Rules and Moderator information

[canpakes]

Lessons from the Hound account’s post:

Everyone is on such excellent behavior, with two exceptions:

1. Hound of Heaven cannot manage to post anything without namecalling up to 10 random people per post or calling all members of the board ‘Marxist Progressives’,

2. Binger/Whiskey has taken up the profanity slack for all other users, needing to drop f-bombs and other pejoratives every third word or so.

As predicted - and as witnessed through board history - the two loudest complainers have always been the two worst offenders.

What the “F”, panny? You talking about me?

Yes, and predicting your reaction to bear out my observation.

As it has. : D

[Whiskey]

What the “F”, panny? You talking about me?

Yes, and predicting your reaction to bear out my observation.

As it has. : D

You are damned welcome.

[Hound of Heaven]

Lessons from the Hound account’s post:

Everyone is on such excellent behavior, with two exceptions:

1. Hound of Heaven cannot manage to post anything without namecalling up to 10 random people per post or calling all members of the board ‘Marxist Progressives’,

2. Binger/Whiskey has taken up the profanity slack for all other users, needing to drop f-bombs and other pejoratives every third word or so.

As predicted - and as witnessed through board history - the two loudest complainers have always been the two worst offenders.

What the “F”, panny? You talking about me?

Whiskey, please understand that Can'tpakes the moderator powers have been restricted by the board owner in recent months, which has understandably left Can'tpakes feeling upset, particularly since all his Marxist friends are aware that he was reprimanded for showing bias towards certain members of the board.

That being said, the reason Can'tpakes is informing you that he needs to censor some of the words you used is that he is eager to demonstrate to his friends that he still possesses a modicum of power. I have raised concerns with a higher authority regarding his biased rulings on five occasions, and each time, Can'tpakes was overruled for prioritizing his emotions over the established board rules. He seems quite upset, as evident from his post, about my frequent mentions of him and his Marxist friends.

He believes it's acceptable for GadiSCAMton, DrCamnPP, or Bishop Schmo to mention me in their posts, but if I mention them, in his distorted view, that's beyond his capacity to manage. He thinks he should dictate how I write my posts, rather than allowing me to express myself as I choose. This reflects typical narcissistic behavior, and individuals like Can'tpakes should not hold a moderator position on a discussion board.

Lastly, please recognize that Can'tpakes is unhappy that I was the one who trained DrCamnPP and Bishop Schmo on how to post to a discussion board. Upon reviewing their postings from the past month in contrast to previous months, one can observe a significant improvement. This positive transformation in their posting style can be attributed to my unwavering commitment and dedication to training them. Meanwhile, Can'tpakes feels discontented about not receiving recognition for this progress.

Dr. Shades, once more, there's no requirement for a response. However, I would like to highlight the evident. Yesterday, when I posted in this thread directed at you, it took only minutes for Can'tpakes to respond. He seems unable to allow someone to express their opinion without interjecting his own, which suggests a lack of stability on his part. It is clear that as a moderator, Can'tpakes should have simply let my post from yesterday remain unanswered if he truly wanted to maintain the board's smooth operation. However, it seems he is not focused on fostering a productive discussion environment; rather, he appears more inclined to create discord for himself and his Marxist associates to critique.

[Whiskey]

What the “F”, panny? You talking about me?

Whiskey, please understand that Can'tpakes the moderator powers have been restricted by the board owner in recent months, which has understandably left Can'tpakes feeling upset, particularly since all his Marxist friends are aware that he was reprimanded for showing bias towards certain members of the board.

That being said, the reason Can'tpakes is informing you that he needs to censor some of the words you used is that he is eager to demonstrate to his friends that he still possesses a modicum of power. I have raised concerns with a higher authority regarding his biased rulings on five occasions, and each time, Can'tpakes was overruled for prioritizing his emotions over the established board rules. He seems quite upset, as evident from his post, about my frequent mentions of him and his Marxist friends.

He believes it's acceptable for GadiSCAMton, DrCamnPP, or Bishop Schmo to mention me in their posts, but if I mention them, in his distorted view, that's beyond his capacity to manage. He thinks he should dictate how I write my posts, rather than allowing me to express myself as I choose. This reflects typical narcissistic behavior, and individuals like Can'tpakes should not hold a moderator position on a discussion board.

Lastly, please recognize that Can'tpakes is unhappy that I was the one who trained DrCamnPP and Bishop Schmo on how to post to a discussion board. Upon reviewing their postings from the past month in contrast to previous months, one can observe a significant improvement. This positive transformation in their posting style can be attributed to my unwavering commitment and dedication to training them. Meanwhile, Can'tpakes feels discontented about not receiving recognition for this progress.

Dr. Shades, once more, there's no requirement for a response. However, I would like to highlight the evident. Yesterday, when I posted in this thread directed at you, it took only minutes for Can'tpakes to respond. He seems unable to allow someone to express their opinion without interjecting his own, which suggests a lack of stability on his part. It is clear that as a moderator, Can'tpakes should have simply let my post from yesterday remain unanswered if he truly wanted to maintain the board's smooth operation. However, it seems he is not focused on fostering a productive discussion environment; rather, he appears more inclined to create discord for himself and his Marxist associates to critique.

That is a lot of words to say that panny has an ongoing bitch with one or more posters.

[canpakes]

Lastly, please recognize that Can'tpakes is unhappy that I was the one who trained DrCamnPP and Bishop Schmo on how to post to a discussion board.

