I am being told on DMs to not do something that Airmax's side is blatantly doing.

Author: RationalMadman
RM
Corruption
DART president
Airmax
3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 99
#61
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Barney
I don't believe that you talked to someone is protected, and I'm not seeing the malice the rule is in place to handle, but again, please tread carefully. It's a good habit to just not make direct quotes from PMs.
This is an inappropriate comment ragnar. please use more discretion to avoid potential mod over reach
Topic's author
#62
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
 Is this really what you want from the presidency, a toxic shit show where they are constantly having to defend themselves from your insults?
This is the only part of your post I feel I can't 'not engage'. The answer is no, it doesn't have to be insults. Most of what I asked Airmax went ignored, ironically it's only the harsh remarks you guys seem to pay attention to, despite me asking solid questions that have gone unanswered, especially regarding if he condones or condemns your behaviour.
#63
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
This is the only part of your post I feel I can't 'not engage'. The answer is no, it doesn't have to be insults. Most of what I asked Airmax went ignored, ironically it's only the harsh remarks you guys seem to pay attention to, despite me asking solid questions that have gone unanswered, especially regarding if he condones or condemns your behaviour.
Asking that question is obviously manipulative, and I support him not answering it. Condemning my behavior would indicate that I am the toxic user in this exchange, as opposed to the reality which is that you instigated everything. Your obviously dislike and bias against airmax is enough to justify why he shouldn't engage with you though. No response he can make will make you suddenly like him or change your mind about him so what's the point in answering any of your questions anyway?
#64
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 847
3
3
5
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
5
It's not even dislike. It's irrational disdain and borderline obsession. It's very unhealthy. He thinks he has some deep understanding of Max and what type of person he is and he is protecting the site from him. It's humourous
Topic's author
#65
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
Condemning my behavior would indicate that I am the toxic user in this exchange, as opposed to the reality which is that you instigated everything. Your obviously dislike and bias against airmax is enough to justify why he shouldn't engage with you though. No response he can make will make you suddenly like him or change your mind about him so what's the point in answering any of your questions anyway?
Good question, while I can tell you the point to answer each and every question I've asked him during this election cycle, I can't for the life of me find much reason to answer your own questions or respond to your attacks anymore. I've already exposed what you're doing and how you are bullying me, it's up to others to realise it and decide. What you wrote is much more accurate for me vs you than Max vs me. I actually ask Max solid questions that would have real replies to them if he wanted to defend himself, they aren't loaded they are open-ended with genuine ways for him to pick a stance and reply.
#66
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Mikal
It's not even dislike. It's irrational disdain and borderline obsession. It's very unhealthy. He thinks he has some deep understanding of Max and what type of person he is and he is protecting the site from him. It's humourous
I have been sifting through the site out of boredeom and seeing some of his old exchanges with other users.. It's very interesting that the same behavior rationalmadman has been engaging with me now is repeat behavior he has had with other users. The amount of pure hypocrisy that's come from all of this is pretty funny actually. For example, one of the biggest "bully" things I am being accused of by him is referring to him as rationalcrybaby.


Of course he also plays the whole victim role with ragnar in this thread, calling him a bully, yada yada. I find it hilarious RM is making my dispute with him sound like armageddon when he has acted the same way with many other members over the course of the years here.

Not sure how much credibility he actually has though outside a few mindless sheep. 
#67
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
Good question, while I can tell you the point to answer each and every question I've asked him during this election cycle, I can't for the life of me find much reason to answer your own questions or respond to your attacks anymore. I've already exposed what you're doing and how you are bullying me, it's up to others to realise it and decide. What you wrote is much more accurate for me vs you than Max vs me. I actually ask Max solid questions that would have real replies to them if he wanted to defend himself, they aren't loaded they are open-ended with genuine ways for him to pick a stance and reply.
Your questions for him are absolutely loaded and intended to make him look bad. It's beyond obvious lol.

