Rules and Moderator information

[Whiskey]

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?

This sorta misses the hilarity of it all. Moksha, may he rest in peace, rests in peace. Meanwhile, regarding Moksha, Wanger is singing "What would Daniel C Peterson do? He would kick an ass or two. That's what Daniel C Peterson would do."

[canpakes]

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?

Where did I mention that you were straying from the topic? I haven’t mentioned anything about that.

As for other people’s posts - the board has a reporting feature for posts that you believe need attention. You should check it out.

[Hound of Heaven]

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?

Where did I mention that you were straying from the topic? I haven’t mentioned anything about that.

As for other people’s posts - the board has a reporting feature for posts that you believe need attention. You should check it out.

Precisely. I stayed on topic, yet you are trying to define my motive without truly understanding it. It seems like you're trying to protect yourself so that when Shades reads this, you appear somewhat impartial, but it's clear that you are quite biased!

Your acknowledgment that I wasn't off topic highlights your lack of understanding regarding my motives. Once again, as has happened numerous times before, I demonstrate that you are a biased moderator whose primary concern is to shield your Marxist allies.

I have not yet sent a private message to Shades. Could you please ensure that my post is returned to its proper place? This would help prevent Shades from having to take on unnecessary additional work. Your role is to assist Shades, not to behave like a petulant child. Moving posts that adhere to the guidelines and then prompting someone to message the board owner to revert the post is not a constructive way to support Dr. Shades on his discussion board! Your emotional instability is genuinely creating additional work for him!

[canpakes]

Where did I mention that you were straying from the topic? I haven’t mentioned anything about that.

As for other people’s posts - the board has a reporting feature for posts that you believe need attention. You should check it out.

Precisely. I stayed on topic, yet you are trying to define my motive without truly understanding it. It seems like you're trying to protect yourself so that when Shades reads this, you appear somewhat impartial, but it's clear that you are quite biased!

Your acknowledgment that I wasn't off topic highlights your lack of understanding regarding my motives. Once again, as has happened numerous times before, I demonstrate that you are a biased moderator whose primary concern is to shield your Marxist allies.

I have not yet sent a private message to Shades. Could you please ensure that my post is returned to its proper place? This would help prevent Shades from having to take on unnecessary additional work. Your role is to assist Shades, not to behave like a petulant child. Moving posts that adhere to the guidelines and then prompting someone to message the board owner to revert the post is not a constructive way to support Dr. Shades on his discussion board! Your emotional instability is genuinely creating additional work for him!

You must not be reading either UR 4 or my previous comments. Nothing in UR 4 pertains to your alleged deviation from the topic, or your own motive.

You should probably worry less about the imagined emotional instability of others, and concentrate on your attention skills. : )

[Whiskey]

Where did I mention that you were straying from the topic? I haven’t mentioned anything about that.

As for other people’s posts - the board has a reporting feature for posts that you believe need attention. You should check it out.

Precisely. I stayed on topic, yet you are trying to define my motive without truly understanding it. It seems like you're trying to protect yourself so that when Shades reads this, you appear somewhat impartial, but it's clear that you are quite biased!

Your acknowledgment that I wasn't off topic highlights your lack of understanding regarding my motives. Once again, as has happened numerous times before, I demonstrate that you are a biased moderator whose primary concern is to shield your Marxist allies.

I have not yet sent a private message to Shades. Could you please ensure that my post is returned to its proper place? This would help prevent Shades from having to take on unnecessary additional work. Your role is to assist Shades, not to behave like a petulant child. Moving posts that adhere to the guidelines and then prompting someone to message the board owner to revert the post is not a constructive way to support Dr. Shades on his discussion board! Your emotional instability is genuinely creating additional work for him!

Hound. I know you want to resolve this. But, would you be interested in just letting panny moderate like a bitch for now and helping wanger with his new etsy meme business? He has some funny things to say and when he puts his words on a picture, it is a light on a hill. He is like a Jesus with words and pictures. If Daniel Peterson ever buys Lucky Charms cereal and Trump is still president, wanger will have a meme for that.

You in?

[canpakes]

Precisely. I stayed on topic, yet you are trying to define my motive without truly understanding it. It seems like you're trying to protect yourself so that when Shades reads this, you appear somewhat impartial, but it's clear that you are quite biased!

Your acknowledgment that I wasn't off topic highlights your lack of understanding regarding my motives. Once again, as has happened numerous times before, I demonstrate that you are a biased moderator whose primary concern is to shield your Marxist allies.

I have not yet sent a private message to Shades. Could you please ensure that my post is returned to its proper place? This would help prevent Shades from having to take on unnecessary additional work. Your role is to assist Shades, not to behave like a petulant child. Moving posts that adhere to the guidelines and then prompting someone to message the board owner to revert the post is not a constructive way to support Dr. Shades on his discussion board! Your emotional instability is genuinely creating additional work for him!

