Rules and Moderator information

[canpakes]

I’m not a mod, …

Well, you’ve been missing out on all of the fun.

[Marcus]

Lol. You still aren't following your book:

Try reading it. That may help.

Again, thanks for posting about me. That is great and thoughtful. But, what information do you have that would lead you to conclude that I have not read Be Less Dickish?

Lol. Around and around you go! Too funny.

Be Less Dickish provides a simple strategy for dealing with triggers in less extreme ways.
https://pix-media.com/books/Be-Less-Dic ... mAzgEACAAJ

[Whiskey]

I’m not a mod, but Shades overturned the ban.

Shades did not overturn Whiskey's first ban. We was apparently banned a few weeks ago for using the C word.

My question is why DrCamnPP is allowed to call Whiskey "Whiskeydick" and bitch, but Whiskey was banned for using the C word. But Can'tpakes won't answer because he can't!

In the meantime, if f***face is fine for Paradise we could just all agree to use f***vagina instead of the c-word.

[canpakes]

Shades did not overturn Whiskey's first ban. We was apparently banned a few weeks ago for using the C word.

My question is why DrCamnPP is allowed to call Whiskey "Whiskeydick" and bitch, but Whiskey was banned for using the C word. But Can'tpakes won't answer because he can't!

In the meantime, if f***face is fine for Paradise we could just all agree to use f***vagina instead of the c-word.

No, given that ‘vagina’ is not a synonym for ‘face’.

[Res Ipsa]

I’m not a mod, …

Well, you’ve been missing out on all of the fun.

If by “fun,” you mean “beat about the head and shoulders with a 2 x 4,” I agree.

[canpakes]

Well, you’ve been missing out on all of the fun.

If by “fun,” you mean “beat about the head and shoulders with a 2 x 4,” I agree.

But the 2 x 4 has nails in it this time. It’s more bracing. : D

[Res Ipsa]

If by “fun,” you mean “beat about the head and shoulders with a 2 x 4,” I agree.

But the 2 x 4 has nails in it this time. It’s more bracing. : D

[Hound of Heaven]

[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 Therefore, his ban is rescinded.]

Dr. Shades, I’m not seeking a response to this post; I’m sharing it for you to reflect on the information I’m presenting.

It’s crucial for you to recognize that Canpakes lacks the mentality and personality required to be a moderator. Shades. I will illustrate the daily experiences of a police officer to demonstrate why Canpakes lacks the personality and capability to serve as an unbiased moderator.

Both police officers and moderators are entrusted with the authority to enforce for police officers,laws,and for moderators, rules, respectively, within their domains. It is clear to those familiar with policing that certain personality types are simply not well-suited for the role of a police officer. Feel free to engage in conversation with any police officer and they all recognize a colleague among them whose presence is met with apprehension, particularly in situations that are likely to be emotionally charged or have the potential to escalate into physical confrontations. I'm making this point because, despite the fact that every police officer in the academy is repeatedly taught that de-escalation is crucial, especially when responding alone, there remains a percentage of officers who fail to comprehend this concept once they are on the streets. This can lead to serious consequences, including termination or even lawsuits, which ultimately burden taxpayers with significant costs due to the officer's inability to recognize that sometimes, the best option is to walk away from a situation. Point being, Canpakes doesn't know when to walk away, he enjoys confrontation. He doesn't know how to de-escalate.

If you possess any understanding of policing, I'm certain you know precisely what I'm referring to. I am explaining this to you to help you understand why Canpakes is not suitable to be a moderator. For instance, when you made your decision to overturn Whiskey's ban, that should have indicated to Canpakes that he ought to step back from the entire situation he caused and refrain from discussing it further, as you hold the ultimate authority. However, following your decision, Canpakes remains in the same thread for which he banned Whiskey due to spamming, and he has dedicated every moment to persuading others that his ban of Whiskey was justified and that your ruling was incorrect. He acknowledged that there was a significant possibility you would override his decision to ban Whiskey, yet he proceeded with it regardless! Again, meaning he understood what he was doing was wrong and he did it anyway!

The most absurd aspect of this entire situation is that Canpakes acknowledges he banned Whiskey, fully aware that you would not consent, claiming he did it to create a cooling-off period for the thread spamming. When a moderator expresses their willingness to ban a board member they are actively engaging with in a thread, while exhibiting the same behavior as the individual they banned, it reflects not only a lack of competence but also a disregard for your perspective, prioritizing their own views instead. And that's not the worst part, the worst part is that Canpakes doesn't even realize that all he had to do was stop posting in the thread, and the drama between him and Whiskey would have simply faded away. This means that, similar to my earlier example with the police officer, he had the option to de-escalate the situation. However, due to certain deficiencies in his personality, it never occurred to him to simply disengage, resulting in the ongoing conflict between him and Whiskey in that thread. All Canpakes had to do was stop posting, and the entire situation in that thread would have stopped!!

If a moderator engages in a direct confrontation with a board member in a thread and opts to ban the board member rather than simply leaving the discussion, that individual is not fit to hold the position of moderator. A moderator must understand how to navigate the path of least resistance IF THEY ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME BEHAVIOR as the members they punish.

Canpakes is perpetually seeking a confrontation.

[Hound of Heaven]

If by “fun,” you mean “beat about the head and shoulders with a 2 x 4,” I agree.

But the 2 x 4 has nails in it this time. It’s more bracing. : D

All you had to do as a moderator in the thread, is stop posting, and Whiskey wouldn't have had anything to post about. You chose to egg him on, then you banned him for acting exactly like you!

You're not fit to be a moderator if you aren't able to understand, all you had to do, was stop posting.

You're so incompetent, you don't even realize you're hammering the nails into the 2x4.

[Hound of Heaven]

If by “fun,” you mean “beat about the head and shoulders with a 2 x 4,” I agree.

But the 2 x 4 has nails in it this time. It’s more bracing. : D

Canpakes, will you answer this honestly? Did you attempt to the deescalate the situation between you and Whiskey in your PMs?