Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)

[Z-Man]

Yep, ABUSING my PRIVILEGE to post to a locked thread again. Oh, the ARROGANCE!

Yes, we did, in the original ban thread. Similar analogies like you brought up to his threat were put forward, you said nothing fundamentally new. I hate repeating myself

Link, please.

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 39#p292339 and thereabouts.

No, I don't have to prove the threat was unjustified. You have not shown it was justified. A priory, a threat is the opposite. You just gave examples of other threats that would be justified, disguised as analogies, neither matching what was actually going on. Reverse strawmen, if you will. You simply failed to give us anything of substance to invalidate.
Only under very narrow circumstances, a threat can be justified:
1. The one issuing the threat is actually authorized to do so in the relevant realm. Policemen, teachers, judges or forum moderators have such authority. Durf did not have anything like it.
2. The threatened action itself would be just. You can threaten me to sue me or inform some authority of my behaviour, for example, and I won't care. You can threaten me to drink a glass of water, go right ahead. But hacking a forum is not just, so threatening to do so is not, either.
2a) Since it was brought up, a special case where normally unjust actions become just is self defence or defence of innocents. Self defence was already debunked. Defence of innocents is immediately invalidated; he specifically threatened to hack only if he himself was, according to his judgement, unjustly moderated. No mention of others.

I was going to post this in the thread, but it was locked right as I was about to do it.

Sucks for you. It was announced well ahead. Warning for you (the two posts above mine were originally in a new thread, in case you were wondering).

Take note of how Zman said that he would lock this thread, but gave no actual reason for doing so

I did give a reason. You just did not like it.

Take note of how no moderator took action against purposeful derailment of a thread, when that thread has to do with Durf

For this thread to even be allowed to exist, I needed to vastly liberalize the moderation threshold. It was from the start a continuation of an already locked thread. That goes for everyone and everything, then. You can't demand leeway to post what you like and then demand that others be moderated stricter than you.

Take note of the hypocrisy.

Yes, do that. Apparently, we were supposed to read over Durf's spam and derailments, but it's too much to ask to ignore a couple of cat pictures.

In summary, the only new thing you added to the previous discussion is that you admit Durf was threatening us. Thanks! I also thank you for keeping it mostly civil (apart from the accusations against the mods, of course). Really, no sarcasm there. But we don't have to give you a platform for this continued nonsense that leads nowhere.