, you prove how you are unfit to hold any power over anyone else (sorry but just because you may have been involved with development, doesn't mean you know a thing about being a leader / administrator / moderator / doing your job)

*end of this particular PM chain*
*new one beginning shortly..*

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Durf wrote:Subject: Moderator Abuse
Z-Man wrote:Right. Durf. Is he sexist? Somewhat, maybe.
Does he think that women belong into the kitchen, taking care of the kids? That men ought to have the job of getting income to support the family? That women ought to be obedient to their men? No, absolutely not.

Does he use sexist/misogynistic language? Yes. But here's the thing. He does not understand how language works for the rest of us. It completely baffles him. It's alien. I'm willing to think that he simply does not realize what he is saying.

He does seem to think that there is, from birth, a difference between male and female humans. Well, to some extent he is undeniably right.
What is unclear to me, and I'm not going back to read all his posts in chronological order, oh no, is how much he thinks that matters. If he thinks this natural difference matters more than the social differences we built up ourselves, yep, sexist. If not, then not.
Show me where I make the assumption that the "natural difference" matters more. Stop being prejudice and go read my posts again. Reread the linked evidence.

Just because I am forced to talk about the inherent meanings of the words I chose to use (as opposed to what you interpreted), doesn't mean I am declaring that one view matters more than the other (god that's ignorant. smfh)

I spoke an incredible amount in regards to physical sex as opposed to gender specifically because of the preconceptions that "sex" doesn't seem to matter at all (which you can admit is prevalent in the transgender community - it's a common misconception).
I have to repeat myself: "sexist/misogynistic language" was provoked by others and specifically interpreted out of context.
Consider this:

Saying something like "only males are allowed to be assigned to submarine positions in the military" can be considered sexist; but there are exceptions to every rule.
There is an undeniable fact about females that make males more apt for the position: the ability to carry a fetus (which has more to do with the health and safety of the unborn child, rather than field performance)...and there's plenty of other examples too. But if you want to argue with nature, you won't win.


Not once have I ever said that gender identity wasn't any more or less or even as important as physical sex. I haven't stated my opinions on that. I was only ever using dictionary defined words to explain what I meant to those asking me to elaborate...I urge you to read the linked evidence again and "the post that started it all" (link in the "moderator abuse" PM I sent you).


So I don't appreciate you declaring:
Does he use sexist/misogynistic language? Yes. But here's the thing. He does not understand how language works for the rest of us. It completely baffles him. It's alien. I'm willing to think that he simply does not realize what he is saying.
as if you even know. I chose my words to avoid that and any misogynistic meanings you infer are your own fault.
But do not use your status to post in a locked thread to publicly deface me.
You shame yourself.



Oh and to be clear:
Well, to some extent he is undeniably right.
What do you think XX and XY mean? Do you think we can rewrite DNA yet? No transformation is a "full" transformation until you can reverse what was done at conception.
"...to some extent..."...do you even know what you're arguing anymore?


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Show me where I make the assumption that the "natural difference" matters more.
I don't say that you do.
Durf wrote:I chose my words to avoid that and any misogynistic meanings you infer are your own fault.
You choose your words poorly.



Durf wrote:
Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Show me where I make the assumption that the "natural difference" matters more.
I don't say that you do.
^ I was challenging it. Those with an optimistic outlook on the people around them, would give benefit of the doubt. It wouldn't be a question. You have to question my beliefs in order to justify a ban that has already passed (when it shouldn't matter, I am free to have any opinion I want...about anything).
What I was doing was challenging your thought process. Like as if proving that I did (hypothetically) consider physical differences to account for 100% of identity and behavioral psychology would have made any difference! The ban would still be uncalled for, for MORE THAN ONE reason (lack of sufficient warning, no transgression committed).
I get that you don't say that...I'm trying to get you to catch up with what the rest of the community sees (you're just full of it - grasping at straws to try to justify an unjust ban)
Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:I chose my words to avoid that and any misogynistic meanings you infer are your own fault.
You choose your words poorly.
That's a matter of opinion. Which I cannot be banned for (not justly anyway).
Tell me, is this right?
"this isn't a democracy, whether they're right or not the mods win, enjoy your ban"
And if this is the way things work around here, why isn't that made more clear for all to see?
Why isn't it a requirement for every user to grovel before the mods?
If this is not the way things are done here, show some integrity please. Honor my dispute.
And my word choice wouldn't matter if it was poor or not. You went out of your way to infer a misogynistic meaning from my words. I tried to make myself clear and you somehow use that to justify the ban... You disgrace yourself (not only as a moderator but as an individual you seem to lack honor)


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:(you're just full of it - grasping at straws to try to justify an unjust ban)
...
That's a matter of opinion. Which I cannot be banned for (not justly anyway).
None of the things you reference there are considered the reason for your ban.
You were the one banned. Not once in forum history has the banned ever considered their ban justified (Lucifer being the lone exception). Any private discussion between you and me about it is utterly pointless. I am not going to convince you.