You've exposed me bullying the same way you've exposed the 50 other users you've blocked and accused of bullying because they dis-agreed with you. You accuse so many people of bullying that it would be insane for anyone to still take you seriously at this point. Your the boy who cried wolf, but instead the boy who cried "bully".
Topic's author
#68
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
Not sure how much credibility he actually has though outside a few mindless sheep. 
This is much truer in reverse, though idk if anybody is fully 'mindless'. You and your herd/pack are much more blindly supporting of one another, especially with an enemy like me to unite/rally against. I don't take my stance because a pack/herd support me, you do and the biggest example of the shit you pull is that they consensually engage in humiliation with you. You'd never mention that people had laughed at them in Discord behind their backs because they were there during it and consented to it. You then compare that to saying to me that I was laughed at on Disc for posts I'd made, it's one of many examples of the shit you pull to pretend I'm the one overreacting and they pile on it readily.
#69
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
This is much truer in reverse, though idk if anybody is fully 'mindless'. You and your herd/pack are much more blindly supporting of one another, especially with an enemy like me to unite/rally against.
Except when we logically substantiate it you usually dis-appear and drop the arugments, so yeah good luck backing that one up.

 I don't take my stance because a pack/herd support me, 
Prove it.

 you do and the biggest example of the shit you pull is that they consensually engage in humiliation with you.
Stop saying so much funny sh1t then lol

You'd never mention that people had laughed at them in Discord behind their backs because they were there during it and consented to it.
You were never banned from my discord, you could be a part of these games as well. You rage quit it. You are incapable of understanding a dynamic like that however, socially because anyone who says something negative is automatically hitler in your eyes lol.

You then compare that to saying to me that I was laughed at on Disc for posts I'd made, it's one of many examples of the shit you pull to pretend I'm the one overreacting and they pile on it readily.
If you say silly crap publicly, I don't see why I and others don't have a right to find humor in it. 
Topic's author
#70
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
@Mikal
I was wrong. Though, you still played dirty getting inactives to vote, you didn't do it with new account signups.

I take it back and apologise.
#71
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
I was wrong. Though, you still played dirty getting inactives to vote, you didn't do it with new account signups.

I take it back and apologise.

How is getting inactives to vote playing dirty? The whole point of this election was to get these inactives back on the site. I imagine a lot of them come back now with max as president. 
Topic's author
#72
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
I imagine a lot of them come back now with max as president. 
I wouldn't bet on it. 
#73
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lunatic
How is getting inactives to vote playing dirty? The whole point of this election was to get these inactives back on the site. I imagine a lot of them come back now with max as president. 

Congratulations on the evolution of Dart to the next level.
#74
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Lunatic
Responding to #58:


RM has done the same thing with virtually 0 response from you
If no one reports posts, they are unlikely to be reviewed.


RM misqouting airmax
As much as I strongly dislike the sight of people being  misquoted and having what they did write taken out of out of context, the samples provided do not seem to be presented as literal quotations to violate the Authenticity section of the CoC. I'm seeing single quotation marks instead of double, and in some formatting as an additional clue. I recently gave an example to show how that works: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7175-something-you-may-not-know-about-airmax?page=1&post_number=21


Cut the bullsh1t here Ragnar. these public warnings are absolutely ridiculous
I have constructively advised people when the ice starts to get thin, in large part to decrease the odds of it going too much further from anyone. Currently there is discussion of doing away with ROs in favor of more warnings, and ultimately bans without ROs should it become necessary. You can call having early warnings about CoC issues ridiculous all you want but just like RM accusing Airmax of multi-accounting, that only makes it an opinion.


