Rules and Moderator information

[Whiskey]

Nah. That ain't how it works, you damned dumbass. You tell lie, after lie, after lie, after lie after damned lie after lie after lie. Not my job to address your lies. Support your claims with something other than your priesthood power to know crap that ain't true to be true. In the meantime, start your own thread if you want to discuss something other than moderation.

Rephrased: “You’re a liar but I can’t list any of your lies!!1!”

Please don’t decide to take up being a lawyer. You’ll be miserable : D

Jesus, panny. Start another thread if you want to play these games. Nobody is under any obligation to address every goddamn lie and twist and crappy thing you say. When you make crap up and it is not true, it is a lie. Start with that, dummy.

So, off you piss. You are not moderating this thread. Bye. Tootles.

[canpakes]

Rephrased: “You’re a liar but I can’t list any of your lies!!1!”

Please don’t decide to take up being a lawyer. You’ll be miserable : D

Jesus, panny. Start another thread if you want to play these games. Nobody is under any obligation to address every goddamn lie and twist and crappy thing you say. When you make crap up and it is not true, it is a lie. Start with that, dummy.

So, off you piss. You are not moderating this thread. Bye. Tootles.

Your advice is a great prescription for yourself.

Anyhow, since the Hound account outed you as reporting a post but complained about me when doing so, and since you’re here stamping your feet about imagined lying but seemingly unable to back that claim up, here we are.

Quoting for the record:

It appears that Whiskey reported a post he deemed inappropriate.

If you wish to retreat again, then do so. Or discuss the allegations above. Or keep spamming the thread; I’m not moderating it so your spam can stay here for a while.

Your choice.

[Equality]

I thought you didn't give a damn about lies and lying?

You have the know-what-other-people-think-priesthood too? Or, you just thought you knew what someone thought but you didn't? panny and Gad, these dudes probably can trace their know-what-other-people-think-priesthood authority back to a monkey.

No, I was referencing a comment you made in the past to the effect that you don't give an eff about lying. I don't know what you were thinking when you said that, or what you are thinking now. I just know that you said it, and saying it left me with the impression that you meant it.

If you tell someone you don't give an eff about lying and they say "I thought you didn't give an eff about lying" it's probably because you said you don't give an eff about lying and not that the person to whom you said that is inventing things about what you think.

[Whiskey]

You have the know-what-other-people-think-priesthood too? Or, you just thought you knew what someone thought but you didn't? panny and Gad, these dudes probably can trace their know-what-other-people-think-priesthood authority back to a monkey.

No, I was referencing a comment you made in the past to the effect that you don't give an eff about lying. I don't know what you were thinking when you said that, or what you are thinking now. I just know that you said it, and saying it left me with the impression that you meant it.

If you tell someone you don't give an eff about lying and they say "I thought you didn't give an eff about lying" it's probably because you said you don't give an eff about lying and not that the person to whom you said that is inventing things about what you think.

Oh. You recall that but not the context, which is likely relevant, you twat.

[Equality]

No, I was referencing a comment you made in the past to the effect that you don't give an eff about lying. I don't know what you were thinking when you said that, or what you are thinking now. I just know that you said it, and saying it left me with the impression that you meant it.

If you tell someone you don't give an eff about lying and they say "I thought you didn't give an eff about lying" it's probably because you said you don't give an eff about lying and not that the person to whom you said that is inventing things about what you think.

Oh. You recall that but not the context, which is likely relevant, you twat.

Oh, I recall the context. You were saying you don't give a damn about Trump's lying.

[Hound of Heaven]

Would I be within the rules of the board?

Yes, but please keep in mind that if any of the post you screenshot end up being moved to the Spirit Prison forum then they'll become irrelevant.

Dr. Shades, your moderator Canpakes, is once again misusing red lettering, which is reserved for moderators, to engage in an open conflict with Whiskey in a thread.The thread I’m talking about is titled "Rethinking The AI Problem", it's in the Terrestrial.

Instead of addressing whiskey through a private message, Can'tpakes has chosen to confront whiskey publicly on the board. This choice has led to a derailment of the thread, as he spends the next four pages arguing with whiskey rather than engaging with the thread's intended topic.

He has used red lettering repeatedly to respond to whiskey, but once he was called out for it, he ceased using red lettering. Nevertheless, he continued the conversation as a regular board member, prolonging the dispute openly for his friends to enjoy watching him abuse his moderating powers.

Dr. Shades, I have never witnessed either you or Xeno displaying such immature behavior as Canpakes is permitted to exhibit openly on the board. Neither you nor Xeno would ever disrupt a discussion for several pages in an effort to impose a rule. Nearly all moderators possess the intelligence to recognize that breaking a rule is unnecessary to enforce a different rule. In this instance, Canpakes, the moderator, is derailing the thread merely to claim he is enforcing a rule.

It is clear that Canpakes doesn't give a shxx about your rules. If he did, he would have addressed Whiskey's behavior openly once, maybe twice openly on the board, should Whiskey have responded, it would have been Canpakes responsibility as a moderator to move the discussion to private messages, ensuring that neither he nor Whiskey disrupts the thread.

My question for you is, why is Canpake allowed to misuse the authority granted to him as a moderator? In this particular situation we are addressing, he could not have managed it any more poorly than he has. He decided to derail the thread to openly enforce a rule, aiming to provide his friends with a good laugh. He is clearly misusing the power you have entrusted to him, essentially showing blatant disrespect for you in front of everyone on the board.

[Whiskey]

Where are all the posts by panny? They are all blitzed?

So what are the answers to the three questions?

[Hound of Heaven]

Where are all the posts by panny? They are all blitzed?

So what are the answers to the three questions?

Dang! That was fast. I posted about that thread only an hour ago, and either Xeno or Shades removed his post very fast. I can't find them in a lower kingdom, though. Did they delete his post from the board?

[canpakes]

… the next four pages …

Someone was handed a participation trophy when math grades were given out back in grade school. ; )

[Hound of Heaven]

… the next four pages …

Someone was handed a participation trophy when math grades were given out back in grade school. ; )

You are having a really tough time figuring out how to be a competent moderator aren't you?

Do you realize that in the past 6 months, you have been moderated more than anyone else on the board? Everything you do as a moderator is either overturned or removed from the thread you are participating in. Consider the thread we're discussing now, you tried to enforce a rule, pretending like Whiskey was at fault, and you are so ignorant, you derailed the entire thread to enforce a "rule" you can't even back up.

Everyone here knows you choose to moderate me, Whiskey, Ceeboo, MG2.0, on the board publicly so you can "impress" your Marxist buddies like GadiSCAMton and Captain Progressive. Problem you're running into though, is you're not intelligent enough to do it without coming across as bias.