(about dinobro)
Durf wrote:Answer the question...are you allowing it? Is that breaking the rules?
I already edited at least one of her posts. I am keeping her within limits. Probably not the limits you would want, but hey.



Durf wrote:
Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:(you're just full of it - grasping at straws to try to justify an unjust ban)
...
That's a matter of opinion. Which I cannot be banned for (not justly anyway).
None of the things you reference there are considered the reason for your ban.
You were the one banned. Not once in forum history has the banned ever considered their ban justified (Lucifer being the lone exception). Any private discussion between you and me about it is utterly pointless. I am not going to convince you.
Actually, I'm quite capable of feeling my own ban being "justified". (whether or not you believe that isn't really my problem)
The reason you're talking to me about it is because Lucifer no longer wants to.

Now just because of other people and the pointlessness you attribute to a ban dispute I'm making, doesn't validate your reasoning for ignoring my appeal.

To be perfectly clear: I asked why I'm being banned (without warning!!!)
When told reasons like "Being a sexist ass" and "harassment", I ask for proof as a means to LEARN my fault. I can guarantee that I've been doing this for more years than you have; I corrected many many faults with the words I choose to use. So when someone like Lucifer tries to provide "proof" but utterly fails to actually show any examples of "sexism" or "harassment", then it stands to reason that he wanted me just to "roll over" for his status, and verify for him that he has the capability to exercise power without question or criticism.
THAT, is when I dispute the ban being justified.
(also because no sufficient warning was given)



If you can prove that sufficient warning was given - that would get me to BARELY agree that the ban was justified...but you can't. Your reasoning is based on assumptions that I had enough time to see the warning (which was only ever implied in a public post, never directly given to me >_>)

If you can show where my words have violated the rules WORSE than anyone else's words (in regards to sexism and harassment), then I would agree that my ban was justified (assuming sufficient warning was given in the first place)


Again: just because you think everyone is going to dispute their bans (and maybe they will) doesn't mean you are free from fault.
>_>
Remember that PM where I say "Please take this seriously"?
Please take this seriously...this is a real dispute, not some petty attempt to rebel against authority.

Z-Man wrote:(about dinobro)
Durf wrote:Answer the question...are you allowing it? Is that breaking the rules?
I already edited at least one of her posts. I am keeping her within limits. Probably not the limits you would want, but hey.
My problem with your "limits" is that the problematic posts are continuing.
When I suggest you're showing favoritism, it is because, AFAIK, dinobro has not even gotten a warning, let alone a ban for what I would have been banned for (I can practically guarantee that...don't try to lie to me, you know Lucifer would have).

Also, dinobro has specifically said to me that there's nothing they wish to discuss with me (via PM). So the fact they post at all (keep in mind they aren't developing he topic - they focus their post on ME) just to insult shows hate; nothing but hate...by its definition it is hate.
So yes, the post within itself is being kept within the "limits", but overall you will have more editing to do if action isn't taken (warning / ban).

Correct the misbehavior, like you claim to do with me, instead of just sweeping it under the rug. Or admit that the ban without warning was unjust and that Lucifer should have just edited my posts...
Either way, make up your mind; be consistent; show integrity.

More importantly, if Lucifer does make a mistake; don't blindly support his actions... A mistake is a mistake, and you blindly defending one of his is just as bad as you blindly defending one of your own. I urge you to take my dispute seriously, as I DO NOT want such an injustice to occur again (not to me, not to anyone - that is just unfair)

Need I remind you that there was an extension made to the original ban which was completely unjustified?
You seem to be very quick to believe Lucifer when he says it wasn't him (even though he can't argue with admin logs).
Another example of favoritism. Another example of injustice.

The dispute is real, please don't treat it so frivolously


Z-Man wrote:Oh, right, should have said "Precicely the topic you were going on with, whether nazis are a race, was the one most going in circles that triggered the lock." Confusion is my fault.