You can argue that relaying information in a PM is "unethical" but unless both parties agreed not to share information in a PM,
If you think it should be changed, start a referendum; it's that easy. In the mean time, complaining that you don't like the moderators so much as remind people of it's existence is odd. This is not over enforcement of blindly following it to ban people at the slightest infractions, this is mainly people being gently reminded of it and advised on ways to do better within it as it stands now.


 taking sides in a dispte publicly. Or an even better suggestion: Don't get involved at all.
Public reminders are there because more than just the one person can benefit from them, it's not about taking sides and screaming 'leave Britney alone!'
That you believer moderators should not get involved with any CoC issues at all, is an interesting opinion; one which again, you are welcome to start a referendum to get the system changed.
#75
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
RM has done the same thing with virtually 0 response from you
If no one reports posts, they are unlikely to be reviewed.
Which I am never going to do. Me pointing this out is, again, to point out that I don't want action taken. It's to show you that the person who'se stance your publicly taking the side of is just as guilty. In which case you should probably ignore reports of his in disputes like these, or just not comment at all. 

As much as I strongly dislike the sight of people being  misquoted and having what they did write taken out of out of context, the samples provided do not seem to be presented as literal quotations to violate the Authenticity section of the CoC. I'm seeing single quotation marks instead of double, and in some formatting as an additional clue. I recently gave an example to show how that works: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7175-something-you-may-not-know-about-airmax?page=1&post_number=21
You are subjectively and arbitrary deciding which wrists to slap over virtually the same thing. None of the qoutes you slapped me on the wrist for in the past were obvious literal qoutations. In fact what I did was formally a step above the "misqoute" troll that was common on DDO to make fun of your opponent, because at least I put it in qoutes, that no one would actually think the person said the thing I "qouted" them saying. Same with RM's qoute here. 

I have constructively advised people when the ice starts to get thin, in large part to decrease the odds of it going too much further from anyone. Currently there is discussion of doing away with ROs in favor of more warnings, and ultimately bans without ROs should it become necessary. You can call having early warnings about CoC issues ridiculous all you want but just like RM accusing Airmax of multi-accounting, that only makes it an opinion.
We have established following the CoC like the bible doesn't do your job any favors, and also have proven that you don't always follow the CoC. You can and have used discretion to enforce arbitrary rules, and enforce punishing bans because a user was simply "too frustrating" despite not actually violating a CoC rule. So stop using this argument as a crutch in some situations when you completely ignore it in others.

If you think it should be changed, start a referendum; it's that easy. In the mean time, complaining that you don't like the moderators so much as remind people of it's existence is odd. This is not over enforcement of blindly following it to ban people at the slightest infractions, this is mainly people being gently reminded of it and advised on ways to do better within it as it stands now.
Publically telling someone how to speak and behave in the forums doesn't come across as "gentle reminding" Ragnar. Especially when you've known the users you've interacted with and have participated with them in multiple website improvement projects on DDO before you were ever a moderator. You realize Dave offered me a moderator job too right? I could have accepted it, but I simply refuse to act and behave like a robot rather than enjoy my time on the site more as a hobby and being able to speak freely. You being moderator doesn't mean you know better than your previous peers, it just makes you seem like an @sshole for calling people out. This has been discussed on discord as well. I really don't understand how you think this public hand slapping approach is the way to go. As far as bringing up the CoC again, please see above. 

Public reminders are there because more than just the one person can benefit from them, it's not about taking sides and screaming 'leave Britney alone!'
That you believer moderators should not get involved with any CoC issues at all, is an interesting opinion; one which again, you are welcome to start a referendum to get the system changed.
Public reminders are lectures for children. You are used to not getting flack from them probably because you are used to doing it with actual children on the website. You don't tell a grown adult how to behave or act and lecture them publicly like that lol. It's a d1ck move and comes off as abuse of power. Stop telling me to start "referendum's" for things that only you are doing. The other two mods aren't engaging this way.

Ragnar it honestly might be time for you to take a break from moderation, if ruling with an iron fist is the only way you like to do things. You should retire from this and go back to enjoying the site as a casual member. You were a much more enjoyable person before you became a mod. Now your just an arsehole. 
#76
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Lunatic
@Barney
Ragnar it honestly might be time for you to take a break from moderation, if ruling with an iron fist is the only way you like to do things. You should retire from this and go back to enjoying the site as a casual member. You were a much more enjoyable person before you became a mod. Now your just an arsehole. 
Honestly he's not suited to the position. 

