-->
@Ramshutu
He'll just block you and permaignore you if you get too good at calling him out on his shit. Best to let him cry about one of the best mods teams you and I have seen on the Internet.
Quick Mod Announcement
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
85
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
But that's why we have such a strong sisterly bond.Being that you are an attention whore what else would one think.
-->
@drafterman
Do you know what also gives the impression of not being malefeasant, and abusing their power? Not being malefeasant and abusing their power.
The Site owner, and the mods are not perfect, but there is nothing they have ever done so far that makes me think anything has been done in any sort of bad fair to any degree.
This is just histrionics. You’ve decided that the mods just asking about a scenario - is evidence that they’re up to no good. A decision you don’t agree with, they’re evil. You don’t like the voting policy, so you decided to be a dick and report everything, and now you’re losing your mind and throwing your toys out of the pram - yet again - because you refuse to deal with your problems like a grown up.
This is a community site, run by former members of the community, and is doing a pretty good job in engaging with the community about governance.
All you seem to be doing is throwing self-important hissy fits whenever anyone says or does something you don’t agree with.
-->
@Ramshutu
Do you know what also gives the impression of not being malefeasant, and abusing their power? Not being malefeasant and abusing their power.The Site owner, and the mods are not perfect, but there is nothing they have ever done so far that makes me think anything has been done in any sort of bad fair to any degree.
Right but there are things they have done to make me think that they have been malfeasant. Your primary error here is thinking that I'm as ignorant of their behavior as you are.
This is just histrionics. You’ve decided that the mods just asking about a scenario - is evidence that they’re up to no good.
No, asking what they should do in that scenario is fine. It's the power they're asking for that is evidence that they're up to no good. No sensible person would think they need access to PMs.
A decision you don’t agree with, they’re evil. You don’t like the voting policy, so you decided to be a dick and report everything,
And how do you suggest that situation be handled instead? Talking to them? Because that wasn't working. So being a dick and reporting everything worked.
and now you’re losing your mind and throwing your toys out of the pram - yet again - because you refuse to deal with your problems like a grown up.
Yes, i get it, you're portraying me as hysterical and like a child. I get it. You don't need to trot out the same cliche over again. But I really don't see you presenting any sort of alternative that has any sort of potential for traction. Right now, the only thing that gets results is making the mod's life difficult.
This is a community site, run by former members of the community, and is doing a pretty good job in engaging with the community about governance.All you seem to be doing is throwing self-important hissy fits whenever anyone says or does something you don’t agree with.
Yep. I'm literally throwing hissy fits when anyone says or does something I don't agree with. This is a reasonable and accurate portrayal of the situation. I commend you for not hypocritically resorting to the same behavior you're accusing me of.
Clap.
-->
@drafterman
1.) You are confusing me thinking that their behaviour is not indicative of malefeasance because of what it is, with me being ignorant. For example: your go-to example of malefeasance was the mods publically asking whether the community would support some form of limited additional power - and agreeing to the result. I mean come on, your argument makes no sense: the mods are up to no good because they go around sneakily asking for powers in conditions for which you assumed the worst transparently - in public - and accepted the result? GADZOOKS! TREACHERY IS AFOOT.
Im sorry, but this is just ridiculous if not outright irrational paranoia. That’s unsupported by any actual public behaviour..
2.) Yeah, by talking to them. If it was just you reporting votes, your power to abuse voting would have been taken away and everything would have remained the same. Everyone else talking about the voting rules and restrictions before and after. The voting rules would absolutely have changed anyway and, to be fair, almost nothing has really materially changed on the voting front from before. People are being less pissed off now simply because there aren’t people like you deciding to report every individual vote.
3.) On the 15 or so “community” orientated discussion forums I’ve frequented in the last 23 years , every single last one of them had some power hungry Nazi with a big head abusing their power, at least eight times every year - at least according to the multiple keyboard toting freedom fighters like you that boards like this tend to attract. I’m repeatedly calling you histrionic, because this thread, your reaction throughout is literally one of the most stereotypical and repeated behaviour that it needs an equivalent of Godwin’s Law.