There WAS a warning. Yes, we realize you did not see it and could not see it the way you interacted with the forums. We're sorry for that and try to make it better.

As for the harassment, well, that is going to be difficult to explain to you. You said in one of your PMs that you prefer we imagine your posts read in a robotic voice. You maybe think you are always just being perfectly calm and neutral and factual. Well.. it doesn't work. Let's look at one of your PMs to vogue:
Durf wrote:You can make all the assumptions you want.
This sounds hostile and dismissive.
Durf wrote:Honestly I fully expected you to bitch about it.
Hostile and demeaning.
Durf wrote:(you say "no problem" then get super defensive with "you don't know me")
No problem here.
Durf wrote:(leave your personal issues behind when you wanna talk to me.)
This one is even threatening.
Durf wrote:Though in case you missed it, I specifically said:
"I prefer to write or type"
"What did you want to talk about?"
Condescending.
Durf wrote:So I am here ready and willing to talk to you...why you haven't yet is all on you.
There's no reason left for you not to tell me what it is that you wanted to.
Pressing.
Durf wrote:I'm not going to go running after you to prove myself...especially to you of all people.
I made myself clear; talk to me through PMs if you want.
Demeaning.
Durf wrote:Furthermore, how you call what I've been saying "gossip" is demeaning to what these forums are. Frankly, the discussions are anything but idle; at least the posts of everyone but yours have been. So I can see where you misunderstood, but I can assure you that I was quite serious.
No problem here.
Durf wrote:I suggest you re-evaluate your expectations of others.
Far too much of what you say is based on assumptions and that is evident; not only from your PMs, but your posts as well.
You'd do well to think things through before speaking.
Demeaning, insulting.
Durf wrote:If you decide to reply, I expect you to get on with the conversation.
No excuses; get on with it already.
Threatening again.
Durf wrote:I would understand if you decide not to even bother
(happens when trolls realize they screwed themselves over)
And insulting again.
Do not argue about my interpretations; they are what I feel even when I try not to.
And the next PM reads like pure, unfiltered aggression. None of it was called for. You were applying all kinds of pressure to get her into your sex verification program (which, bears repeating, sounded absolutely horribly creepy). I trust that you think you went into the PMs without ill emotion, but that's what comes out at the end. Have you, for example, realized you are insulting me every other sentence? No worries, I take it as my moderator duty to absorb those.
Anyway, bottom line: What you write appears to the rest of us sometimes far worse than what Vogue and Phytotron can produce together.



Durf wrote:You set yourself up for failure:
(please honor my dispute. I'm very serious about this)
Z-Man wrote:Oh, right, should have said "Precicely the topic you were going on with, whether nazis are a race, was the one most going in circles that triggered the lock." Confusion is my fault.
A topic with many sub topics; because the main topic gets locked, that shouldn't mean that all sub-topics get locked. I posted the "are Nazis a race" thread to be educational. It can stand on its own without having to relate to the ladle team name or the related discussion. The topic in itself is discussion for a definition (which has been shown by this community to be confusing and uncertain). There was no valid reason for you to lock the thread, and the most obvious reason to everyone is that you want to avoid any conversation that would prove any arguments you've made (in other threads) to be wrong.
Like I said, I could have posted that last year, or next year, and it wouldn't have gotten locked (at least not for the same reason).
You need to be clear on why a specific thread was locked and which topics should be disallowed to continue. That is, if you don't want people to start new threads with them.
So why was the race definition locked then? Yes, it went in circles. Yes, it was pointless in the other thread to go in those circles. But in a new thread, it was free to progress until resolution (except all the people that "tl;dr" and simply post hate / useless posts). Which, incidentally, would enlighten the community as a whole regarding there prejudice and limit the overall "racism" that has been around on these forums. So again...why was the new thread locked? It's just a definition of a word. (race)


Z-Man wrote:There WAS a warning. Yes, we realize you did not see it and could not see it the way you interacted with the forums. We're sorry for that and try to make it better.
Not good enough. I got banned without warning. This is moderator ABUSE when Lucifer goes out of his way to ban without ensuring that I received and understood proper warning. You're not "sorry" as you don't seem to care in the slightest that a user of your forums was wronged.
Try again. I couldn't care less that you're sorry the warning wasn't received.
You shouldn't be sorry I got banned without seeing the warning; you should be sorry that I got banned in the first place; you should be questioning Lucifer's ability to keep his status because of the extension made to the ban. No sweeping it under the rug; you don't mistreat me.

