Responses to posts made on Page 5:
Venijn wrote:I didn't mention Zman. He posted what you wrote. I'm capable of having my own opinion (does that shock you?) I believe it is a threat, and you can dress it up as you like, clearly it is.
I won't reply anymore, because you interpret things in a skewed manner to fit your response. My analogy implies I felt you had wronged me.
Never said you did. I was pointing out in a manner similar to what you did, that just because Z-Man thought it was an excuse, doesn't make it one. Just like how it's not just because I think it isn't that makes it not one. That's where evidence and proof have precedence over anyone's opinion.
You analogy didn't even serve to imply that you felt I had wronged you. If you had a gun and suggested that you might use it on me, that in itself can be interpreted as a threat - but I'm not dumb enough so as to not ask why. And even so, it's more like saying that you have a loaded gun, and should you be forced to defend yourself, that is an option available for you to do so with. No matter the context, that is not a threat you can take to court. This is specifically why Z-Man is just being unreasonable; this is why you have just bought into his propaganda, and why I even bothered to show the relation of Z-Man's opinion in wording you should have recognised. Perhaps you don't see this as a discussion to realize, but I'm here to talk about things; this isn't a thread for you to point fingers and blame without reason to; that's just harassment.
_____________________________________
Word wrote:I admire Venom for his talent to nail jelly to a wall in just a few sentences. I hope more people notice what Venom asked and what Durf replied. "If a threat directly threatens your existence, do you consider that a threat?" - "No, what if I'm a zombie afterwards", says Durf. He just can't wrap his head around the idea that he's wrong.
^ Word, stop trying so hard. You don't even know how to use that idiom (as you are making contradictory arguments). Regardless, I know what you meant and in the end, he is nailing jelly to a wall because he fails to actually have a point. Much like you.
The zombie thing might have been a poor choice for people like you to understand. Put simply, it meant that you (with the gun) should actually feel threatened and justified in using it when there is actually a threat that is threatening you; meaning if I'm just some person standing in front of you, and you shoot me because you felt threatened, you go to jail. If I became a zombie and went after your brains or otherwise actually threatened you in some way, then you won't go to jail.
So another example you might understand this time (like I said to Venijn): Saying you own a gun and might use it, can be considered a threat, but isn't necessarily so. Just about every American can say they own a gun and might use it. They can even say they might use it on you! The fact is that that is true; no one knows what the future holds and there could be a very legal reason for them to use it on you. That being said, Z-Man, and you, and Venijn, have made a deliberate choice to be selective with the context. You're purposely perceiving it like I was saying "I own a gun and I might use it on you" unprovoked to Z-Man. I wasn't; it was more like "I own a gun and will exercise self-defense laws if you (abuse) me like last time". The "if" isn't a condition that threatens to cause harm upon meeting it; it signifies how I've been tolerant the first time and gave him a fair chance (the benefit of the doubt that he could be reasoned with before I just un-banned myself, no questions asked).
What I can't seem to wrap my head around is agreeing with someone who can't prove they are right. "If I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong"; I'm not about to subject myself to a stupid / ignorant existence. I'm going to get to the bottom of the issue and learn, in detail, the correct solution.
Maybe you should actually try to prove anything you've said, and you might start getting somewhere. Each time I've called you (or anyone else) out of their bullshit, its the same things: either no response at all, or complete and utter bullshit / angry response without any reason or logic.
_____________________________________
@F0RC3: lol! Though, I don't "hate" anyone here. I don't even hate the moderators, despite all the abuse and harassment. Funny song though.
_____________________________________
@desgorn: No bullying whatsoever. It was to signify that I could easily just unban myself, and to show the relation between a "Durf" who actually tries to reason things out with you (in case I'm wrong), with one who doesn't. The irony is how you think this is bullying them at all when Lucifer has publicly called me a woman hating pig, pure evil, and don't even get me started on his Nazi or general racism against Canadians nonsense.. Even if you don't compare the two, my words are nothing threatening to them.