-->
@Ramshutu
1.) You are confusing me thinking that their behaviour is not indicative of malefeasance because of what it is, with me being ignorant. For example: your go-to example of malefeasance was the mods publically asking whether the community would support some form of limited additional power - and agreeing to the result. I mean come on, your argument makes no sense: the mods are up to no good because they go around sneakily asking for powers in conditions for which you assumed the worst transparently - in public - and accepted the result? GADZOOKS! TREACHERY IS AFOOT.
And you are confusing me talking about that example with it being the only example I have.
2.) Yeah, by talking to them. If it was just you reporting votes, your power to abuse voting would have been taken away and everything would have remained the same. Everyone else talking about the voting rules and restrictions before and after. The voting rules would absolutely have changed anyway and, to be fair, almost nothing has really materially changed on the voting front from before. People are being less pissed off now simply because there aren’t people like you deciding to report every individual vote.
The voting standards were lifted, wholesale, from DDO, and have been criticized for literal years, including after they were dropped here.
Just think about it for a second. If the voting standards were sensible, why should the users give a single fuck if a vote is reported? The users got upset because it resulted in lots of votes being deleted unjustly and votes were deleted unjustly because the voting standards were INSANE.
If the voting standards were sane, only bad votes would have been deleted and no one would have given a fuck.
-->
@Ramshutu
Tell Drafterman this (he almost never replies to me):
Only the corrupt and/or foolish define their stance as what they want to get rid of. Only the genuine and/or intelligent define themselves as what they want to replace a system with that's better.
-->
@drafterman
Yes. You keep making this argument. It’s pretty simple.
Voting rules have to be onerous - because that’s the only way to remove grudge votes or obvious bias. Its possible, but arduous to vote up to the level required by the voting guidelines if you’re not used to it. If you are used to it. It’s often the case you get a little lazy, you don’t do as good a job.
It’s like speeding. The limits are 30mph, 45mph. Etc. Everyone speeds, but as long as you’re not going 50 in a 30 no one gives a crap. Borderline or kinda shitty votes for people who’s heart is in the right place and just fell a bit short or made an error in their justification aren’t the vote abusers the rules were created to inhibit, so no one generally reports them, and everyone is happy, the same way that you’ll get left alone if you dont drive like a douche.
People were pissed for the same reason that Normal people would be pissed if they got a ticket for riding 31 in a 30 zone repeatedly because some dickhole neighbour had a radar gun and continually reported you to the police to enforce the rules. Or got pissed that they got two tickets, then see that same neighbour outside their house with a radar gun.
The voting rules are there to enforce a high standard of decisions, and should for the most part need to be infrequently upheld because of minimal reports. The issue on DDO wasn’t the removal - the rules are good - it was the individuals who couldn’t deal with people voting against them and reporting everything. Which forced everyone to be in their toes. Right now, I’ve actually seen a big improvement on vote detail since your nonsense - maybe everyone just upped their game!
I got a few votes removed, and I wasn’t pissed off at the mods, or the rules: I was pissed off at the person reporting a vote that wasn’t too far off. Like being reported for doing 35 in a 30 zone
-->
@Ramshutu
Voting rules have to be onerous
No they don't, or at least not as onerous as they were. Cast in point: the rules are less onerous and the site hasn't collapsed into a black hole.
It’s like speeding. The limits are 30mph, 45mph. Etc. Everyone speeds, but as long as you’re not going 50 in a 30 no one gives a crap. Borderline or kinda shitty votes for people who’s heart is in the right place and just fell a bit short or made an error in their justification aren’t the vote abusers the rules were created to inhibit, so no one generally reports them, and everyone is happy, the same way that you’ll get left alone if you dont drive like a douche.People were pissed for the same reason that Normal people would be pissed if they got a ticket for riding 31 in a 30 zone repeatedly because some dickhole neighbour had a radar gun and continually reported you to the police to enforce the rules. Or got pissed that they got two tickets, then see that same neighbour outside their house with a radar gun.
I like this analogy, but you're mis-applying it. Correctly applying it would be realizing that the police' response to such a person would be to ignore them and continue on their merry way. Police aren't bound to pull everyone over for even the slightest bit of speeding, they are free to exericse discretion. As are the mods here. The only reason they responded to every report was because they voluntarily decided to.