Z-Man wrote:As for the harassment, well, that is going to be difficult to explain to you. You said in one of your PMs that you prefer we imagine your posts read in a robotic voice. You maybe think you are always just being perfectly calm and neutral and factual. Well.. it doesn't work.
Do not argue about my interpretations; they are what I feel even when I try not to.
Let me be clear about one thing: the level of respect one shows towards another is unrelated to the amount of rules being broken. Nor is it related to the level of harassment. Speaking in a condescending tone is not illegal, it just makes you an ass. That being said, I urge you to check the entire PM history and even the related threads regarding Vogue and myself.
I treat others with the same level of respect they treat me.* That includes you. Remember when I thanked you for alleviating me of the responsibility of respecting your authority? That was when you lost any deserving respect you previously got from me. (note, you still have the respect any individual deserves, which is why I even told you when you lost it. Fair warning.)
Likewise, Vogue did as well; you cannot ban me for that (which in itself any perceived misbehavior on my part was provoked - you still try to blame me for something I didn't do).

So yes, I'm going to argue your interpretations because, no you didn't try "not to" (didn't try to read my messages as neutral; the words for what they were).
Which should become evident as I go through these:


Z-Man wrote: Let's look at one of your PMs to vogue:
Durf wrote:You can make all the assumptions you want.
This sounds hostile and dismissive.
It isn't hostile in the slightest. Stop grasping at straws. It IS dismissive, but that isn't harassment. That is the recognition that everyone has the freedom to perceive things how they want - while implying that that meaning needn't enforce itself onto others (example, I can think Lucifer's forum avater is depicting himself in black face, very offensive...that meaning doesn't have to go out of its way to interfere with how he chooses to represent himself)


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Honestly I fully expected you to bitch about it.
Hostile and demeaning.
As I said, I speak to others in the same level of respect they give to me. That being said, read what Vogue said to me the PM before:
Vogue wrote:I see you're not man enough to speak to the person you're gossiping about. No problem, I expected no less.
Which is, as you describe, hostile and demeaning. Now either you're showing favoritism by only punishing me for what is equally both of our "faults" (call it a flame war if you want, that isn't how I speak to everyone*), or Vogue needs to be banned as well. Explain yourself.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:(you say "no problem" then get super defensive with "you don't know me")
No problem here.
indeed


