I only explain it again because you clearly don't understand my position. Or, more likely, just to want to misunderstand it.Cultellus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:25 pmoh FFS, Res Ipsa. Just stop with the B.S.. This ain't a mock trial or a moot court. What the heck with the tedious BS?Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:41 pm
Just to emphasize, there is no rule requiring people who post here to confront the person who posts something that breaks the rules. Also, the rules have no exceptions that allow one to break the rules in response to others breaking the rules.
Mike also assumes that no one has ever raised Doc's posting style with him. That would be incorrect. in my opinion, raising this kind of issue with another poster is more likely to have some effect if it is done privately. That takes the public posturing out of the discussion.
We get it, Res. We effing get it. We all get it. You are a lawyer and you do not want to confront Doc Cam, you want to file a complaint with a moderator because because because because because you are so neutral like that. And whatever, you coward clown. Whatever. We do not need you to explain it again. You do not want to confront Doc Cam. You do not think the rules require you to confront his bigotry or him. What the hell more can we say or do to convince you that we believe you and that we are more than happy to give you a cookie for doing - wait for it - nothing?
And now all your little pals want you to be the moderator who pledges to do nothing about Doc Cam because you do not have to. Same for Gadianton. Apparently, he can do whatever he wants up here, and he has not done it. But all y'all want to vouch for his integrity to do what he could have done but never did and now says he won't do what the rules would suggest he could do and if Res is his Vice Moderator then they can submit to Doc Cam in unison and put me and Atlanticmike in the queue.
Res, What more can I say other than - I believe you? I agree with you. And I think you are a snake. I respect your tenacity and have told you that. I have owned a lot of snakes and I respect them too. I disagree with your complicity with the bullying and bigotry but I respect that you compartmentalize it as a counselor in the process.
"Confront" has nothing to do with anything I've said. I'm perfectly comfortable confronting people. "Neutral" has nothing to do with what I've said. Like I keep saying and you keep ignoring, I react the way I react to avoid escalating a bad situation into a worse situation. That's it.
The rules say what they say; if you disagree with my statements about the rules, quote me the part that shows I've misstated them. If you can find a rule that requires me to publicly call out another poster, quote it.
And you just flat out lied, again, about what I've said about moderation. I have never said that, if I were a moderator, I would do nothing about Doc. I have never pledged not to do anything about Doc. Again, to repeat myself because you clearly don't understand, what I'm asking for is exactly what Shades clarified to Mike: that the rules as written be applied to everyone. Portraying that as a "pledge" to never moderate Doc is utterly dishonest on your part. What I do as an ordinary member of the community says nothing about what I would do as a moderator. As an ordinary member of the community, I don't have the tools needed to address rule violations without resorting to self-help that makes the situation worse. As a moderator, I would have those tools, and would use them as Shades intends them to be used.
Gadianton set up this new board, so he has complete access. He hasn't moderated because Shades hasn't asked him to (or he hasn't been willing). You can ask Shades, but my assumption has been that he left Gadianton with access in case of technical problems with the board. No has expected him to moderate the board on his own.
Your paranoid fantasies have no grounding in reality. I've never even hinted that you and Mike should be placed on the queue. You keep trying to cram the words of others down my throat. I did a shift as moderator here for about a year and a half. Decisions to put someone on the queue were always made by Shades. It's only been used twice that I recall. In both cases, the people put on the queue repeatedly ignored Shades's requests to bring their behavior in compliance with the rules. That's how Shades applies it, and if I had the power to put someone on the queue, I would apply it just as Shades would. Because that's part of the job description for moderators here.
As for the rest of your silly nonsense, like I've said before, I don't care what you think about me. I don't have my self-image tied up in what a stranger on the internet thinks of me. In the same vein, were I a moderator, what I think about you as a person would not be important to me. What would be important is whether you comply with the rules. My personal feelings about a poster are not and should not be a qualification for posting here.