When you have fucked up rules and an insane application policy, getting angry at the person who's demonstrating why that's a bad combo seems a bit silly.
The voting rules are there to enforce a high standard of decisions, and should for the most part need to be infrequently upheld because of minimal reports.
No, it should be infrequently upheld because of minimal votes violating the rules.
The issue on DDO wasn’t the removal - the rules are good - it was the individuals who couldn’t deal with people voting against them and reporting everything. Which forced everyone to be in their toes. Right now, I’ve actually seen a big improvement on vote detail since your nonsense - maybe everyone just upped their game!I got a few votes removed, and I wasn’t pissed off at the mods, or the rules: I was pissed off at the person reporting a vote that wasn’t too far off. Like being reported for doing 35 in a 30 zone
LOL. So a dumb rule got applied in a dumb way so you're pissed off at the person pointing that out rather than the people implementing the dumb rules in the dumb ways. Gotchya.
-->
@drafterman
I think you are confused. In absolutely no case, do I think I have ever had a vote removed for unfair reasons. When I have had it pointed out I didn’t give sufficient reasons - it’s because I didn’t put sufficient reasons in. I think the voting rules are fair - and how harsh they are hasn’t really been changed in that respect, and rightly so. They are onerous and specify exactly how much effort you need to go into to make sure it’s a fair vote.
My frustration isn’t that I have had a vote removed unfairly, but frustration borne out of me making an error without realizing - the ever begrudging acknowledgement that I messed up my justification.
Ive once had an issue with voting on DDO relating to conduct points in one case - which I *shock* politely explained to a mod in PM - who agreed to let it stand after my explanation of why I felt it was valid.
The absolute fucking irony here is not lost on me: the mods have to treat every vote the same when reported, and have to hold them to the standards that are written down. I absolutely support this, and agree with their decision to limit their own discretion.... Because every time a moderator “exercises discretion”, someone like you spams the forums with how much of an abuse of power it is that this mod didn’t follow the CoC to give an advantage to one side or the other. They literally can’t win.
-->
@Ramshutu
For example: your go-to example of malefeasance was the mods publically asking whether the community would support some form of limited additional power - and agreeing to the result.
Fake news. First, the mod requested this obviously nazi- like power of the owner and the owner made him put it to the board. So it was not as "transparent" as you think.
And when he put it to the board, he did so with the most absurd justification. You keep telling us your feelings, at the very least, drafterman'sfeelings are as valid as yours. And unlike you, he has actual examples of mod misbehavior.
That is why you have to constantly resort to silly tactics like calling him childish, and babbling about prams and sandboxes. You wouldn't need such silliness if you had a case.
In my 23 years on the net, there has always been a sycophant like you, willing to excuse bad behavior because it allowed you some small authority or prestige.
Draft has a complaint. He has a right to it, and to voice it. Many agree with him. And he has a right to voice his complaint without some idiot insulting him for doing so.
You think the mods are great, so go enjoy your voting club where you never fail to award points to the wonderful mods, (even when the mod himself disagrees with you), And let Draft do his thing too.
Bsh1 and virt are big boys, they don't need your protection.
-->
@Ramshutu
Ah, so you agree with the standards and their implementation. You agree that your vote was substandard given that. Yet you get angry at me because your vote was removed. That is 100% sensible.
-->
@drafterman
Yes, and I explained it pretty well why.
A strict policy is required in order to prevent outright fraud. Voters and debaters will normally refrain from reporting obviously good faith votes. It is fair to expect moderators to adhere specifically within the rules with little because there are so many people like you who repeatedly and constantly challenge any attempt for any moderator to exercise their discretion.
So yeah: I’d love for me to get the benefit of it the doubt on votes, maybe I “just had a bad day”, or wrote a substandard vote when my heart was in the right place, or missed out something. But I completely understand that there is absolutely no compelling reason for anyone to actually do that, because if they did someone like would post threads like “Votegate: Ramshutu and Virtuoso in cahoots!”
-->
@RationalMadman
LOL. Moron.
-->
@Ramshutu
A strict policy is required in order to prevent outright fraud.
No it isn't.