Read my post @Word. I explain the difference between what is a threat and what isn't; how something can appear to be a threat but in the entire context just isn't one.
What do they have to do? First of all, it's not a threat. Second, I made it perfectly clear: Z-Man has shown that I don't have a fair chance at disputing an unjust ban and/or actually getting an apology for it. That being said, they've basically been out to make an enemy this entire time / there's no point in me trying to dispute anything with them. Given all this, why would I even bother when I can just unban myself anyway? This alone should tell you my intentions; I'm not even out to troll this place. So what they would have to do is do what they did before: unjustly ban me (note: that doesn't mean for any bans I merely think are unjust; I am actually reasonable enough to accept punishment when I think I deserve it - but if, like this time, I can't see how I broke the rules, and they can't prove it, then I didn't and it was abusive). There is nothing threatening about it - it's merely a declaration of playing by another set of rules, as per Z-Man's request.
_____________________________________
@Monkey: Read my post @Word. I explain the difference between what is a threat and what isn't; how something can appear to be a threat but in the entire context just isn't one. If you are prepared to actually discuss things and see the entire context, then by all means, I'd love to hear your input. If you're only going to be ignorant yourself, then why should I care? You're only buying into propaganda and negative rumors being spread by Z-Man, only to be distracted from ALL the disputes he's been avoiding for the past few weeks; starting with the whole reason why the PM History thread even exists in the first place.
When I say I am not making threats, it's because I know what a threat is, and I didn't make one. When I refer to "threat" in my PM, it is in a sarcastic way but using a terminology that Z-Man would understand what I'm talking about; should be obvious that I'm not acknowledging it as a threat.
Also, Tell me why I would even care to wait for any action on their part when I have the capability anyway? Think about how logical it is for that to even be a threat. If I was after your passwords, or "hacking" this website, or banning Z-Man, I would have just done it by now, no questions asked. They've abused me and if I was going to make a threat, I wouldn't be so stupid, I'd just do the actions I said I would do. Please...think about this a little more; be open minded to the context of the entire PM chain.
Secondly, you write far more than is necessary. Unfortunately, this is something that is hard for me to "prove"; it should be something that you just "get". Some people do get it, some people don't. Unfortunately you are one of those that doesn't get it.
Well I figured that my illustration about the dartboards would have helped you understand, but apparently you don't. You're seemingly too intolerant to even consider that people just speak differently.
I suppose in theory I could take some of your posts and rewrite them to show you how much more concisely you could write to get all of your points across
I asked for that specifically.
In practice, however, it would take such a long time to do so (because they are so long) and I can't be arsed.
Don't half ass something if you can't fully ass it (lol? That's makes sense I hope). Point is, you complain and complain about the way I write, yet throughout all that, you haven't accomplished anything and would have been better off not wasting the energy. If you're going to try to "fix a problem" such as the way that I write, then do the job properly. If I'm blind to something, how do you expect me to suddenly see it just because you tell me that there's a problem I need to see? You fail to realize that when solving miscommunications, you need to get the faulty party to see what you see - you haven't done a single thing to explain your point of view. You've only ever complained and stated there was a problem...but HOW? And even then - are you sure you're not just intolerant to reading? You obviously understand what I say, so what is the problem you're having? Aren't you being just a little too anal if you're complaining someone saying more than they have to?
_____________________________________
@Nanu Nanu: I never said that I considered threatening these forums to be a petty issue. I will explain that in a bit. First, what I said isn't a threat. Read my post @Word. I explain the difference between what is a threat and what isn't; how something can appear to be a threat but in the entire context just isn't one. If you are prepared to actually discuss things and see the entire context, then by all means, I'd love to hear your input. If you're only going to be ignorant yourself, then why should I care?
Now, back to the "petty issue":
Maybe you're right, just Z-man claiming something to be a threat doesn't necessarily make it one. However, everyone else that reads the specific PMs he posted that you are referring to, can decide for themselves whether or not what you're saying is actually a threat. This is an assumption, but I do believe it's very likely that most of the users feel threatened by what you have said.