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:(leave your personal issues behind when you wanna talk to me.)
This one is even threatening.
You are going out of your way to perceive this as a threat. It is a (demand technically) statement which basically asks for less prejudice in the conversation. If you check the actual PM, this line is directly after the previous line you quoted. It is in reference to Vogue being unable to keep their cool and only able to react defensively (like as if I was pressuring them to do anything - I wasn't; even trying to help them see that). So no, explain to me how this is threatening. Explain how a robot can threaten you with this.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Though in case you missed it, I specifically said:
"I prefer to write or type"
"What did you want to talk about?"
Condescending.
Even if this was condescending, it is not harassment and not ban worthy. But because you're just looking for reasons to validate an unjust ban, let's deal with this.. "In case you missed it" shouldn't be perceived as condescending because I GENUINELY was offering knowledge that might have gone missed/neglected (let's be honest, how many people just say "tl;dr"...some things get missed). So no, this was not condescending at all - you limit yourself in your perception of others; like I say to many people, "not everyone is like you" (just because you might have a limited capacity to speak that sequence of words in a condescending way, does not mean that anyone else has those same limitations. Precisely the reason why you should interpret what I say as if a robot was saying them. The words mean what they mean, and humans read between the lines for secondary/alternate meanings. That is a human fault I specifically tried to get you to avoid because of fallacies like these being made). This was a genuine reminder as to why a voice conversation over TeamSpeak was not a sufficient option for us to have our discussion.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:So I am here ready and willing to talk to you...why you haven't yet is all on you.
There's no reason left for you not to tell me what it is that you wanted to.
Pressing.
That can seem pressing out of context, I agree. In context:
Vogue wrote:I see you're not man enough to speak to the person you're gossiping about. No problem, I expected no less.
Durf wrote:... Though in case you missed it, I specifically said:
"I prefer to write or type"
"What did you want to talk about?"
So I am here ready and willing to talk to you...why you haven't yet is all on you.
There's no reason left for you not to tell me what it is that you wanted to. ...
Vogue wrote:I'm not reading all that shit. Are you still too scared to get on TS? Having ass burgers isn't an excuse unless you never leave your house to speak to people.
How does Vogue even know I'm pressuring them to do anything if they didn't read my PM? Do you not see the pressuring from Vogue to get me on TS? How is my response to what they say considered pressuring? I'm not going out of my way to even talk to Vogue; all of this was responding to Vogue's messages. Please Z-Man, quit showing favoritism. Suspicion of relation to the moderators is already prevalent (Like as if Vogue and dinobro are somehow related to Lucifer and yourself). This was a genuine reminder that any topic of discussion Vogue wanted to have was perfectly capable of taking place via PMs; I was showing my willingness to have our conversation over a compromising medium (PMs). "There's no reason" for TS to be required.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:I'm not going to go running after you to prove myself...especially to you of all people.
I made myself clear; talk to me through PMs if you want.
Demeaning.
I'll go easy on you for this one: So what?* Need I remind you what it was in response to?
Vogue wrote:I see you're not man enough to speak to the person you're gossiping about. No problem, I expected no less.
Either you're showing favoritism, or you will soon ban Vogue for the same reasons. You have yet to justify the reason I was ever banned.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Furthermore, how you call what I've been saying "gossip" is demeaning to what these forums are. Frankly, the discussions are anything but idle; at least the posts of everyone but yours have been. So I can see where you misunderstood, but I can assure you that I was quite serious.
No problem here.
Indeed.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:I suggest you re-evaluate your expectations of others.
Far too much of what you say is based on assumptions and that is evident; not only from your PMs, but your posts as well.
You'd do well to think things through before speaking.
Demeaning, insulting.
At worst it is demeaning, but it doesn't have to be. You're going out of your way to see that. It is not insulting in the slightest (being offended that I'm being condescending only makes me an ass, not actually insulting the person, their name, their family, their intelligence, or anything really). To be clear: it was an honest suggestion. If you'd like to investigate this suggestion, it may require you to read the full PM history (posted somewhere I think). It is not demeaning to say that there is evidence to prove how Vogue has been making assumptions, nor is it insulting. Saying "you'd do well..." can be condescending, but from a robot voice, it is genuine advice.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:If you decide to reply, I expect you to get on with the conversation.
No excuses; get on with it already.
Threatening again.
How is this a threat? I "made myself clear" on the previous PM, Vogue still wasn't discussing the topic (which was the entire purpose of us conversing in the first place), and this is stating that I've made my appeal to reason, I set the expectation that Vogue would (and should) make a decent effort towards a real conversation that isn't defensive or trying to antagonize. In no way was Vogue obligated or forced or extorted or threatened to do anything. Moreover, what would I do? "Or else" what? Where is the threat? This was just stating my expectations given that I made a valid effort towards producing a conversation that would resolve our differences. Explain where the threat was made please.


Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:I would understand if you decide not to even bother
(happens when trolls realize they screwed themselves over)
And insulting again.
This was after Vogue made a public declaration that they were a "troll". Nothing insulting here. Unless you consider suggesting that someone "screwed themselves over" to be an insult? Please...Stop grasping at straws. Saying "you screwed yourself over" isn't an insult...especially since I can prove it actually happened (action Vogue takes, talk Vogue makes as if action never took place).


Z-Man wrote:And the next PM reads like pure, unfiltered aggression. None of it was called for. You were applying all kinds of pressure to get her into your sex verification program (which, bears repeating, sounded absolutely horribly creepy). I trust that you think you went into the PMs without ill emotion, but that's what comes out at the end. Have you, for example, realized you are insulting me every other sentence? No worries, I take it as my moderator duty to absorb those.
Anyway, bottom line: What you write appears to the rest of us sometimes far worse than what Vogue and Phytotron can produce together.
This is Vogue's PM before the one of mine you're referring to:
Vogue wrote:I'm not reading all that shit. Are you still too scared to get on TS? Having ass burgers isn't an excuse unless you never leave your house to speak to people.

PS: You're the one who asked for proof whether I'm a girl or not, and now you're backing down.. typical.
Let's analyze my PM:
Durf wrote:You're the one that refuses to read my PM.
Just read it.
(I assume you did but realized that it's not what you wanted to hear to you ignored it)

I'm not backing down, like I said in the PM you didn't read, I'm here waiting to discuss what it was that you wanted to discuss.
Tell me about yourself.

Also I don't go out to talk to people. Sucks to be you for assuming I was "normal". So your argument for teamspeak is invalid.