Voters and debaters will normally refrain from reporting obviously good faith votes.
If voters and debaters can discern what a "good faith" vote is, why can't moderators? Are they somehow cognitively impaired?
It is fair to expect moderators to adhere specifically within the rules with little because there are so many people like you who repeatedly and constantly challenge any attempt for any moderator to exercise their discretion.
Except I don't, so this is a strawman. Though vocal, my issues with the moderators has been rather narrowly constrained.
So yeah: I’d love for me to get the benefit of it the doubt on votes, maybe I “just had a bad day”, or wrote a substandard vote when my heart was in the right place, or missed out something. But I completely understand that there is absolutely no compelling reason for anyone to actually do that, because if they did someone like would post threads like “Votegate: Ramshutu and Virtuoso in cahoots!”
The problem is: you are content with stupid voting standards that allow for good faith votes like this to get removed.
The issue is the voting standards were stupid. Period. You implicitly concede this the second you posit the existence of votes that should be allowed to exist that are a violation of those standards. Your solution, however, is that such votes simply shouldn't be reported by debaters or voters for... reasons. This notion that stupid voting standards are required to combat fraud is baseless.
I agree with you that, as a composite average, the general users have a good sense of what is and is not a good vote. But the problem with relying solely on this sense is that stupid voting standards are allowed to persist because they're rarely enforced. Since they're rarely enforced, no one really sees the true stupidity of them, and there can gain no traction to get them changed to be less stupid. Any argument against them is countered with the fact that everyone seems fine with it. That they're "working."
I believe that the voting standards should reflect this general good sense of the users of what is and is not a good vote. If general users can discern this, then there is no reason why the mods can't nor no reason why the rules can't be made to reflect this. Unless you're suggesting that the general users can't discern outright fraud, then such voting standards would still be effective against fraudulent and bad faith votes.
-->
@drafterman
You may or may not recall, but DDO originally had true open voting. There was votebombing, counter vote bombing, and people got fed up, we’re posting different threads complaining about it, so they started enforcing that you had to have a valid RFD. Then when people posted RFDs that were obviously wrong, biased or obvious, people complained about those too. So the rules started being enforced to weed those out too. Then people stared complaining that “well this guys was not valid, so how come this one is”, because the rules were nominally generic and gave the mods latitude.
Through a combination of abuse, criticism, and hissyfittery on the part of all the wronged people in the world, outraged that one time one mod came down on an RFD against them, we got to the set of rules we have now.
The RFD rules we have force voters to justify their points under specific conditions, and give reasons for assigning victory. Without those rules spelling out what is and is a valid vote, you are forced to become subjective, and in some cases arbitrary - with the mods being the people who decide whether a subjective RFD meets these generic rules - meaning that mods end up moderating the validity of the content rather than whether the vote gave appropriate reasons, that bad.
The reason the moderators have to work this way, and what I have been pointing out - is people like you (i didn’t specify you specifically are doing this, nor that this is the opinion you hold - so you’re the one misrepresenting my position) are responsible for the rules being like the are - I agree with the reasons.
People could act like grown ups, send PMs (which I don’t always do myself - though I try), and try and be calm, rational and have discussions: but this is always drowned out by the people who see one mod decision and start polls tying to remove a mod from his position, or preemptively start a poll trying to get people to listen to you and change the rules by bypassing direct discussions - or working against the community by spam reporting anyone and everyone.
People like you make practical moderation impossible - because it is literally impossible for them to do anything without being attacked and vilified either by you or someone else on the other side whenever a moderation decision is made.
It is you, and the class of people like you, who are the cause and driver for strict rules, and implicitly tie moderators hands by forcing them to be “fair and unbiased” through this sort of histrionics: derailing an announcement about a new moderator installed to talk about your personal grievances.
Would you want to make a decision if this is the sort of stuff you were subjected to every time you try and act in good faith? Lock an abusive thread? censorship. Delete a post doxxing another user? Lack of transparency. Remove a vote that a mod (and others) feels violates the standards? They’re biased. Don’t remove it? They’re not exercising their discretion.
This behaviour - the report spamming, the voting threads, the faux outrage here: rather than a rational discussion and some ability to accept decisions in key aspects that don’t go your way is literally the reason we can’t have nice things.
