Rules and Moderator information

[Whiskey]

No worries. Several years in, I haven’t been wrong yet in any prediction about you or Binger.

It’s interesting that you’re putting Binger in a more restrictive box, to boot. ; )

I will address this in more detail, in parts. Suffice it to say, that, like most your posts, this is just another goddamn lie. Well, not just a lie, it is also a delusion. Maybe your predictions were actually little wee man prophecies and you were doing all you could to fulfill them, including telling lies like the one you are telling here, panny.

Hound is not putting me in a box. You have been wrong about pretty much everything. I am not sure why, even in light of the events of the last few days, you insist on lying, picking these battles, and losing. I just don't understand. I also have ZFTG about whether you will ever understand. I suspect Hound is right - you can't separate moderating (the actual thread topic) from your petty game and little man angst that makes you want to do something to those so-called big bullies out there.

[Whiskey]

Consider this quote:

The ONLY thing that matters on this board is my entertainment. That is it. Nothing else matters.

That said, it’s interesting that you are referring to ‘Whiskey’ as ‘Binger’, completely unprompted. ; )

You selected that quote. And, dishonestly, you edited the context out. For someone that had a meltdown over an emoji in a quote, you took it one step further and just went full scale dishonest on the joint, didn't you?

Here is the rest of the paragraph. The full response, from 2021 FFS, is available in the little arrow link.

The ONLY thing that matters on this board is my entertainment. That is it. Nothing else matters. And that is true for every person on this board and for every person in every role on this board. Including the founder. Including the moderators. [emphasis added] Including that bigot Gadianton and whatever he does here.

Later, you doubled down on your lie.

There’s a kernel of truth there, resting in the final sentence. I shouldn’t have to temporarily ban Binger for anything, if Binger was capable of not solely seeing the board as his own personal entertainment at the expense of everyone else while carrying out grudges against people that he disagrees with.

I do not see the board as my own personal entertainment at the expense of others. I never said that. I don't believe that. I am not carrying out grudges against people that disagree with me. I don't have any way of carrying out a grudge, you ding dong. Your lie, or conclusion not based in fact or whatever Res calls it, is nothing but raw projection and confession, panny. You are making things up about me and likely doing the same regarding Hound and anyone else you have a grudge with, and moderating accordingly. Stop that crap. And yes, I would suggest you stop moderating if needling, picking fights and lying to and about posters is more entertaining to you.

[Whiskey]

It appears that you, as an emotionally driven moderator, decided to publicly announce the discipline of Binger. In your perspective, this action portrays you as transparent and authoritative.

Does it? That’s nice. But, it was really about speaking to Binger’s wish and his point on transparency. Like how we discuss things here. I view transparency as a good thing. Wouldn’t you agree?

Let me clarify something you’re misrepresenting.

I did not ask for “transparency.”
I did not ask you to make an announcement for the sake of the community.

What I said was very specific:

If you were going to ban me, make it permanent and make it clear that I was permanently banned — so that my inability to respond to your misrepresentations wouldn’t be mistaken for silence or agreement.

That’s it.

We never discussed transparency as a principle or as some shared value.
You introduced that after the fact. I also never gave you permission to disclose our conversations. WTF panny? As the moderator, you went full tilt on this didn't you. All I said was, if you ban me, make it permanent and make it public. You missed.

You also chose to ban me in the middle of the discussion. My only point was to ensure that if you cut off my ability to reply, it would be obvious to everyone why I could no longer respond — and that the ban, not the accuracy of your claims, was the reason.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Whiskey]

[MODERATOR NOTE: After reviewing the thread in question, it appears to me that Whiskey's posts didn't violate any rule other than the one against using profanity, which he can't exactly be "dinged" for because so many others do it, too. Therefore, his ban is rescinded.]

Shades,

Here’s a proposal that respects your preferences and my boundaries:

I’ll refrain from profanity directed at anyone unless I’m responding to deliberate misrepresentations.
If someone—especially a moderator—attributes thoughts to me that I never expressed, or builds claims out of thin air, I reserve the right to represent myself with some creativity. But my default will be clean language unless the situation is escalated by dishonesty.