As for proof, when you're actually ready to give it, I will give you instructions.
(teamspeak isn't sufficient enough to prove your sex)


Deal with it.
If you refuse to comply with this compromise, I will take it as you backing down because you have something to hide.
Read my previous PM and deal with it.


I'm getting bored of talking to you as you're just getting repetitively stubborn.
Gibbering won't get you anywhere, and it certainly won't prove anything.

I'm sorry that you bit off more than you can chew when you decided to challenge me. However, I do not pity you.

Last time I'm going to give you the respect and chance you deserve to prove yourself (I put in more than enough effort to allow you to prove yourself).
Try again.
Let's start with what you call "pure, unfiltered aggression". Everything, except the "Deal with it" paragraph, can't be considered to be aggressive. Considering that it is aggression in an attempt to get the conversation into more productive territory, I don't see how this is harassing (Vogue wanted to talk to me in the first place). Anyone does this when people avoid the topic being discussed, typically in a more vulgar fashion than I would.
Now about "You were applying all kinds of pressure to get her into your sex verification program (which, bears repeating, sounded absolutely horribly creepy).", no...no I wasn't. Need I remind you that Vogue was the one looking to prove themselves? You cannot consider me saying "TS isn't sufficient enough, but there are sufficient methods.." as me pressuring Vogue to partake in such methods. Really, Vogue was under the assumption that I even cared what gender they are. And you are too. I pointed you to evidence specifically to show you how this talk of "proof of gender" came up. I NEVER pressured anyone into proving their gender.
Also, " Have you, for example, realized you are insulting me every other sentence?". Of course*. Ever consider that it was intentional? I made myself clear when you lost the privilege to be spoken to like you were a good moderator (not a badmin / tyrant). Respect is a two-way street; you have shown me much disrespect, and you feel entitled to respect still? Get off your high horse.
Lastly: " bottom line: What you write appears to the rest of us sometimes far worse than what Vogue and Phytotron can produce together.". Vogue and Phytotron shouldn't have anything to do with the justification of my ban(s). Are you excusing their actions? Insults are insults, so where is the line drawn? Or is it just favoritism? There is a HUGE difference between insults based on prejudice and negative stereotypes, and insults based on empirical evidence such as one's inability to have a civil conversation.
To put it another way, people have said that I have been a voice of reason, that I have brought insight into certain topics. Such phrases raise credibility for almost anything I have to say afterwards. Which would make an insult SEEM MORE TRUE than one based on prejudice and hate (no valid basis). Regardless if the statement is actually true or not, that is the appearance. So when you say that what I've done can appear far worse than what Vogue and Phytotron can produce together, you are only complimenting my ability to articulate my thoughts into real sentences and on a real basis. I couldn't care less that you see my words in a bad light, you'd be arguing with a dictionary (gf).
Like I asked...where is the line? Are users allowed to insult one another based on negative stereotypes? Or are users disallowed from giving "flak" (as you'd call it)? Quit showing favoritism and treat your users fairly.



1) you have yet to justify the action of a ban being taken place with proper warning received. Even if I was guilty, no transgression took place between the "warning" and the ban. Why is Lucifer allowed to warn+ban in one action? How is that fair? How does that justify the ban ever taking place?
2) you have yet to justify "Being a sexist ass" as the reason for my ban. So far all you can say is I've been harassing (which was not the listed reason).
3) you have yet to justify "harassment" as a means of explaining "being a sexist ass" (the reason listed was "Being a sexist ass" not "harassment", so why are you bringing up harassment? Grasping at straws to defend the actions of a badmin, that's why)
4) you have yet to prove that I was harassing in the first place, and if I was, you must also ban the other users who have harassed me in order not to show favoritism (Vogue, dinobro, Phytotron). Either you made a mistake with me, or with them; can't bend the rules to save your honor. Quite the opposite.
5) You have yet to make a real apology for the lack of proper moderation (you said sorry that I didn't see the warning, when you should be sorry that I was banned without proper warning). Don't moderators have to follow a procedure in order to be fair to all users?

Quit showing favoritism and bias. Quit trying to assert your authority over me by demanding that I don't argue any of the points you make (like as if you are never mistaken about anything); if you are utterly wrong, I will be there to point it out. Quit looking for excuses to justify mistakes made by "the administration", you're not always right no matter how much you would like that (either literally or just in appearance). Quit trying to excuse the transgressions of others while condemning me for the same reasons (without being able to prove that I even did anything wrong, this just looks even worse for you). Quit trying to sweep things under the rug, and address everything that I say; certain issues will only come up again if left unresolved now.