It seems you’re doing your best to try and avoid this key aspect of the interaction between moderation and community.
-->
@Ramshutu
The votes here are deleted based on the mods political leaning. They also hate the religion forum and the people who post in it. Say what you want their words and behavior have shown their intent. You can explain for them all you want but at the core they are bigots.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yeah, that’s not actually true. I’ve seen multiple posts on multiple debates for multiple ideologies removed and not removed by various moderators, and see no specicific or actual pattern in voting. I’ve had both for and against votes removed for conservative and theist positions by bsh, and have seen similar things repeatedly.
It’s easy to see patterns that aren’t there if you aren’t looking at the whole body - just ask Ethang5, he’s made similar sorts of whacky claims. I don’t always agree with the moderators decisions, I would have been harsher in some cases and less harsh in others but always moderating according to ideology - not so much.
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes, I remember the issues with vote bombing and biased votes on DDO. But in response, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.
The voting standards put into place there (and copied to here) are not designed to strictly counter vote bombing and biased votes. They are much more than that, attempting to enforce an extreme level of quantity (not quality, mind you) of verbiage in a vote. In developing these standards, they went far beyond merely fixing a problem, but decided to come up with and enforce a very specific and narrow voting philosophy on everyone. One that is not warranted.
You conveniently ignore the secret voting cabal that was put into place to analyze votes, which necessarily ended up in corruption and people unilaterally deleting votes, even without consensus. The problem is, the more moderate and sensible elements lost out, and the people with an over-inflated sense of self importance won, and we were left with the ridiculous voting standards we have today.
You seem to imply that subjectivity has been eliminated from the voting standards. It hasn't. Furthermore, the voting standards emphasized quantity over quality and really had nothing to do with bias or poor reasoning. You can have a completely biased and ill-reasoned vote that is nigh immune to moderation if it's long and wordy enough.
Rational discussions have been had about moderation and the rules. PMs have been had. The fallacy is to imply that you can only do one or the other. I don't see why I need to limit myself to a single tactic. Furthermore, it's abundantly clear which of the tried tactics has actually had a positive effect. So if the mods would prefer people to resort to reason arguments rather than abusing flaws in the system and drowning them out with criticism, perhaps they should actually be open to reasoned arguments! This implication that calm rational discussions haven't been had is just false. The issue is: they didn't work, so they were abandoned in favor of tactics that do work.
People like you make practical moderation impossible - because it is literally impossible for them to do anything without being attacked and vilified either by you or someone else on the other side whenever a moderation decision is made.
What I made impossible was stupid moderation. The stupid moderation is now less stupid, and therefore more possible.
It is you, and the class of people like you, who are the cause and driver for strict rules,
Are you daft or just dishonest? Do you deny that the voting standards are now *less strict* or are you asserting that they have nothing to do with me?
and implicitly tie moderators hands by forcing them to be “fair and unbiased”
This... this is bad?
through this sort of histrionics: derailing an announcement about a new moderator installed to talk about your personal grievances.
You're the one that came in here white knighting about how you can personally attest to the fact that their shit doesn't stink. I'm just bursting this bubble some people have that bsh1 is as pure as the driven snow.
Would you want to make a decision if this is the sort of stuff you were subjected to every time you try and act in good faith? Lock an abusive thread? censorship. Delete a post doxxing another user? Lack of transparency. Remove a vote that a mod (and others) feels violates the standards? They’re biased. Don’t remove it? They’re not exercising their discretion.
I don't do those things, so I don't know why you're asking me.
It seems you’re doing your best to try and avoid this key aspect of the interaction between moderation and community.
The interaction between mod and community is a complete and utter farce:
1. All mods that aren't bsh1 simply defer to bsh1 or parrot what he says.
2. bsh1 is consistently evasive and deliberately obtuse. Ask him a simple yes/no question and he post a wordy reply that somehow avoids giving even the semblance of answering.
3. He refuses to answer even the slightest hypothetical questions about mod policy, but will also refuse to ask about questions about actual mod policy due to fictitious privacy concerns. So you literally can't ask anything about mod policy and get a worthwhile answer.
