Rules and Moderator information

[canpakes]

If Shades or Xeno want panny to moderate and also “F” with posters, I want my account deleted. Clear?

All of the poster-f*cking in this thread appears to be consensual. : D

[Marcus]

Don't I know it Binger-Cultellus.

That was to panny. You really need to just shut the “F” up, Lem. If panny wants to moderate and “F” with people, sure. He can decide to blast my account. I think though that even he said it was up to Shades and Xeno. If that is not correct, great. I am out of here. Perfect, no?

Another re-write. Okay. No problem.

[canpakes]

That was to panny. You really need to just shut the “F” up, Lem. If panny wants to moderate and “F” with people, sure. He can decide to blast my account. I think though that even he said it was up to Shades and Xeno. If that is not correct, great. I am out of here. Perfect, no?

Another re-write. Okay. No problem.

Well, he did resurrect himself right back into the exact same conditions that he now claims are intolerable and incompatible with his participation, so that says something about how serious he’s being here. ; )

[Whiskey]

Another re-write. Okay. No problem.

Well, he did resurrect himself right back into the exact same conditions that he now claims are intolerable and incompatible with his participation, so that says something about how serious he’s being here. ; )

Shades and Xeno,

This is now another clear example of panny the moderator asserting a false premise as fact and then using that premise to score rhetorical points with his ideological pals while moderating the same space.

panny claims that I resurrected myself right back into the exact same conditions I previously found intolerable. That statement is simply false. The conditions are not the same as they were a year ago, not the same as two months ago, and not even the same as before the most recent moderation clarification. The conditions for me posting are not the same today. panny knows that. Yet he states a false claim anyway, as fact, and proceeds as though it true.

Here is an example of one of many changed conditions.

[content of private message deleted]

This is the recurring pattern that you, Shades and Xeno, can't seem to acknowledge : panny asserts an imagined premise as true. He draws conclusions from that premise. He then treats any refusal to engage on those false terms as evidence that the target has “no argument.”

That is not moderation. That is weak and dishonest rhetoric built on presumption. It would be bad reasoning from a regular poster. It is unacceptable from someone exercising moderator authority. panny takes this a step further. He claims that asking him not to moderate a thread in which he is actively antagonizing participants is “an admission of having no argument.” That is backwards. Requesting separation between moderation and participation is not avoidance; it is the minimum requirement for credibility. Not only is it a minimum requirement, panny has been told directly not to moderate threads in which he is arguing.

Here is the example of panny's ridiculous logic.

Guess you won't be moderating this thread either, panny.

This is your new way of admitting that you have no argument.
But, feel free to test your assumption. It would be easier for you than answering the question that I put to you above.

I am asking whether this pattern is acceptable under your moderation model. While there is some indication that Shades is not cool with it. Xeno’s continued silence functionally endorses this behavior, whether intended or not. Is that the case?

So here is the simple request, again. Either allow me and other posters to place panny on ignore, or acknowledge that this is how moderation is allowed to function here and remove my account. Both outcomes are acceptable. What is not acceptable is silence while this behavior continues unchecked. This is not personal. It is structural.

Is there any chance either of you could acknowledge that you have read this? I know it is the holidays, people are travelling and stuff. Might take a while. If you get to this ever, please, at least, let us know if you read this forum. Thanks.

[Hound of Heaven]

...Perhaps you can show us where anyone suggested that you are Marcus. I want to see that...

Canpakes shows us.

...To your question above, AM used to claim that I’m Marcus:

viewtopic.php?p=2764533#p2764533

And whiskey still calls canpakes a liar.

2022!
... you damned piece of damned crap. Again, and again, and again, and again. You make crap up, then pretend it is true...

This:

...If anyone disagrees with you not being a moderator, including you, my account gets deleted...

I disagree with canpakes not being a moderator.

So I just clicked on the link Marcus provided and it took me to an Atlantic Mike post. I love his Avatar. Would it be OK if I use it for mine? Is that against the rules?

[canpakes]

Well, he did resurrect himself right back into the exact same conditions that he now claims are intolerable and incompatible with his participation, so that says something about how serious he’s being here. ; )

Shades and Xeno,

This is now another clear example of panny the moderator asserting a false premise as fact and then using that premise to score rhetorical points with his ideological pals while moderating the same space.

panny claims that I resurrected myself right back into the exact same conditions I previously found intolerable. That statement is simply false. The conditions are not the same as they were a year ago, not the same as two months ago, and not even the same as before the most recent moderation clarification. The conditions for me posting are not the same today. panny knows that. Yet he states a false claim anyway, as fact, and proceeds as though it true.

Try again.

My statement does not include the word, ‘previously’.

Why would you claim that it does?

Your first post as ‘whiskey’ was three months ago, and into the same board circumstances that exist now. Since then, you’ve repeatedly argued for special treatment.

[Whiskey]

Shades and Xeno,

This is now another clear example of panny the moderator asserting a false premise as fact and then using that premise to score rhetorical points with his ideological pals while moderating the same space.

panny claims that I resurrected myself right back into the exact same conditions I previously found intolerable. That statement is simply false. The conditions are not the same as they were a year ago, not the same as two months ago, and not even the same as before the most recent moderation clarification. The conditions for me posting are not the same today. panny knows that. Yet he states a false claim anyway, as fact, and proceeds as though it true.

Try again.

My statement does not include the word, ‘previously’.

Why would you claim that it does?

Your first post as ‘whiskey’ was three months ago, and into the same board circumstances that exist now. Since then, you’ve repeatedly argued for special treatment.

Lie after lie. Nothing but damned lies.

[canpakes]

Try again.

My statement does not include the word, ‘previously’.

Why would you claim that it does?

Your first post as ‘whiskey’ was three months ago, and into the same board circumstances that exist now. Since then, you’ve repeatedly argued for special treatment.

Lie after lie. Nothing but damned lies.

OK. Point to ‘previously’ in my post.

Also, as you are now partially quoting a PM to both of us from Shades, do you wish to post the second part that addressed your own behavior?

Thanks. I look forward to you fixing that.

[Whiskey]

Lie after lie. Nothing but damned lies.

OK. Point to ‘previously’ in my post.

Also, as you are now partially quoting a PM to both of us from Shades, do you wish to post the second part that addressed your own behavior?

Thanks. I look forward to you fixing that.

No, you damned liar. But you are free to address the lie that I am asking for special treatment. What treatment am I asking for that is special? None. Right? Just the damned opposite. I am offering the special treatment of having my account deleted if I can't put your lying damned ass on the foe list. If Xeno approves of your moderating and meddling, I do not want any special treatment whatsoever. I want to simply have my account deleted. That is not special treatment you lying piece of damned crap.

Hey Xeno. Are you still a moderator?

[canpakes]

OK. Point to ‘previously’ in my post.

Also, as you are now partially quoting a PM to both of us from Shades, do you wish to post the second part that addressed your own behavior?

Thanks. I look forward to you fixing that.

No, you damned liar. But you are free to address the lie that I am asking for special treatment. What treatment am I asking for that is special? None. Right? Just the damned opposite. I am offering the special treatment of having my account deleted if I can't put your lying damned ass on the foe list. If Xeno approves of your moderating and meddling, I do not want any special treatment whatsoever. I want to simply have my account deleted. That is not special treatment you lying piece of damned crap.

Hey Xeno. Are you still a moderator?

Point to ‘previously’ in my post.

Also, as you are now partially quoting a PM to both of us from Shades, do you wish to post the second part that addressed your own behavior?

Thanks. I look forward to you fixing that.