More importantly, quit being a cynic. I asked you to read what I say as if it was from a robot, and you couldn't do that. You held onto your perception that I was out to get Vogue, rather than a fool who was stupid enough to try to honor our discussion (I learned this after the multiple chances I gave Vogue to do what they said they would and having them back down every time). Also, you cannot blame me for conversation that was instigated by Vogue. If they didn't want to hear my answer, why ask the question in the first place? (to challenge me; see if I actually mean what I say; see if it has a basis in reality...can't blame me for not meeting their expectations: "that I was full of it")

I now also wish to dispute why others have not been banned for the reasons you claim that I was banned for. This is clear favoritism.
Furthermore, what you call "insults" from me are founded from real posts people have made using real words. My "insults" might not be what people want to hear, but they are truths (which is why they can hurt more). Now the others have been PROVEN to have no basis in anything real; just negative stereotypes meant to antagonize me (which fails because they are based on prejudice, no harm comes to me because what they say simply isn't truth; but it is still defacing / besmirching).

You sir, have a lot of explaining to do.

<edit>
This is an example of the recent posts directed towards me. But this one is from me, directed towards you...to give you some perspective of he multiple posts that are just there to antagonize.
Incidentally, I would actually say this if I suspected that you knew you were mistaken and just acting out of hate:
sorry.gif
Consider what that does to you, to this conversation, and how it demeans everything you attempt to discuss. Consider how this isn't even an insult (though it is sarcastic), while other GIFs posted are directly name-calling.
*Here's that gif attachment for all to see*




Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:You set yourself up for failure:
(please honor my dispute. I'm very serious about this)
I'm not disputing with you. I was explaining. By treating it as a dispute, you set yourself up for failure to understand.
You put my honesty in doubt. I did not grasp at straws. I really went in neutral. I truly wrote the emotions I felt when reading your PM. You dismissed that. I'm sorry, I see no further basis for communication with you.

One last try: You are right, Liz' previous PM can be read as demeaning. But also as teasing. Either way, your response was not proportionate. This would have been a good point for you to simply let it go, but you chose to press on. That was the core of your mistake.



Durf wrote:First, why don't I have the freedom to dispute the ban?
It was unjust and you haven't been able to show how it was just.
Unless you don't care in the slightest about the view point of your users, then you should be open to the possibility that I was being mistreated by Lucifer. If you don't care, how are you not a badmin?
Did you already forget the large text saying "the dispute is real. Please don't treat it so frivolously."? You had your chance to set the expectations that this wasn't a dispute; you didn't say anything then. In fact, you tried to prove how I was being "harassing" (all you did was strengthen my argument that you moderators show favoritism - the more you fight against something that isn't there, the more you hurt yourself).
There were 5 points in that PM. I tried to make justifying your (and Lucifer's) actions easier by GIVING you 5 things you could directly answer to make me agree that the ban(s) were justified.
Have you noticed how you are completely avoiding the things that would prove you wrong? You only ever treat it like a dispute if you think you can prove yourself right (becoming very obvious now). Either learn from your mistakes, or just admit that you show favoritism and treat your users unfairly because of personal preference.

Second, why doesn't Vogue have the same responsibility? If ever they felt that they were being pressured into proving themselves, wouldn't that be the same reasons to "just let it go"; to just "ignore"?
How is it my mistake when both parties would have made this "mistake"?
This is favoritism. You set an unfair expectation for me; very biased.


You have no honor left, what are you defending? Pride based on what?
If you have a conscience, that will do more harm to your ego than I ever could.
Likewise, it can also help it tremendously.
You can call it condescending all you want; this is sound advice from someone that can actually help. Consider the choices you are making and if you're okay with them; consider those same choices in the light I'm presenting them to you. If I was wronged, treated unfairly, and further mistreatment by your own justifications, would you be okay with that? You're okay being that type of person?



Z-Man wrote:
Durf wrote:Unless you don't care in the slightest about the view point of your users,
I care very little about the opinions of the users who receive a ban or request a ban for someone else. Goes with the job. They ALWAYS complain, always say the other person was just as much at fault, that they were only responding in kind. And they probably believe that, and I don't blame them. But the fact of the matter is that even if you think you are responding in kind, you are most likely escalating the issue. And so were you.

When I do not reply to something that does not mean I agree to anything.

I have been a lot more patient in our exchange than usual, but it ends here. I will neither read nor write further messages on the topic.