The thing is that they can't decide for themselves...that's not the topic of that thread, and there isn't a thread available to post about that in. This means that Z-Man lied to you; was operating under a false pretense. That thread was forced to be there BY Z-MAN because of "slanderous claims". So it is PETTY for him to avoid being proven unreasonable by starting more bullshit drama about a threat that I didn't even make (which only happens to prove how is he even more unreasonable than before). However, like, I've said, why do the opinions of those who won't care enough to question what's been said even matter to me? When they prove themselves to be ignorant, and if they refuse to be anything other than bigoted, what is the purpose in trying to discuss it with you? Where is the motivation?
I assume that some of the users of these forums can be reasoned with, yes? Be reasonable, and we will be able to work things out.
Simply saying it's not an issue as long as the moderators don't abuse you doesn't make what you said okay. I should hope that as users of this forums we all have some mutual idea that this place is useful if not enjoyable to us, and that we would not like to see any harm come to it. You obviously do not have this level of respect for the community if you are willing to threaten it. Now, I expect you to think that you are just targeting Z-man as you specified in the PM history, but messing with the administration of any website is a potential danger for the entire website.
Again, no threat at all has been made. Look up the definition of "threat" and see for a fitting definition; even if you find one, you'll have to look for it in the full context. I, by no means, made any threat or otherwise said that any harm would come to anyone or any website. I don't appreciate you perpetuating a negative rumor (aspersion) that Z-Man started. Furthermore, like I've told other people, I already have the capability to do everything you're afraid of (because Z-Man made you afraid). That alone should tell you my intentions since I haven't done anything to this website. Even so, it should tell you just how full of shit this rumor is - if I wanted to do it, it would be done by now. You think I'm the type of person that would care about waiting around? Clearly, everything rumored about me is simply not true. Don't question the respect I give this community (seemingly undeservingly; all I'm ever met with is intolerance lately; says a lot of you even if I'm just an abrasive individual)
What makes this really petty, proving their incompetence, etc..etc..:
1) There is no actual threat being made; I'm not a threat to this website.
2) Given the above, Z-Man wanted to post that PM solely for the reason of convincing you (the public) that I am a threat.
3) Why? Because after 3 months, they finally think they have something they can use to say "see! I knew that guy deserved that ban that happened 3 months ago... I'm a good moderator".
4) Z-Man forces the PM History to be posted
by extortion. TO DISPROVE MY CLAIMS, that he was unreasonable.
5) Z-Man posts this entirely unrelated PM merely to divert attention away from my claims be proven true, and other subsequent cases of moderator abuse being ignored.
6) Given that the PM history was posted by extorting a user, the entire thing was orchestrated by Z-Man merely to start the rumor in the first place.
I never, at any point said that a threat to this website is petty; that is a real serious issue and should such a threat ever arise, you can rest assured that I will offer my services to help (even though I've offered my help many times before and in many different ways, each time, they refuse).
What is petty, is Z-Man's excuse for what he's doing on these forums lately. Honestly think about it, as moderator...wtf is he doing? ...something petty.
You speak of the necessity of Z-man and Lucifer learning from the mistakes they have made, but are you willing to do the same? I understand that this cannot be done unless you accept what you have done as a mistake, but hopefully we can convince you that threatening in general is not appropriate.
I hope you read my post @word, and this post to you, so I don't have to explain it any further why what I said isn't a threat, and how we aren't really at liberty to discuss that in any of these threads while staying on topic. Besides that: I've been saying that they need to admit to and learn from their mistakes. Their mistakes have both been proven and have been recurring (now in public for all to see). The "mistake" you claim I've made is only one, it's a misunderstand that can easily be explained if you are tolerant enough to listen (Z-Man isn't obviously), and even if I did make a mistake, why are you enabling Z-Man to make his mistakes continuously, but force me to answer to mine as though I'm some hypocrite? Did you forget all the issues that Z-Man himself started but was unable to finish? Did you forget that the PM he posted was OFF TOPIC? I'm perfectly willing to discuss my mistakes - in fact, I WANT to discuss them as I WANT to learn from my mistakes. I only ask that you explain it in a way that I can depend upon (proof). I'm not about to listen to someone that has it wrong, so show me how you aren't.