In other words:
If the discussion is honest, I’m civil.
If the discussion is dishonest, I will participate clearly—and sometimes colorfully.

Ideally, none of that will be necessary.

If you’re good with that arrangement, so am I.

[canpakes]

Binger, I’m going to combine a response to two posts as it’s more efficient.

No worries. Several years in, I haven’t been wrong yet in any prediction about you or Binger.

It’s interesting that you’re putting Binger in a more restrictive box, to boot. ; )

I will address this in more detail, in parts. Suffice it to say, that, like most your posts, this is just another goddamn lie. Well, not just a lie, it is also a delusion. Maybe your predictions were actually little wee man prophecies and you were doing all you could to fulfill them, including telling lies like the one you are telling here, panny.

Nope. 100% not a lie. It’s absolutely true.

Take Shades out to dinner, and ask him to view the mod forum. Bring up every post I’ve ever made there. It will confirm that my predictions about you have always been spot on. It will also confirm that I’ve been in your corner and against banning on several occasions. But you’ve never been able to rise above your control issues and grievances about this board, and that has resulted in at least two account wipes (by who, I don’t know).

If you were correct and I was wrong, then this history of yours would not exist. Yet there it is.

Hound is not putting me in a box.

He did. And you’ve already contradicted his ‘belief’. Good job.

You have been wrong about pretty much everything. I am not sure why, even in light of the events of the last few days, you insist on lying, picking these battles, and losing. I just don't understand. I also have ZFTG about whether you will ever understand. I suspect Hound is right - you can't separate moderating (the actual thread topic) from your petty game and little man angst that makes you want to do something to those so-called big bullies out there.

This paragraph is insightful, as you’re demonstrating that you think that this is either a game or a contest. To me, it’s neither. The board is a community of individuals who have a history together, and that history has resulted in a sort of prevailing political sensibility that rubs you and the ‘Mike’ accounts the wrong way. That, and your grudge against Doc after the two of you went at it in your ME days has driven your behavior for several years.

You are, as always, remarkably consistent with your projection. The difference between us is that you’re locked in a battle against several ghosts that I don’t care about. At the end of the day, not moderating anything is much easier than taking a chance on not getting the ‘Shades clone’ task correct, but I’ll take the chance on the latter if it helps this board community to function better.

Consider this quote:
<snip>
That said, it’s interesting that you are referring to ‘Whiskey’ as ‘Binger’, completely unprompted. ; )

You selected that quote. And, dishonestly, you edited the context out. For someone that had a meltdown over an emoji in a quote, you took it one step further and just went full scale dishonest on the joint, didn't you?

No. Here again, your projection traps you.

1. It’s your actual quote.
2. The quote links back to the full rant from you. Clicking on the adorable little arrow lets everyone see it all. You’re going to mention the same thing below.
3. There is nothing dishonest about quoting you, aside from whatever dishonesty is resident in your own quote.
4. Not adding your entire rant is not dishonest as your quote stands on its own regardless of any other portion of the your rant. Quoting the relevant part of a post is completely acceptable when the focus is on that part, and when the quote is presented in whole.

Here is the rest of the paragraph. The full response, from 2021 FFS, is available in the little arrow link.

As noted above.

The ONLY thing that matters on this board is my entertainment. That is it. Nothing else matters. And that is true for every person on this board and for every person in every role on this board. Including the founder. Including the moderators. [emphasis added] Including that bigot Gadianton and whatever he does here.

Now, here’s the weird part. After ranting about how it’s dishonest to present a partial quote, you have just partially quoted your own post.

As usual, thanks for proving my point for me.

Later, you doubled down on your lie.

There’s a kernel of truth there, resting in the final sentence. I shouldn’t have to temporarily ban Binger for anything, if Binger was capable of not solely seeing the board as his own personal entertainment at the expense of everyone else while carrying out grudges against people that he disagrees with.

I do not see the board as my own personal entertainment at the expense of others. I never said that. I don't believe that.

You have literally stated it and now quoted yourself doing so.