Hound. I know you want to resolve this. But, would you be interested in just letting panny moderate like a bitch for now and helping wanger with his new etsy meme business? He has some funny things to say and when he puts his words on a picture, it is a light on a hill. He is like a Jesus with words and pictures. If Daniel Peterson ever buys Lucky Charms cereal and Trump is still president, wanger will have a meme for that.

You in?

Aww, Binger. You’re sweet.

I can’t nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize, though. Sorry ‘bout that.

[Hound of Heaven]

Precisely. I stayed on topic, yet you are trying to define my motive without truly understanding it. It seems like you're trying to protect yourself so that when Shades reads this, you appear somewhat impartial, but it's clear that you are quite biased!

Your acknowledgment that I wasn't off topic highlights your lack of understanding regarding my motives. Once again, as has happened numerous times before, I demonstrate that you are a biased moderator whose primary concern is to shield your Marxist allies.

I have not yet sent a private message to Shades. Could you please ensure that my post is returned to its proper place? This would help prevent Shades from having to take on unnecessary additional work. Your role is to assist Shades, not to behave like a petulant child. Moving posts that adhere to the guidelines and then prompting someone to message the board owner to revert the post is not a constructive way to support Dr. Shades on his discussion board! Your emotional instability is genuinely creating additional work for him!

Hound. I know you want to resolve this. But, would you be interested in just letting panny moderate like a bitch for now and helping wanger with his new etsy meme business? He has some funny things to say and when he puts his words on a picture, it is a light on a hill. He is like a Jesus with words and pictures. If Daniel Peterson ever buys Lucky Charms cereal and Trump is still president, wanger will have a meme for that.

You in?

.

[Hound of Heaven]

Precisely. I stayed on topic, yet you are trying to define my motive without truly understanding it. It seems like you're trying to protect yourself so that when Shades reads this, you appear somewhat impartial, but it's clear that you are quite biased!

Your acknowledgment that I wasn't off topic highlights your lack of understanding regarding my motives. Once again, as has happened numerous times before, I demonstrate that you are a biased moderator whose primary concern is to shield your Marxist allies.

I have not yet sent a private message to Shades. Could you please ensure that my post is returned to its proper place? This would help prevent Shades from having to take on unnecessary additional work. Your role is to assist Shades, not to behave like a petulant child. Moving posts that adhere to the guidelines and then prompting someone to message the board owner to revert the post is not a constructive way to support Dr. Shades on his discussion board! Your emotional instability is genuinely creating additional work for him!

You must not be reading either UR 4 or my previous comments. Nothing in UR 4 pertains to your alleged deviation from the topic, or your own motive.

You should probably worry less about the imagined emotional instability of others, and concentrate on your attention skills. : )

This means you relocated my post to the Telestial simply because you disagree with my content, lacking a valid justification for the move. Once more, your actions as a moderator seem driven by your emotions, fully aware that I will raise my concerns with Dr. Shades due to your repeated misuse of the moderating authority entrusted to you.

Your actions are directly contradicting Shades' intentions, leading him to engage in situations that arise from your disregard for the board's rules. It appears you are moderating based on emotions, which reflects a lack of stability. Are you aware that the reason you provided for relocating my post was 'motive', correct? Your intelligence is quite questionable! Honestly, I'm not joking; I believe you are genuinely quite unstable and embody what it means to be an idiot.

[canpakes]

You must not be reading either UR 4 or my previous comments. Nothing in UR 4 pertains to your alleged deviation from the topic, or your own motive.

You should probably worry less about the imagined emotional instability of others, and concentrate on your attention skills. : )

This means you relocated my post to the Telestial simply because you disagree with my content, lacking a valid justification for the move. Once more, your actions as a moderator seem driven by your emotions, fully aware that I will raise my concerns with Dr. Shades due to your repeated misuse of the moderating authority entrusted to you.

Your actions are directly contradicting Shades' intentions, leading him to engage in situations that arise from your disregard for the board's rules. It appears you are moderating based on emotions, which reflects a lack of stability. Are you aware that the reason you provided for relocating my post was 'motive', correct? Your intelligence is quite questionable! Honestly, I'm not joking; I believe you are genuinely quite unstable and embody what it means to be an idiot.

Sorry, Hound Account. You’re spinning up and sounding hysterical at this point.

The reason why I moved that post was stated in red two pages back. It’s super easy to understand, and has nothing to do with your motive or any ‘derail’ content.

Read it again, if you have to:

viewtopic.php?p=2913791#p2913791

[canpakes]

Hound, adding: Send your request to Shades. You like to bounce around along the edges of the rule set and I don’t mind erring on the cautious side. You’re not going to hurt my feelings (and neither is Shades) if the post is moved back.

There’s no need to descend into madness over it. : D