..out of the dark

You'll have some competition on the title of "most stereotypical american preaching their superiority on the net", but best wishes to you.

I know that. But all people think they're justified, you know. No matter how horrendous the consequences, there is always some form of justified thinking behind it - however sick and perverted it might appear to others. ..People are like that.

Since most members who are still there are of the kind that will go to other blogs to defend their revered moderators from unjust injury. Yes, I know.

See, I told someone to fuck off once. Which is practically a feat on that board. And if you go through the list of "warnings", you can see there are three warnings involving implied or direct insults. And I didn't question any of those (except in one case when I demanded that the moderator who started it was to be sanctioned the same way. Which Matt was, allegedly. The last one was an "implied insult", since I was criticising someone who were making up their own rules and changing them as they saw fit - which Matt instantly took to be a direct insult on him personally).

In other words, that's not what this is about, unless you somehow imply I was banned for swearing on the board last November.

As far as - "academic dishonesty" - I don't even know where that came from. One member threatened to report me for not using ellipses when quoting one sentence of theirs, immediately above their message, that I accidentally left out one word in. But other than that.. The rest of the warnings - refer to the very balanced and calm assessment of it in the first message in the post.

Anyway - why bother? Why are you here? I made Matt admit in public that he lied, that he embellished the truth in order to be "in the right" about his "warnings about rule- violations". And I proved it by posting the entire message, which Matt suddenly admitted to was the whole thing. O'Sullivan (who wrote the first message on the top of the post) then accuses me of "playing games". Really, I'm still having a hard time accepting that someone can be that much of an idiot.

I mean, really - "grow up"?

Just go away.

Mm. How could I dare to think I was "important enough" to even say something like that, hm? Even if I was right.

I think I understand now. You believe I wanted to stay on the board. And meet ideologically impaired friends, who say things I agree with. And that I started that thread to impress the mods, so they - the big boys - would notice me?

Because that's the only reason you can think of, isn't it..

Mhm. Obtuse, repeating things because it must be true, since the opposite is unbearable, while thinking what he says is either clever, or has some sort of mysterious power to impress others. I guess you could be Matt. Or, well, several others.

Anyway. Let's see... So I just came back after I left over half a year ago. And one of the first things that happened was that I got a PM from another member, saying:

Hi Muspell!

Don't know if you've noticed yet but Matt Larson just removed your reply to me where you said "Give it up, ***". He also removed my response to your post.

So much for open and honest discussion, eh? You ought to report him for abusing moderator powers- there was no reason for him to delete that part of your post, nor was there any reason for him to delete my reply to you.

Hope you're having a pleasant day.

***
:001_smile

To which I replied:

You too, ***. Sure, I'll report it. But last time I reported his posts for moderator abuse, I got banned (by Crystal). And after I made a real issue about it, they removed the ban by some regulatory trapezeing, and invited me back as a sign of good will. Without changing their tune a bit, of course. So I left, and I've just returned after being gone for about six months or so. And I just won't bother with any battles now. I have to admit, though. The pm I got from Matt:

Your personal attack on me in the "How to piss off Americans" thread was edited.

Discuss the topic of the thread, and leave your personal remarks out of it.

Matt

...probably ranks as one of the most amazing achievements in the history of burlesque comedy- improvisation. And that deserves a push on the report button. *shakes head*

Of course, as always, the warning after that deleted post did not contain parts of the message that was edited. This is the entire message:

Your personal attack on me in the "How to piss off Americans" thread was edited.

Discuss the topic of the thread, and leave your personal remarks out of it.

Matt

And so, as usual - since I'm not so good with the crystal ball, and I didn't save my messages in case they were deleted for no reason. I then had nothing to complain with, or prove that I was not just lying to.. I suppose.. whine for no reason. So I let it go.

So - the "reminder about the rules" did not cause an infraction, but counts as a warning. That would apparently be revised later on, though. But in any case - the message I wrote was deleted, and several other messages as well. And that was it - it was a rule- violation, period. And the thread would grind to a halt.

And this, again, is just an example, of which there are many. And I don't really know why I bothered scrambling the name of the one who sent me that message, because he's not on the board any longer, obviously.


Now, before we go back to the running commentary, I'll explain something. The reason I was on the board was to discuss. It's a "discussion board", so that's where my misunderstanding comes from. When that was not possible, or frequently turned out to end in rule- violations and bans for no real reason - I asked whether we should be allowed to ignore moderators on the public forum.

Because, as I explained, the remarks and personal interpretations of the person of others were frequently translated into binding violations. In other words, I stated that question to either 1. be allowed to ignore moderators, which would help the flow of debate for a lot of us. Or 2. provoke the mods into explaining how what they were saying in public was valuable as moderating actions. Meaning that they would have to explain when they would go from being moderator to being a poster.

Predictably, that was where we ended up. And so several of them explained how they had never, never, ever, heard anyone have a problem with that. Until I linked to the examples, and there was simply no more comments on that. No defence, or explanation.

I admit I anticipated that. I also knew Matt wouldn't be able to stay away, and claim that this was only proper and fine. And I was pretty certain that he wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut, and that he would lie about the PMs, even as I said he would, openly in the thread. And he still lied about the PMs, as I said. That's the kind of person he is.

The same goes for the next responses - non- responsive self- gratifying claptrap that derides anything that challenges them, and dismissal of even facts in the posts right above the nonsensical responses.

And yes, I thought I would be banned because of pointing that out, even if I didn't expect the response would be that quick. And just to suggest the problem here - first I got a severe warning for calling Matt a psycho. That would result in, because of the other message that provoked SOBs rant on the top of the post, a temporary ban, which it did. Some time after that I was permanently banned. Now - how did that happen, do you think? Was it because of actual rule- violations?

In any case - that's how you expose genial psychopaths.


...And now we return to the running commentary.