4. In private, bs1h will lie about what's been said in a non-mod PM in order to invoke mod action against a user.
So I don't think it's me that is inhibiting mod-community interaction.
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes it is. Your lying says you agree with them and are a bigot too. Good for you.
-->
@drafterman
Of course, the pendulum has swung the other way,to be more onerous and explicit - For the specific reason that people like come along and nitpick every decision, and assign a level of obnoxious outrage that far exceeds the facts.
You seem to keep dodging that.
In the process of dodging it, you ironically seem to be intent on constructing straw men to assert your point wherever my explanation and language aren’t 100% explicit.
No: I’m not arguing that subjectively has been completely removed - but it’s far harder to subjectively interpret the current CoC than previous iterations.
Discretion has been reduced because of people like you, reacting like you have here and elsewhere on this forum - and I absolutely do not blame them for doing so.
And another straw man - you’re claiming that I’m stating that “their shit don’t stink”, quite frankly, I am quite willing to accept that the moderators have made, are making and will continue to make errors - my argument here is less a support of everything the mods do: but pointing out that ridiculous histrionic approach you’re taking is the very thing that harms sites like these for all the reasons I’ve stated and you seem to be pathologically unable to acknowledge. Let me spell it out again, because it appears that despite mentioning it multiple times, you don’t want to acknowledge it:
The voting rules we have is a product of people like your toys out of the pram, acting like children, and complaining to the point where those who make the rules do their best to write onerous rules to make everyone happy. It’s because moderators in the past have treated people like you like adults though you’re acting like toddlers.
Now, the voting rules are pretty much identical to how they were. The only materially different aspect is some arbitrary definition about “borderline votes”, which was pretty much what was already happening, and a part of what everyone was already complaining about. So no: I don’t think that there has been any reasonable or practical change over what was there before. The main difference is that there isn’t a douche reporting every vote any more.
Unfortunately, from this point you have now started arguing around in circles. You’re not even acknowledging the central issue here.
You’re arguing that the voting policy is too strict and harsh, then when pointed out that following helps make the moderation less biased, you are the that’s a good thing. Are you now for the voting rules or against?
You’re arguing both that the moderators should use their discretion whilst simultaneously complaining that they have used their discretion, it’s frankly incoherent.
This all seems to boil down to you not liking Bsh1, and seeing foul play everywhere. I’ve never had an issue asking questions in public or private by any of the moderators, I’ve seen them respond repeatedly to individuals on multiple threads that were irrationally hostile and repeatedly hostile.
So after starting threads demanding resignation, despite you responding to mod posts like you’re doing here, starting polls angrily demanding a change in the rules because you got caught abusing the system, your complaint now seems to be that bsh doesn’t answer your hypothetical questions and he’s a bit aloof, and the mod team agrees with him.
Well, no shit Sherlock.
You seem to keep dodging that.
In the process of dodging it, you ironically seem to be intent on constructing straw men to assert your point wherever my explanation and language aren’t 100% explicit.
No: I’m not arguing that subjectively has been completely removed - but it’s far harder to subjectively interpret the current CoC than previous iterations.
Discretion has been reduced because of people like you, reacting like you have here and elsewhere on this forum - and I absolutely do not blame them for doing so.
And another straw man - you’re claiming that I’m stating that “their shit don’t stink”, quite frankly, I am quite willing to accept that the moderators have made, are making and will continue to make errors - my argument here is less a support of everything the mods do: but pointing out that ridiculous histrionic approach you’re taking is the very thing that harms sites like these for all the reasons I’ve stated and you seem to be pathologically unable to acknowledge. Let me spell it out again, because it appears that despite mentioning it multiple times, you don’t want to acknowledge it:
The voting rules we have is a product of people like your toys out of the pram, acting like children, and complaining to the point where those who make the rules do their best to write onerous rules to make everyone happy. It’s because moderators in the past have treated people like you like adults though you’re acting like toddlers.
Now, the voting rules are pretty much identical to how they were. The only materially different aspect is some arbitrary definition about “borderline votes”, which was pretty much what was already happening, and a part of what everyone was already complaining about. So no: I don’t think that there has been any reasonable or practical change over what was there before. The main difference is that there isn’t a douche reporting every vote any more.