Actually, Doc and Schmo seem to be posting away as normal, with plenty of colorful language included. Maybe not posting as often over the last couple of months, but the traffic here does go into occasional lulls. In contrast, our two conservative-minded regulars Ceeboo and ajax rarely post at all these days … did you scare them off?
: D

Fictional storytelling about moderators aside, you may be the person who has had to adapt the most. You’ve gone through a chain of alts only to discover that the rules won’t bend for you, and you’ve now boxed yourself into being the worst example of any behavior you complain about. As example, nearly evey thread you initiate begins with a batch of name calling against a long list of folks even before anyone has had a chance to read your post

I would suggest a different path, but you are always free to test your assumptions about the board.

[canpakes]

That is a lot of words to say that panny has an ongoing bitch with one or more posters.

You’re just unhappy that I respond to you when you’re chasing me around. : D

[Hound of Heaven]

Dr. Shades, your moderator Can'tpakes is relocating my post once more to the Telestrial, despite my adherence to the rules in the Terrestrial.

In the thread focused on the death of Moksha in the Terrestrial forum, the opening post, rather than exclusively addressing Moksha's passing and his admirable qualities, begins with a mention of Daniel Peterson. This indicates that the original poster is inviting a broader discussion beyond just Moksha.

This is a board for free speech, right? If Wang Chung mentions Daniel Peterson in his very first sentence in a thread about someone's death, then I, along with everyone else, have the right to discuss Wang Chung's opinion on Daniel Peterson that he presented in the thread!

Could you kindly move my post back to the thread, as it does not violate any of the board rules?


Hound, the post is relocated per UR 4, regarding intent.

It really doesn’t matter if the OP mentions Dan Peterson; that doesn’t excuse questioning the OP motive. Your complaint can continue to be discussed within the split. Shades may rule otherwise later but at the moment the split is appropriate.

Thanks! -c-








Shades, here's a screenshot of the opening post in Moksha's thread. As you can see, Wang Chung discusses Peterson, giving his opinion on what Peterson may do if he finds out Moksha has passed. As a member of the board, i have a right to give my opinion about what I believe Peterson may do if he finds out Moksha passed away. Can'tpakes is attempting to stifle free speech once again, only allowing what he wants to read on threads he finds important to him and his friends.

Hound, you now have your own dedicated thread to discuss this. Having your own dedicated thread isn’t exactly stifling free speech. -c-

[Whiskey]

That is a lot of words to say that panny has an ongoing bitch with one or more posters.

You’re just unhappy that I respond to you when you’re chasing me around. : D

Does your ass get sore from ripping these assumptions out of it so hastily and often?

[canpakes]

You’re just unhappy that I respond to you when you’re chasing me around. : D

Does your ass get sore from ripping these assumptions out of it so hastily and often?

You sound like you speak from experience about this kind of injury.

I suggest that you seek appropriate medical attention. And put a towel down on your car seat.

[Hound of Heaven]

Dr. Shades, your moderator Can'tpakes is relocating my post once more to the Telestrial, despite my adherence to the rules in the Terrestrial.

In the thread focused on the death of Moksha in the Terrestrial forum, the opening post, rather than exclusively addressing Moksha's passing and his admirable qualities, begins with a mention of Daniel Peterson. This indicates that the original poster is inviting a broader discussion beyond just Moksha.

This is a board for free speech, right? If Wang Chung mentions Daniel Peterson in his very first sentence in a thread about someone's death, then I, along with everyone else, have the right to discuss Wang Chung's opinion on Daniel Peterson that he presented in the thread!

Could you kindly move my post back to the thread, as it does not violate any of the board rules?


Hound, the post is relocated per UR 4, regarding intent.

It really doesn’t matter if the OP mentions Dan Peterson; that doesn’t excuse questioning the OP motive. Your complaint can continue to be discussed within the split. Shades may rule otherwise later but at the moment the split is appropriate.

Thanks! -c-








Shades, here's a screenshot of the opening post in Moksha's thread. As you can see, Wang Chung discusses Peterson, giving his opinion on what Peterson may do if he finds out Moksha has passed. As a member of the board, i have a right to give my opinion about what I believe Peterson may do if he finds out Moksha passed away. Can'tpakes is attempting to stifle free speech once again, only allowing what he wants to read on threads he finds important to him and his friends.

Hound, you now have your own dedicated thread to discuss this. Having your own dedicated thread isn’t exactly stifling free speech. -c-

The initial people referenced in the discussion regarding Moksha are Daniel Peterson and an individual named Midgley. Wang Chung subsequently expresses a negative view of Peterson, suggesting that if Peterson has consistently belittled Moksha, that is simply Wang Chung's perspective.

Your approach of only permitting posts that align with your views in the thread reflects a bias against board members with differing opinions. You are a hack moderator who is too sensitive in character to serve as an effective and impartial board moderator.

To grasp your inclination towards conservative board members, as well as your decision to relocate my post from the Moksha thread, one only needs to review the thread regarding Russell Nelson that began upon his passing. In that thread, you permitted Philosophy Soffee to diverge into a discussion about LGBT issues and the notion of maintaining the church as white and delightsome! You then permitted Wang Chung to completely stray from the topic, as he shared a meme featuring Oaks, which was unrelated to Nelson. You also permitted another board member to express that he wagers Nelson is taken aback now that he has reached heaven. Lastly, you permitted a post stating that Nelson was greeted by L Ron Hubbard on the other side. It is evident that there is a lack of consideration for the respect due to the deceased.

it is clear that if that were the case, similar rules would have been enforced regarding the thread about Nelson's death. It's not solely about staying on topic, as there are four different individuals who have strayed from the subject in the Nelson thread, yet their posts remain untouched.

No, it's about your bias towards me again, moving my post even though I'm completely on topic, discussing the individuals mentioned in the opening post by Wang Chung!

Did I not speak of the people in the opening post?

Kindly let everyone know how I am straying from the topic??

Is speaking about people in the opening post considered off topic?