I don't know how you argue that honestly with him and get him to acknowledge it without being defensive.

Ragnar,

I know it's tough, because I stepped down so that airmax could win from the presidential race. It wasn't easy for me to acknowledge he was better suited to the job than me, and step down. However I still did the right thing.

The correct thing for you is to have whiteflame find you a suitable replacement. The problem with you choosing your own, is you don't know what it takes to do the job correctly, so recognizing it in others will be tough. 

You are a valuable member to the site. I thought your guides were very helpful to a lot of noobs on DDO, and your energy is better spent, updating those guides and bringing them to Dart.  Give whiteflame some notice, but start working on those guides and move out of the way. For a person more suited to the role. 
#77
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Wylted
It's kind of hard for me to tell ragnar that too, and I probably come off more as a d1ck then intended to. But I can't see the role being that fun for him either. You can visibly see the difference he has in tone since accepting the role, it almost seems there is little of "him" left. He takes the job seriously and I think he believes following the CoC as strictly as he does is like following the law. He probably makes a good supervisor somewhere in the real world. Unfortunately while people that are that hardcore about rule application may be needed in jobs in the real world, that mentality just kills the fun of a hobby based website where people come to relax and enjoy their free time. Also it would free up some of his time to participate in some of the other activities I think we can bring to the site involving increasing debate and vote activity, so I have other motivations in requesting him resign. Not that he can't simultanesouly do both as moderator, just that he may get more enjoyment out of the site. Especially since I plan to be much more active here in the future and honestly, if his mindset on moderation doesn't change, I think the mod call out threads are going to continue. I won't stand for silly rule application, and I just really don't wanna keep banging heads with ragnar, since I like the guy.
#78
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Lunatic
He probably makes a good supervisor somewhere in the real world. Unfortunately while people that are that hardcore about rule application may be needed in jobs in the real world, that mentality just kills the fun of a hobby based website where people come to relax and enjoy their free time
I never followed the rules, other than being very strict about food safety, probably to an annoying degree. 

I know my crew that followed them, got rewarded for it, and if I created rules for managers they better follow them. However I only ever promoted people that broke rules. 

A crew member that is well liked, who steps over the lines to help others. Promotion 

A manager that knows my favorite pets get special treatment and step over lines to make sure they are successful, they get promoted. 

Follow the rules and get attaboys like ragnar

Break the rules and get fired if you do not fit the "great man/woman" archetype. 

Break the rules and fit the archetype, you get put in positions of power. 

His blindly following rules, particularly where as he is misinterpreting a lot of them, isn't going to do him or the site any good. 
#79
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
In my world, Ragnar would have been one of the people coming into my office and pointing out how he followed rules, and performs well and thinking it will help him get a promotion when one is up for grabs. 

No Ragnar, the loud bitch who gives too much direction to noobs, is who I am promoting. 
#80
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
As you can probably tell. I promoted a lot of single mothers who usually fit that archetype better. Males got promoted as well, just not as many
#81
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Lunatic
You are subjectively and arbitrary deciding which wrists to slap over virtually the same thing. 
I'm not deciding which posts get reported. Nor am I taking any action over the fast majority of reports.