That being said, I'm surprised you haven't been able to see what's been going on / that you just buy into such a rumor. It's offensive to hear that you'd think I'd do something like that in the first place. Honestly wtf is wrong with this community? If I were to claim that you were purple and had wings...would everyone believe me without question? Or does that ability only come from after many years of abusing users?
Seriously though, you make a hilariously ironic point: Z-Man has a heck of a lot to answer for, BEFORE I even need to answer to any "mistake" I've apparently made.
While you may be right that this issue distracts from the issue of your ban appeals, it's very hard to find value or meaning in your claims of doing things for the betterment of the community when you threaten that same community.
^ this is where I would point you to all the times that I've been saying that Z-Man is trying to publicly deface me. WHY DO YOU THINK? YOU JUST SAID WHY. The entire reason why he started the rumor is only to avoid the disputes and proofs being given about his own unreasonable and abusive actions. Which in itself is yet another form of abuse. It's more than just avoiding the problems put before him (you're aware of that already, that's good!), but how he's going about it is all that is left for him to do - a pitiful attempt to discredit any (note, anything he can grab onto) of my words so as to somehow validate his own in juxtaposition. The thing is, I've probably proven through more than a dozen examples now, how Z-Man is unreasonable. That alone is enough to say how he can be abusive as a moderator, but I also have other examples to prove his abuse to you should you want to see them. Even if I were to be proven to be unreasonable this one time (oh noes!) it wouldn't change much of anything regarding Z-Man being unreasonable and abusive. Put simply, if one person is unreasonable and the other isn't; then the one who wasn't also becomes unreasonable, you only have 2 unreasonable people. They haven't switched reasonability. In the end, the entire purpose of avoiding the claims is nullified.
Now either Z-Man will finish what he starts, or continue to try to start more convoluted drama to avoid a resolution that proves him to be unreasonable.
It's not that hard.
Start a thread regarding my threat, and I'd be happy to discuss it there in full.
_____________________________________
@Ratchet: Yea, and I probably will misspell your name in the future on occasion. Is it that much of a problem? If so I will setup a script (autocorrect) to ensure I never get it wrong again. I certainly did not intend for it to mean
rachet. But in all seriousness, I'm having trouble determining if you feel that to be a serious issue or not.
Second: Didn't the United States already do that? Exactly that? Also, pointing a devastating missile is only an international threat if it's armed and ready (meaning that it carries a payload, and it capable of being launched with a push of a button). Typically, something of that magnitude is executed by more than one person, and the missiles themselves usually have some way of being inactive until the moment before launch, to ensure no mistakes are made.
So you kind of fail to make your point in more than one way: The choice to arm the missile is taking the responsibility of the actions = introducing the possibility of harm. Pointing such a missile at another country is a threat, which the US did do at one point, and war was technically a possibility. But if the missile was never armed, then there was never a threat, no matter where it was pointed. Even so, you failed to realize that your scenario did occur because of civil rights and the US DID threaten war because of it. You tell me, does your analogy still work if the US was protecting the civil rights of ordinary people? (iirc, nothing ended up happening and the US pulled out because they're not US citizens in the end, not sure of all the details - definitely worth looking into).
But, I never said that it wasn't a threat because "so long as they don't abuse me nothing will happen". This thinking is flawed: Basically you're operating under the assumption that they can and WILL abuse me in the future - you're trying to excuse further abuse with your words. You're not fixing any problems.
I only ever say it's not a threat because I'm not threatening anything (look up what a threat is, I have not given any indication that I would cause harm in any way. That was assumed by Z-Man, and everyone who bought into his crap.)
Should I bother talking about the psychology behind boasting one's ability to do something malicious and then claiming it's not a threat (and that you would never do such a thing)?