I am not carrying out grudges against people that disagree with me. I don't have any way of carrying out a grudge, you ding dong.

I disagree. Your previous behavior on the board shows your issues, and I’m pretty convinced that your future actions will, as well.

As it is, we haven’t even made it past morning and already you’re three posts in to ranting about … me.

Your lie, or conclusion not based in fact or whatever Res calls it, is nothing but raw projection and confession, panny. You are making things up about me and likely doing the same regarding Hound and anyone else you have a grudge with, and moderating accordingly. Stop that crap. And yes, I would suggest you stop moderating if needling, picking fights and lying to and about posters is more entertaining to you.

Again, the history of the board presents differently than your breathless protests here. If you were at all able to be the person that you claim to be, that history would not be what it is and there wouldn’t be three new posts from you ranting about it.

As for your post to Shades imposing conditions on exceptions for your behavior … if you claim these conditions as necessary, then you can be held to exactly the same conditions. You’ll need to revamp your approach. ; )

[canpakes]

Does it? That’s nice. But, it was really about speaking to Binger’s wish and his point on transparency. Like how we discuss things here. I view transparency as a good thing. Wouldn’t you agree?

Let me clarify something you’re misrepresenting.

I did not ask for “transparency.”
I did not ask you to make an announcement for the sake of the community.

What I said was very specific:

If you were going to ban me, make it permanent and make it clear that I was permanently banned — so that my inability to respond to your misrepresentations wouldn’t be mistaken for silence or agreement.

That’s it.

We never discussed transparency as a principle or as some shared value.
You introduced that after the fact. I also never gave you permission to disclose our conversations. WTF panny? As the moderator, you went full tilt on this didn't you. All I said was, if you ban me, make it permanent and make it public. You missed.

You also chose to ban me in the middle of the discussion. My only point was to ensure that if you cut off my ability to reply, it would be obvious to everyone why I could no longer respond — and that the ban, not the accuracy of your claims, was the reason.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Is ‘make it public’ not transparent, now?

You should probably work out what you want. You certainly didn’t want to be permanently banned, either, based on your activity this morning. ; )

[Whiskey]

Let me clarify something you’re misrepresenting.

I did not ask for “transparency.”
I did not ask you to make an announcement for the sake of the community.

What I said was very specific:

If you were going to ban me, make it permanent and make it clear that I was permanently banned — so that my inability to respond to your misrepresentations wouldn’t be mistaken for silence or agreement.

That’s it.

We never discussed transparency as a principle or as some shared value.
You introduced that after the fact. I also never gave you permission to disclose our conversations. WTF panny? As the moderator, you went full tilt on this didn't you. All I said was, if you ban me, make it permanent and make it public. You missed.

You also chose to ban me in the middle of the discussion. My only point was to ensure that if you cut off my ability to reply, it would be obvious to everyone why I could no longer respond — and that the ban, not the accuracy of your claims, was the reason.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Is ‘make it public’ not transparent, now?

You should probably work out what you want. You certainly didn’t want to be permanently banned, either, based on your activity this morning. ; )

panny, you have to stop this. You do not have a magic ability to know what people want or think. You never have. And the way you keep inventing motives for me is unstable, bizarre, and completely divorced from anything I actually said. I did not ask for some grand gesture of “transparency.”
I asked one thing: If you were going to ban me, make it permanent and make it clear that I was permanently banned so my inability to respond wouldn’t be mistaken for agreement.

That is not transparency for its own sake. It is accuracy.

You also had no permission to disclose private conversations publicly. Why did you decide that was your move? Why did you treat that as license to narrate my intentions? And no, telling you “make it public if you ban me” is not the same as “please speak for me, interpret me, and create a storyline about what I want.”

You keep doing this.
You keep projecting thoughts and motives onto me that I never expressed.
And when corrected, you double down and create a new set of assumptions to justify the old ones.

It needs to stop. Not toned down—stopped. What is not clear about this? Just, damned, stop. If you can't stop, then stop being a moderator. Just, damned, stop. Find another topic to write about. Something other than what your imagination has convinced you others want or think. Jesus, damned, Christ.

