Rules and Moderator information

[Whiskey]

That doesn't really work, wanker. You need a better punchline and a better picture.

here are some suggestions.

Same tantrum. New caption.

or maybe something like this, where you are using cartoon characters.

Character development requires change.

[Marcus]

You've got to give him something to work with! If you can answer the question that would help.


Of course, the picture is perfect if you weren't really being truthful when you said you were denied the option to speak to Shades.

Did you ever get to the library late? Use that.

No, that doesn't work. What is coming through is that when you posted this:

... Xeno and Shades, please check your PM's. I prefer to have this conversation privately, but it seems that that option has been denied as well...

...you were not telling the truth. That really undercuts your position of nonstop complaining.

[Whiskey]

Did you ever get to the library late? Use that.

No, that doesn't work. What is coming through is that when you posted this:

... Xeno and Shades, please check your PM's. I prefer to have this conversation privately, but it seems that that option has been denied as well...

...you were not telling the truth. That really undercuts your position of nonstop complaining.

What scenarios have you included and excluded, Lem?

[Marcus]

No, that doesn't work. What is coming through is that when you posted this:

...you were not telling the truth. That really undercuts your position of nonstop complaining.

What scenarios have you included and excluded, Lem?

No scenarios necessary. You were not being truthful when you posted that you had been denied the option of PMing Shades.

[Whiskey]

What scenarios have you included and excluded, Lem?

No scenarios necessary. You were not being truthful when you posted that you had been denied the option of PMing Shades.

I was, though, you have made a conclusion that I was not based on your assumptions. Detail your assumptions. Thanks, Lem.

[Marcus]

No scenarios necessary. You were not being truthful when you posted that you had been denied the option of PMing Shades.

I was, though, you have made a conclusion that I was not based on your assumptions. Detail your assumptions. Thanks, Lem.

You had plenty of chances to explain and you can't. Now you are obfuscating. Moving on.

[Whiskey]

I was, though, you have made a conclusion that I was not based on your assumptions. Detail your assumptions. Thanks, Lem.

You had plenty of chances to explain and you can't. Now you are obfuscating. Moving on.

Lem, Lem, Lem, Lem, Lem. Oh, Lem. You are doing the cheap move where you assert something, refuse to substantiate it, and then pretend the other guy failed to explain why your assertion is wrong. That is backwards. This is what your p***boy panny does. It is just BS. If you want to make a claim about what I said or meant, show the reasoning. If you cannot, then stop acting like your assumption is my problem.

[Hound of Heaven]

So Dr.Shades, check out the image below, it's a screenshot of your moderator Canpakes intentionally trying to start a fight with me on another thread. He's intentionally trying to get me to post just so he and I can fight back and forth on the board for everyone to see. Canpakes knows I have already answered the questions He's looking for, and I answered him on the day he posted the post in the image.

At some point, Shades, you have got to realize that Canpakes is literally trying to pick fights with board members so he can be entertained. All you have to to is go to the thread in the image to see he and I have already discussed this, he's wanting a fight. Like it or not, Shades, a moderator shouldn't be looking for a fight on the board he's moderating. There's no legitimate reason for the moderator Canpakes to have posted this!! Like I said, it has already been discussed.

Again, please think about not allowing Canpakes to moderate Whiskey. Canpakes hates Whiskey and everyone knows it. And now that I asked you to overturn Whiskey's ban and you did, Canpakes hatred has become even worse. He's searching for a fight from either me and Whiskey or the both of us. He literally can't control his emotions.

Im not going to respond to Canpakes in the other thread because I already have and I know he's looking for a fight. I just wish I didn't have to fight with a moderator, or that a moderator is targeting me for a fight.

[Whiskey]

Shades and Xeno,

Hound's post highlights a pattern that has now repeated enough times that it can’t reasonably be dismissed. The issue is a moderator re-quoting his own prior post for the sole purpose of reigniting an exchange, followed immediately by a fresh insult. That is participation, escalation, and baiting. The black text may be that of a regular poster, but the green text on the posters name "canpakes" shows that this is a moderator.

A moderator who injects himself into threads this way creates a situation where any response becomes asymmetric. If Hound responds, the moderator can later shift into enforcement mode. If Hound does not respond, the provocation stands unchallenged. Either way, the moderator controls both the spark/trigger and the consequences/reaction. That dynamic does not seem to fit the intent of having moderators.

There is a consistent pattern here where assumptions are asserted as facts, conclusions are drawn from those assumptions, and then the absence of engagement is treated as confirmation. This post by Hound screenshots that pattern succinctly. The strategy may be annoying but tolerable behavior from a regular poster. It is not acceptable behavior from someone wearing moderator authority, whether or not black text is used in that specific moment.

To be clear, this is not a demand for change. It is a request for clarity. Moderators cannot credibly serve both as combatants and referees in the same arena or theater. When that line blurs, every subsequent moderation decision by every moderator becomes suspect. It is not enough to split panny's instigation into black/red or here/there. He is still a moderator.

I am asking you to look at the behavior pattern, not the personalities involved. If this is how moderation is expected to function here, then say so plainly. OWN IT. Particularly you, Xeno. Own it. If it is not, then the behavior needs to stop or posters like me should be shown the door. In this case, I agree with Gadianton. If this is what one or more moderators wants, including panny, then banning me permanently is the only way.

That’s it.

[canpakes]

So Dr.Shades, check out the image below, it's a screenshot of your moderator Canpakes intentionally trying to start a fight with me on another thread. He's intentionally trying to get me to post just so he and I can fight back and forth on the board for everyone to see. Canpakes knows I have already answered the questions He's looking for, and I answered him on the day he posted the post in the image.

I sense some projection coming from the account that has started dozens of baiting threads, each namecalling handfuls of board participants out of the blue and accusing them of silly or dangerous beliefs.

Shades and Xeno,

Hound's post highlights a pattern that has now repeated enough times that it can’t reasonably be dismissed. The issue is a moderator re-quoting his own prior post for the sole purpose of reigniting an exchange, followed immediately by a fresh insult. That is participation, escalation, and baiting. The black text may be that of a regular poster, but the green text on the posters name "canpakes" shows that this is a moderator.

I sense some projection coming from the account that has used three past accounts to chase board participants around attempting to bait and agitate them with incoherent rants and grade-school obscenities.