Unfortunately, from this point you have now started arguing around in circles. You’re not even acknowledging the central issue here.
You’re arguing that the voting policy is too strict and harsh, then when pointed out that following helps make the moderation less biased, you are the that’s a good thing. Are you now for the voting rules or against?
You’re arguing both that the moderators should use their discretion whilst simultaneously complaining that they have used their discretion, it’s frankly incoherent.
This all seems to boil down to you not liking Bsh1, and seeing foul play everywhere. I’ve never had an issue asking questions in public or private by any of the moderators, I’ve seen them respond repeatedly to individuals on multiple threads that were irrationally hostile and repeatedly hostile.
So after starting threads demanding resignation, despite you responding to mod posts like you’re doing here, starting polls angrily demanding a change in the rules because you got caught abusing the system, your complaint now seems to be that bsh doesn’t answer your hypothetical questions and he’s a bit aloof, and the mod team agrees with him.
Well, no shit Sherlock.
-->
@Ramshutu
We're just talking around in circles now and I really don't see the point in continuing on. it's clear that you're not really interested in seeing things from a point of view that's different from the one you see through your Rose colored glasses. If I'm wrong about this feel free to p.m. me.
So there is a debate, then there is debate about each vote on that debate to decide it it counts as a vote on the original debate then a debate about the decision to count (or not count) the vote on the debate (the first, original debate that is). Then there is also this curent debate about the process of debating and counting and not counting votes, and debating the debate about counting votes to be debated.
It couldn't be simpler.
I'll stick to the forums.
-->
@drafterman
I am absolutely happy to consider issues and talk about problems from a different point of view. I think the voting rules are a bit onerous too: you’re confusing is that what I am objecting to, is your inability to express this in a way that is not toxic to the community, or self defeating for your own aims.
I’m talking about actions such as abusing the reporting system, trying to push your own chances by starting poll threads, starting up anti-moderator votes, being outwardly hostile, and immediately jumping on any minor transgression as proof of malefeasance. It doesn’t help anyone at all, and is the cause of rather than solution too many of the problems you’re discussing - which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
Actions like the above (which are not exclusively yours, but you are on of the most vocal) provide disproportionate volume to issues that need to be better discussed, and drives moderators into a pattern of behaviour predicated on avoiding posing the vocal people off - which is what got us to much of the mess in the first place.
If you want to convince yourself that I think the moderators or rules are perfect, as being solely opposed me completely disagreeing with your toxic actions, which seem to be motivated more by your own personal animosity and actions than by any specific moderator actions - go ahead, but that’s not what I’ve been saying.
This is about your inability to act like an adult in the face of disagreement. And in that, I find a thousand times more fault and malefeasance in your behaviour thus far than in all the moderator activity I have observed thus far.
-->
@Ramshutu
trying to push your own chances by starting poll threads
It was bsh1's suggestion that I do that.
, starting up anti-moderator votes
WTF are you talking about?
, being outwardly hostile, and immediately jumping on any minor transgression as proof of malefeasance. It doesn’t help anyone at all, and is the cause of rather than solution too many of the problems you’re discussing - which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
Because you haven't demonstrated any of that. You're just repeating the same tripe over and over again. There are precisely 3ways in which my actions have resulted in tangible results:
1. Cleaning up of the CoC of superfluous language
2. Revaluating of the voting standards.
3. Eating up the moderator's time with high volume of reports, which is more due to the silly manner they decided they needed to respond to them than anything else.
If you want to convince yourself that I think the moderators or rules are perfect, as being solely opposed me completely disagreeing with your toxic actions, which seem to be motivated more by your own personal animosity and actions than by any specific moderator actions -
My animosity stems from specific moderator actions.
go ahead, but that’s not what I’ve been saying.
Certainly. But it is how you're acting.
This is about your inability to act like an adult in the face of disagreement. And in that, I find a thousand times more fault and malefeasance in your behaviour thus far than in all the moderator activity I have observed thus far.
Yes, I know. I already commented on this. You have 3 inch thick lead blinders on. You don't need to repeat stuff back to me that i know.