In fact what I did was formally a step above the "misqoute" troll that was common on DDO to make fun of your opponent, 
Things have gradually evolved since then. And no one said you must get along, or that you can't make fun of someone; in fact I'm the guy who got rid of the "no insults" rule.


enforce punishing bans because a user was simply "too frustrating" despite not actually violating a CoC rule.
Please list these users I banned citing that they were "too frustrating" who who were also innocent of CoC violations. If you can't find any, please add all the ones I banned just because "too frustrating" who had CoC violations.
#82
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 847
3
3
5
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
5
I think the issue is that is the CoC is open to interpretation. You would call that out. There is no world in a thousand years where whiteflame or supa call out the same thing. Tbh you guys just need to find a guideline for when to step in or say something to people because right now any moderator can act on an impulse. Every situation should be different but there has to be some criteria that gets you all on the same page. Because you do air on the side of ridiculous with some of the stuff you call out. While also airing on the side of sane with a lot of other stuff. I'm sure you guys will figure it out but yeah that warning was a meme to me xD
#83
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
You are subjectively and arbitrary deciding which wrists to slap over virtually the same thing. 
I'm not deciding which posts get reported. Nor am I taking any action over the fast majority of reports.
I am suggesting you do not slap wrists at all, especially publicly. It almost feels like you are encouraging me to report more posts, which for the umpteenth time, is not the freaking issue ragnar. 

In fact what I did was formally a step above the "misqoute" troll that was common on DDO to make fun of your opponent, 
Things have gradually evolved since then. And no one said you must get along, or that you can't make fun of someone; in fact I'm the guy who got rid of the "no insults" rule.

"Evolved" Is one word for it I guess lol. And I am not saying that you are encouraging people to get along, I am simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to talk down to someone, especially a grown adult, in the forums by "lecturing" them about ettique. If you weren't a mod that would be different, I would just laugh at you and dismiss it. But as a mod, a public lecture can be seen as "punishment". Everything you do has the appearance of applying consequences, even if you do not think a lecture from a position of power is as bad as a ban (it isn't) doesn't mean it is neccesary to do.

Please list these users I banned citing that they were "too frustrating" who who were also innocent of CoC violations. If you can't find any, please add all the ones I banned just because "too frustrating" who had CoC violations.
You seemingly ignored anything I mentioned relating to how much I give a sh1t about CoC violations lol. But one example was RM's initial ban, where you pretty much banned him for doing a bunch of "minor" things. Or you stretch a CoC rule to mean what you want it to mean such that you can enforce it. 

I had to have a discussion with you guys about a threat that was being discussed as something to ban RM over. The threat was something like "You'll pay when I am mod". Not a physical threat of violence or anything of that nature. RM's whole ban discussion consisted of small things that were becoming an annoyance to the moderators. Similar things happened with wylted, though that was technically David enforcing that ban, I remember you supporting it in the discord. David's response was that Wylted was "glorifying" a bunch of controversial topics as a reason for his ban. 
At the end of the day my overall impression is that if you annoy certain mods enough, they will eventually take action by trying to find and use a bunch of accumulative rule breaks against you. You may not have been behind every ban decision, but I have had this discussion with you enough times on and off site to know that you stand for stricter enforcement on some users based rather than others. The good ol' boys club mentality has dissipated with changes in moderation, but you are the only one who seems stuck in the old way of moderation, where you seek to enthusiastically use the CoC like the bible to persecute anyone at any time. 
#84
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
#85
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 847
3
3
5
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
5
To be fair as well, I think moderation gets it right like 80% of the time (lately). When the other ones left I forget who they were, the site seems to be better about this stuff. There are just random things that are really dumb. The RM ban, the wylted ban, the quotation hand slaps, etc. Everyone can fuck stuff up, but you guys would all handle those situations differently and as much as I like whiteflame I don't think he has the balls to tell you that you are based. He's way to nice. But yeah some of the takes are based, but for the most part are handled well. Again you guys really should talk about when it's appropriate to step in and then I think there are like 0 issues with moderation. TBH I think whiteflame has the formula for it already. 
#86
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Mikal
Once Ragnar stops publicly wrist slapping people for "ettique" I think moderation will be moving in a good direction. I have 0 complaints with supa and whiteflame atm. 
#87
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 847
3
3
5
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
5
-->
@Lunatic
Yeah I agree. My point is that Ragnar interprets stuff differently than they do and gets it right "most" of the time with some of being weird. Once they are all on the same page about when it's good to respond to stuff, I think it fixes itself to like 100 percent
#88
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Mikal
Yeah I agree. My point is that Ragnar interprets stuff differently than they do and gets it right "most" of the time with some of being weird. Once they are all on the same page about when it's good to respond to stuff, I think it fixes itself to like 100 percent
Agreed. I just mostly miss old ragnar, pre mod ragnar lol 
#89
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Lunatic
Please list these users I banned citing that they were "too frustrating" who who were also innocent of CoC violations. If you can't find any, please add all the ones I banned just because "too frustrating" who had CoC violations.
You seemingly ignored anything I mentioned relating to how much I give a sh1t about CoC violations lol. 
You brought up the apparent fact that I'm so burned out I've started banning innocent people just because "too frustrating" without them ever violating the CoC, and now you can't find one case of it.