It wasn't boasting, rather a fair warning as a result of the little respect I have for Z-Man as a person. I feel he deserves to know just who he decides to make an enemy out of. And I'm not boasting about my abilities. Frankly I don't care about them - Z-Man cares the most about my abilities. I have never gave any indication that I would do anything malicious, so yes, I can claim that it's not a threat.
I don't know exactly what you're trying to start, but you haven't made a single point yet. The psychology behind it is simple: I'm setting expectations for when I no longer play by the rules, because there were never any rules to begin with (as proven by Z-Man). Saying "I'm going to unban myself" isn't a threat in any way.
Now, Ratchet, either you will work towards getting along, or you will be making an effort to make an enemy out of me. Which will it be? Are you tolerant? Are you reasonable? Can we talk about this? Or will you continue with your pattern; there's a difference between making a vigorous/passionate argument, and just attacking someone without good reason. I hope I shouldn't have to ask you as many times as I have asked Word to stop making ridiculous claims about me and actually try working things out before you jump to conclusions.
After all, it was after the entire PM History posted in public before I came to the conclusion that Z-Man was unreasonable, I would hope that your attention span would also surpass a single PM so as to search for truth.
As previously mentioned (and as has been quoted for the umpteenth time): you clearly (no questions asked) stated that you'd take over Tank's account to modify your account as well as, potentially, Z-man's. And you expect Tank to reason with you and consider removing one (or both) of his moderators? Seriously?
Yes. What are you having trouble with about that? If a moderator abuses so consistently, and leaves no options to reason things out, then it's essentially their fault I am left with no other option but to handle things myself in the ways that I can. They specifically started acting up while Tank Program isn't around as well (in case you haven't noticed), like as if that helps their case. The fact remains that I have faith in Tank Program's reasonability, and he should be able to see how even though I have the capability to severely mess things up, I never have, and all I've ever done is try to help / work things out / solve problems. So, yes. I'm dead serious. You just think it's ridiculous because you see what I've said as a threat.
I'd be surprised if Tank even finds you worth his time to respond
^ this almost made me lose all respect for you as a person, and almost got me to stop responding to you entirely. You're despicable. I've been abused by moderators and refused a fair chance at a dispute. EVEN IF I DID SOMETHING WRONG, you're saying that the only person left to give me that fair chance shouldn't? Ratchet...**** you.
And, if he does, believe me: you'll wish he hadn't. I think all you're going to find is that Tank wholly trusts Z-man and Lucifer, and certainly won't send them packing. I could see him trying to reason with you, and MAYBE apologizing on their behalf, but it'd mostly be to get you to 'shut up', so to speak.
Even so, it'd be more than anything the current moderation is capable of. And I will finally have my answers to if this place is a joke, and if the moderators are supposed to be abusive, or if I am to take this place seriously. Regardless of Tank's decision, I will be glad if he does what you describe.
"Proving that you're wrong":
It's not impossible to prove me wrong. If a claim is made, and there is no provided support, why would I believe it? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Or do you question it? Seriously that shouldn't be hard to understand.
I'm glad you've quoted me those 4 times - it shows that EACH TIME I call someone out on their bullshit, there is no response, or if there is, it's only yet another angry one without any support for their claims. Again, should be easy to understand, if you're right, you should be able to explain it even to an idiot.
This isn't about me being stubborn, but about trolls and abusive moderators (essentially anyone that tries to do something unfounded) simply being too ill-equipped to play their own game. I've questioned myself far more than you have ever questioned me, and I'm not some idiot that types without being sure of what I'm saying (having proof to back it up).
Even your link to supposed prove that I've called someone ignorant simply for disagreeing with me, only serves to prove my point. Did you even read the post? Or did you just search for a post that contained the word "ignorant"? The only part of that post that is CLOSE to disproving what I've said is the part about his ignorance when he used the phrase "self-proclaimed martyr" - and I left out dictionary definitions because they were already posted and people keep on complaining about post length. So either complainers and trolls like you will force me to include EVERY resource required to properly explain my point and you'll just have to get over the post length, or you will have to learn to accept that I don't talk out of my ass like many others here do. Even then, that instance can easily be proven by looking at the definition; calling someone a "self-proclaimed martyr" is ignorant to what a martyr is (someone who is murdered) - it is quite literally impossible for me to proclaim myself as a martyr.
