Rules and Moderator information

[Hound of Heaven]

If by “fun,” you mean “beat about the head and shoulders with a 2 x 4,” I agree.

But the 2 x 4 has nails in it this time. It’s more bracing. : D

Canpakes, is it true that since Shades handed down his ruling, you have spent four pages spamming the same thread you banned Whiskey for spamming? Yes, you have. You have spent four pages attempting to convince yourself and everyone else that you were correct and Shades is wrong, even though you admit that you knew Shades would overturn your ban on Whiskey.

[Dr. Shades]

Dr. Shades, I’m not seeking a response to this post; I’m sharing it for you to reflect on the information I’m presenting.

[SNIP!]

If a moderator engages in a direct confrontation with a board member in a thread and opts to ban the board member rather than simply leaving the discussion, that individual is not fit to hold the position of moderator. A moderator must understand how to navigate the path of least resistance IF THEY ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME BEHAVIOR as the members they punish.

Your concern is acknowledged. A conversation has already been had such that I'm hopeful this won't be an issue in the future.

[Whiskey]

But the 2 x 4 has nails in it this time. It’s more bracing. : D

Canpakes, is it true that since Shades handed down his ruling, you have spent four pages spamming the same thread you banned Whiskey for spamming? Yes, you have. You have spent four pages attempting to convince yourself and everyone else that you were correct and Shades is wrong, even though you admit that you knew Shades would overturn your ban on Whiskey.

Hound, while you are waiting for panny to respond, I will address this.

panny did not know that Shades would overturn it. Only after the fact, did he make some crap up that he believed that Shades would likely overturn it. Which, when you think about it, is just plain rude and dumb. But, it is what it is. Every reason panny gave for the ban are things that panny did himself, or in the case of a particular post — he responded to AND REPOSTED WITH EDITS WITHIN THE QUOTES the offending post that justified my ban.

It's all good though. Have faith, Hound of Heaven, I think there is a path forward for panny. Let's see what he wants to say about it.

[Whiskey]

Dr. Shades, I’m not seeking a response to this post; I’m sharing it for you to reflect on the information I’m presenting.

[SNIP!]

If a moderator engages in a direct confrontation with a board member in a thread and opts to ban the board member rather than simply leaving the discussion, that individual is not fit to hold the position of moderator. A moderator must understand how to navigate the path of least resistance IF THEY ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME BEHAVIOR as the members they punish.

Your concern is acknowledged. A conversation has already been had such that I'm hopeful this won't be an issue in the future.

Thanks Shades.

I suggest making the solution public so there is some clarity, particularly for Hound, ceeboo, Binger (whoever that is ) and any others who may have avoided threads with a participating moderator given the past, and now remedied, conditions.

[Hound of Heaven]

Canpakes, I am composing this post to share my perspective on this board with you. I’m sharing this with you so that you have the information to consider and reflect on for a few days. Whether you agree or not, and regardless of your views on appropriate conduct, the reality remains unchanged.

From my viewpoint, it seems that you show favoritism towards posters such as Dr.cam, Schmo, and several others. I feel compelled to take on the role of a moderator, and I've devised a clever method for managing posters like DrCam and Schmo when they begin to launch their attacks against me. When Schmo or DrCam begin to overstep their bounds and resort to a barrage of insults, I tend to respond in kind, often escalating the situation by sharing images such as DrCam in a Nazi uniform or pictures of Schmo as a baby Homer Simpson. I have various psychological techniques that I use to help calm them down over time.

Check out my posting history, I haven't felt the need to share pictures of a baby Homer Simpson since Schmo is giving me some space. Indeed, he expresses his grievances about me, and he also voices his concerns regarding conservatives. However, he is entitled to do so, as this platform upholds the principle of free speech. I’ve taught Schmo to refrain from insulting me beyond the board rules by countering his foolishness with my own, plus a bit more. I have done the same with Drcam, just compare his posting history to that of a year ago. He no longer shares images because he understands that I'll match his energy, and he dislikes appearing as though he has lost. He consistently falls short in the meme game when competing against me.

I am simply requesting that you enforce the rules with fairness. That is all I desire. If you're going to prohibit Whiskey for using the C word, then you should also prohibit Drcam for repeatedly telling me to suck my own dick. I simply want to post without feeling the need to moderate Schmo or Cam. Please moderate Cam and Schmo in the same manner you moderate me and Whiskey. By applying the rules consistently, I will no longer match their energy, making your job easier and simplifying the tasks for the other two moderators as well.

I believe it is crucial for you to grasp this, so I will reiterate it once more. If I sense that I'm being treated unfairly by you for allowing Cam or Schmo to bend the rules of the board, I will respond in kind with my own brand of foolishness, and then some. While you might not see eye to eye with my methods, they yield results! I would like to see you publicly address DrCam to demonstrate your impartiality, and I assure you that the atmosphere in Spirit Paradise will settle down.

[canpakes]

Hound, while you are waiting for panny to respond, I will address this.

panny did not know that Shades would overturn it. Only after the fact, did he make some crap up that he believed that Shades would likely overturn it. Which, when you think about it, is just plain rude and dumb.

Binger, you just posted this a short while ago:

But when he’s in the mode of “let me tell you what this person really thinks,” or dropping another personal jab, it derails everything.

You’re doing the same here.

I believed that it was better than even odds that Shades would overturn the ban. He has given you and the ‘mike’ accounts dozens of chances to rehabilitate yourselves after questionable behavior. And the ban still served several purposes.

If not for your history of three wiped accounts, tens of thousands of self-edited posts, and multiple previous bans, I would not have imposed the temporary ban. But your record of behavior over the last half-decade convinced me that it had merit.

But, it is what it is. Every reason panny gave for the ban are things that panny did himself, or in the case of a particular post — he responded to AND REPOSTED WITH EDITS WITHIN THE QUOTES the offending post that justified my ban.

This has still never happened. No moderator - not I, nor Xeno, nor Shades - has ever ‘edited your posts’.

You’ve made this accusation dozens of times as cover for posts that you’ve made with content that you apparently now disavow, but can’t remove yourself.

If you can’t post a single example after 5 years, then it’s not a thing, and lying about it in ALLCAPS won’t change that.

[canpakes]

Canpakes, I am composing this post to share my perspective …

You're composing this post because you’ve been given the day’s script from Whiskey. ; )

All of this content has been discussed previously.

Did you know that the board has a function available to you that enables you to report the sorts of posts you’re complaining about? You should try it.

[Whiskey]

Canpakes, I am composing this post to share my perspective …

You're composing this post because you’ve been given the day’s script from Whiskey. ; )

All of this content has been discussed previously.

Did you know that the board has a function available to you that enables you to report the sorts of posts you’re complaining about? You should try it.

You can't stop lying. It is absurd. Goddamn panny. Just damned hell goddamn.

Your imagination is damned you up good.

[Marcus]

Canpakes, I am composing this post to share my perspective …

You're composing this post because you’ve been given the day’s script from Whiskey. ; ) ...

[Whiskey]

You're composing this post because you’ve been given the day’s script from Whiskey. ; ) ...

Ya know what's funny about that, Lem? Do you? You don't. So I will tell you.

If it ain't true, and it is not, makes ya wonder why panny said it. Sure looks like some coordination and projection going on at chez Lem. Correct?