For RM and Wylted, not even getting into the objective repeated (and in some cases serious) CoC violations, your accusation is that I'm "ruling with an iron fist," that I'm citing "too frustrating" as my sole reason to personally ban people... And then you point to rulings from long ago made with Virtuoso as the chief mod... Need I even say it?

Dig back through discord chats or anywhere else to find where I banned anyone just because "too frustrating." I'll resign today if there's even one case of that, as opposed to you just making it up because that's how you argue. This isn't your opinion is that I banned someone out of frustration, but with inside knowledge literally that I said "too frustrating."
#90
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
You brought up the apparent fact that I'm so burned out I've started banning innocent people just because "too frustrating" without them ever violating the CoC, and now you can't find one case of it.
Did you literally ban someone for being too frustrating? No. Do you use that rationale as an argument to defend a decision of banning someone? Yes you do. When thett3 pointed out how all the reasons listed for banning RM weren't rule violations, and I called you out at the time for it you said this:

" I can admit that is the slippery slope we're on. I stand by bans being about patterns more often than a single insult or whatever (with a few exceptions where it was particularly excessive), but we do need checks and balances to keep it from getting out of control (or reigning it into control if already out of control)."

Your opinion on "reigning this in" or "keeping them from getting out of control" seems to vary on the user in question. Controversial users like RM and Wylted are easier to enforce bans on in your mind because the conflict they represent in the forums, you feel you may get more public support for it. Which is why you spun the "wylted is a child predator" thing out of context.


For RM and Wylted, not even getting into the objective repeated (and in some cases serious) CoC violations, your accusation is that I'm "ruling with an iron fist," that I'm citing "too frustrating" as my sole reason to personally ban people... And then you point to rulings from long ago made with Virtuoso as the chief mod... Need I even say it?
David may have pulled the trigger with the wylted thing but YOU were the catalyst for it. Trying to pretend like you didn't agree with the ban when you argued with me about it back and forth in the discord for like 3 days is preposterous lol. "serious" CoC violation is extremely subjective, especially when you willingly choose to ignore context.

The thing that got me riled up against you about the wylted thing in the first place that casused that huge argument was you saying this:  "I have not been following the whole Wylted thread. I don't really care about him enough to worry if he is banned or not."

Your distaste for a user plays into your decision making when it comes to how strict you are willing to enforce a ban. 


"Dig back through discord chats or anywhere else to find where I banned anyone just because "too frustrating." I'll resign today if there's even one case of that, as opposed to you just making it up because that's how you argue. This isn't your opinion is that I banned someone out of frustration, but with inside knowledge literally that I said "too frustrating." "

Here a qoute from you from the discord: "RM committed multiple bannable offenses, and only recieved a one time ban for 42 days (would have been even less had he not chosen to protest against a length reduction). While they were individually mostly not severe (making up stories of real life crimes people are supposed to have committed, was severe), enough non-severe things add up. I will not deny that annoyance over him wanting to weaponize the mod team to banning everyone who isn't nice to him or has different taste in anime, influenced the decision."

Outside of verbatim saying the words "too frustrating" how is this literally not the exact same thing?

Sorry man, you asked for the qoutes.