I hope I shouldn't also have to tell you to not try so hard?
_____________________________________________
@Z-Man: You're just trolling at this point. Anyone can draw diagrams, and anyone can easily switch your name for mine. All it shows is that to you, you consider me to be unreasonable. And yet, who's the only one proving they're unreasonable? You are. Those graphs prove nothing, and while it may contain some mediocre creative effort, it has not value in a real discussion, even if it was true. Let alone having relation to this or the other thread. You're both off topic and harassing.
The post was initially edited because it did not fit previously stated conditions. I revised that decision because even though those conditions were not met, I thought the user deserved to be heard. No mention any more of that I changed my mind. I move one pace forward, Durf moves ten back.
And, of course, he attempts to censor by proxy (via reports) whatever he does not want to hear.
I gave him the reasons why I think he was misbehaving. Instead of going "Oh, I see, I won't do that in the future, then" as he claims he naturally would, he dismissed them.
What about your posts that violate your own conditions?
Regardless, your starting more bullshit drama by trying to spread rumors (again) - Z-Man, either step up as moderator and show this community that you aren't continuously starting and and are putting in effort to fix things, or continuously give more and more proof why you shouldn't be a moderator...it's your choice. I do not attempt to censor anything via reports, I report what is against the rules. I am not like you, Z-Man, I am perfectly capable of hearing anything. You can tell me anything, and I won't "react" like you do. Your assumptions are harassing. STOP IT. STOP HARASSING ME.
Work towards fixing things Z-Man. This thread is about moderator abuse, this isn't a place for you to start more rumors about me and continuously harass me.
You say you gave me reasons why you think I was misbehaving, but that's all you think you had to do (which you didn't even really do mind you). You never proved anything you said; given that you were PROVEN to have misunderstood what I've said in the past, and given that you were PROVEN to be unreasonable, YOUR WORDS NEED TO BE QUESTIONED if I'm to remain at all credible; I'm not going to blindly listen to the likes of you - you have to prove yourself.
And, of course, I did not permanently lock the other thread to "get the last word".
Wanna talk about the other Moderator Abuse thread then? Unless you're admitting to having locked that too, only to get the last word in.... If it was just to lock the thread, then that's all you needed to do. Posting claims that suggest I'm sexist or use sexist/misogynistic language is uncalled for if the only reason to lock the thread was because it needed to be locked. So why did you post in it then lock it? You were obviously abusing your status, and didn't want to be proven to be full of shit as usual. You don't even know enough about what sexism is to say that I've used misogynistic language. Unless you prefer the look of an abusive tyrant, you'd take on the look of someone who was mistaken and admit to your mistakes; allow such threads to develop until their end. Finish the bullshit you start.
Durf completely misrepresents what I said and did. The things mentioned above are just the cases where it is reasonably easy to demonstrate.
^ LIes (I'm leaving this at that, to illustrate the value in what has been claimed - no proof was given, no proof is needed)
____________________________________
@/dev/null: Not sure who you're talking to. I seem to have thicker skin than a majority of the pansies here.
I'm not adding words though (yes technically I am, but not for the sake of adding them / not to make my posts longer).
Frankly there are convoluted bullshit topics constantly being brought up and what people have failed to realize is that I have an unlimited patience to deal with ALL of it. I will NEVER be too tired to deal with ALL the bullshit so long as we can finally reach an end to it all. If it takes talking about B and C before was can finish talking about A, so be it. I will talk about B, C, D, E, F, etc... all just so we can finish talking about A. The problem people fail to see is that their attempts to make any of this more convoluted in the hopes that the issues with be forgotten or dropped, well, they're futile.
Like I've said, they're far too ill-equipped to finish what they start. I don't discourage them though. They gotta learn somehow.
(more to come later for pages 6 and 7)
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... es#p291874