*end of PM chain*
*one more (I think) coming up..*

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

Z-Man wrote:http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 09#p290009
Contains a moderator order for you.



Durf wrote:I hope you realize how this makes you look :)

Also I'd like to point out that I don't believe there is any reason for me not to post it.
There is no personal information that I would be revealing that you haven't revealed already.
Furthermore, there isn't anything you had to "endure" other than my disposition when talking to you; given your stubborn and hypocritical attitude (not to mention overall pompousness) I don't think anyone would blame me.

Which leaves only your disgraceful hypocrisy to be ashamed of; I can understand that given your position. You were blatantly mistreating me and showing favoritism.
Why do you think I even bothered to type "Shall I post some PM history?"? It was to give a washed out try-hard a chance to prove their character on their own...and you did.

I suggest you don't start what you can't finish.

Which also means that you will have to explain to me the precise reasons why this isn't just you abusing your moderator powers again. I don't see how posting them would be a problem other than it would discredit you publicly (exposing your hypocrisy).
I'm not going to respect your abuse of authority.

Note, that doesn't mean that I'm not open to genuine reasoning; but in light of the current circumstances, you can understand how this makes you look...yes?
(like a badmin abusing power to cover up incriminating evidence - the Nazis did that yknow; lots of covering up)



Z-Man wrote: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, your PMs contain material that would, if posted publicly and directed against anyone but me, result in warnings or bans. Most of it is continuing the discussion from locked threads. So please, don't be an idiot.



Durf wrote:My public response (<-- click, scroll down, my response to you is after the others)

My private response (in addition to my public response):
Also, when will you realize that you've made an ass of yourself?
Fighting me over this kind of stuff will only make you more of an ass.
Your posts are slowly beginning to support my arguments whether you want them to or not; you're only proving yourself to be an unreasonable person.
If you stopped grasping at straws, you'd at least have more credibility.
Not that it would help your chances in justifying your actions, but at least you wouldn't look as bad as you do now.

As I understand it, there isn't a valid reason not to post the PM history; you simply don't want your shame to be public. Who's fault is it in the first place? Yours. You chose your words, you made your decisions (whether or not they were thought out beforehand; not my problem).

Furthermore, a ban shouldn't be a legitimate punishment (say, if I were to post the PM history right now) since you have full capability of deleting the post (or editing). Posting the PM history would be the first offense (for the reasons you gave - now proven to be invalid, unless you can prove how they aren't?), so why are you skipping straight to ban? Or that's right, your personal feelings are involved.

You cannot stop truth - at most you can only delay it.
Also, make sure you're not the one being an idiot before calling someone else one - it's just too ironic to even laugh at.



Z-Man wrote:Don't be so sure your interpretation of the warning/ban escalation is correct.
1. Crass violations allow direct bans.
2. You have a warning for continuing a locked thread. That counts.




Durf wrote:1) nothing crass about it
2) it is not continuing any locked threads.

Next time actually READ my response(s).

As it stands there is no reason why I am not allowed to post it.
Banning me if I do post it will only prove you're a badmin to everyone on here.

Deal with it.
In other words, "Don't be so sure" you even have valid reason to warn me.



*end of this particular PM chain*

(sufficed to say that I left a few things out - OUTSIDE of the scope that Z-Man is enforcing - which will be posted after 96 hours - assuming we are having a nice compromise. Things like further proof of his unreasonable behavior on different dates, etc..)

*Searching for anything else that needs to be added in...one moment*

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

*those are all the PMs relating to the dispute and Z-Man's unreasonable behavior - the PM history that was talked about so much*

*END OF PM HISTORY*

User avatar
orion
Match Winner
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: The PM History

Post by orion »

9/10 would pay for a 120 characters resume
Image

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

Re: The PM History

Post by Durf »

If you're suggesting that you want some kind of summary, it is exactly what the claims are:
Z-Man was unreasonable and incapable (as moderator) to go through a dispute (one he took the responsibility for).
That is the claim, that is the summary of the entire PM history.
Z-Man claims he was not being unreasonable.

The PMs are there for you to see for yourselves which is the case.

I'm not sure it's possible to summarize that any better without actually discussing the topic more.
(speaking of which I am not and will not discuss this topic in any means of progression for 96 hours as a means of appealing to the compromise)
(this is only meant to be an informative post to try to maintain the structure of the compromise - as in, a summary given within the 96 hour time frame that differs from the claims already made by people would be in violation of that compromise - making it open season / all bets are off.)
Not sure what else you want, but this is it.

Locked