My deal with Shades stands_the profanity will not appear when the lies and distortions don't demand profanity.

[canpakes]

Is ‘make it public’ not transparent, now?

You should probably work out what you want. You certainly didn’t want to be permanently banned, either, based on your activity this morning. ; )

panny, you have to stop this. You do not have a magic ability to know what people want or think. You never have. And the way you keep inventing motives for me is unstable, bizarre, and completely divorced from anything I actually said. I did not ask for some grand gesture of “transparency.”
I asked one thing: If you were going to ban me, make it permanent and make it clear that I was permanently banned so my inability to respond wouldn’t be mistaken for agreement.

That is not transparency for its own sake. It is accuracy.

You also had no permission to disclose private conversations publicly. Why did you decide that was your move? Why did you treat that as license to narrate my intentions? And no, telling you “make it public if you ban me” is not the same as “please speak for me, interpret me, and create a storyline about what I want.”

You keep doing this.
You keep projecting thoughts and motives onto me that I never expressed.
And when corrected, you double down and create a new set of assumptions to justify the old ones.

It needs to stop. Not toned down—stopped. What is not clear about this? Just, damned, stop. If you can't stop, then stop being a moderator. Just, damned, stop. Find another topic to write about. Something other than what your imagination has convinced you others want or think. Jesus, damned, Christ.

My deal with Shades stands_the profanity will not appear when the lies and distortions don't demand profanity.

Who was I supposed to be transparent to, if not the community?

All of this just prompts the same reply as before: You should probably work out what you want. You certainly didn’t want to be permanently banned, either, based on your activity this morning.

[Whiskey]

Take Shades out to dinner, and ask him to view the mod forum. Bring up every post I’ve ever made there.

C'mon panny. I don't like you and I think you are unfit for this role. But damn man, I am not soul-less and I do have empathy and sympathy.

You are clearly on tilt with an insane and impossible suggestion like this. Take a break man. Let this all settle and get back to it another day. Cool?

[Whiskey]

panny, you have to stop this. You do not have a magic ability to know what people want or think. You never have. And the way you keep inventing motives for me is unstable, bizarre, and completely divorced from anything I actually said. I did not ask for some grand gesture of “transparency.”

I asked one thing: If you were going to ban me, make it permanent and make it clear that I was permanently banned so my inability to respond wouldn’t be mistaken for agreement.

That is not transparency for its own sake. It is accuracy.

You also had no permission to disclose private conversations publicly. Why did you decide that was your move? Why did you treat that as license to narrate my intentions? And no, telling you “make it public if you ban me” is not the same as “please speak for me, interpret me, and create a storyline about what I want.”

You keep doing this.
You keep projecting thoughts and motives onto me that I never expressed.
And when corrected, you double down and create a new set of assumptions to justify the old ones.

It needs to stop. Not toned down—stopped. What is not clear about this? Just, damned, stop. If you can't stop, then stop being a moderator. Just, damned, stop. Find another topic to write about. Something other than what your imagination has convinced you others want or think. Jesus, damned, Christ.

My deal with Shades stands_the profanity will not appear when the lies and distortions don't demand profanity.

Who was I supposed to be transparent to, if not the community?

All of this just prompts the same reply as before: You should probably work out what you want. You certainly didn’t want to be permanently banned, either, based on your activity this morning.

Last response to you today, panny. You are clearly off. You are not reading well, writing well or using reasonable logic.

What I think, and what I want, is not accurately described or interpreted by your screwed up imagination. Your need to know what I think and what I want is a pathologically screwed up place for you. Your years-long obsession with it is damned bizarre as “F”. Just, damned, stop.

You are damned wrong. Very, damned, wrong.

If indeed Shades was not willing to listen to Hound, me and the facts, I absolutely wanted a permanent ban. In light of the conditions presented at the time of my offer, I would prefer a permanent ban over a 2 week ban. No doubt and no question. None.

Now, “F” off with your screwed up unwellness and nonsense, you lying “F”. Stop. You are not good at this and you are not correct.