Reporting moderators actions?

This post of yours supported what the moderators said about you. Was it that hard for you to sit down and not post? Must be hard, otherwise you would not be this passive aggressive and took a jab at the moderator about his use of vocabulary. Tsk tsk.

 

I saw that and let it go (at the time), but I wouldn't be human if I didn't note the following when I read it:

- It supports the charge that Paul500 has a tendency to "deflect, obfuscate, point at others, and remain argumentative".

- He also got the definition of "sesquipedalian" somewhat wrong. It doesn't mean using words that others don't understand, it only means having a predilection for using words that are unusually long or having an above average number of syllables.

- I then thought it was ironic and hypocritical (another 5-syllable word) that he then used a 5-6 syllable word ("sesquipedalian") to put down the use of a 3-syllable word (folderol) and 2-syllable word (specious).

- Finally, the use of "folderol" and "specious" were intended to convey nuances that aren't fully captured by "nonsense" and "wrong", which might be synonyms according to a thesaurus. "Folderol" conveys a more whimsical/foolish character to the statements than "nonsense" or "********", while "specious" acknowledges a seemingly plausible basis for the statements, while still saying that the statements are "wrong". Intelligent, well-educated people understand that many uncommon and longer words exist because they have enhanced, more precise, or otherwise distinctive meanings.

Being a "great communicator" usually means speaking to the lowest common denominator, which might be appropriate if you're a politician or writing newspaper headlines. But most people on this board are college educated and above average in intelligence. Consequently I expect that they are fully capable of understanding SAT/GRE/LSAT/MCAT words or are fine with learning new words. I make little effort to dumb-down my vocabulary and writing style on here, rather I write in a manner which acknowledges the intelligence of the users on this site.

 

Now this thread starts to deliver some humor…took y’all long enough…

 

So instead on whining about it just delete your account and move on. Not sure what the purpose of your post is. No one is forcing you to be here and it’s obvious that you aren’t going to get your way. At this point it’s nothing more than a temper tantrum.

 

The old saying "When you are in a hole, quit digging" comes to mind.

 

Indeed. Or in this case I suggest a crash course in Chinese asap.

 

Umm, Paul. This might call for a little introspection. Pot. Kettle. Black

 

You're being revisionist and this is my final warning to you to knock it off or you will face a substantial ban. You need to accept accountability for your behavior. You were banned for your own actions, nobody else's. You have been irresponsible, inciting, condescending and pedantic in each of the threads that you have been banned from, and also this one. A variety of moderators have confirmed you're the problem, not the people you're reporting. It is time for you to point your spotlight on yourself and decide if you can remain here in a civil manner. If you decide that you cannot I am happy to permanently rectify that situation. Should you decide to remain, I recommend you place your so called tormentors on "Ignore" so you won't see their posts.

You should know that I reviewed each of the posts you reported yesterday and I saw nothing that required moderation at all, not even a warning. However after reviewing your posts, I decided there was ample cause to moderate you for your actions. You were the one being harassing, not the users you reported. On the Mod forum, I stated this, as well as my decision to thread ban you. As you can see from the two other Mods who have posted in this thread, there was team support for my actions. Therefore, I banned you from the threads where it was clear that you were incapable of participating without animosity.

 

Boy, I wandered off for a half day and this thread really got interesting, and now involves not one, but two users who think moderators play favorites.

Both true, but not in the way you think.

Users who are 99% of the time following the rules, contributing content and helping others, get cut a little slack should they somehow wander away from that behavior and break a rule. They'll get a warning instead of a ban, perhaps a pm from a mod advising him of the problem. Ok, call that favoritism if you must. Guess what happens after that? Those users return to their prior behavior, most often never to be an issue again.

On the other hand, users who consistently break the rules and then *****, moan, kvetch publicly and hassle the moderation team, may get a little less leeway because they've proven by their actions that they have no intention of following the rules. Call that "having it in for them" if you will.

The mods here work harder than any other chat site I visit NOT to moderate except when there's no other option. Sometimes threads just settle down on their own. Much of the moderation here is user based within the threads, and never needs a mod to reestablish order.

D

 

Here's a word: ghey

Definition: This thread

 

Also begs the question: How many times are you going to die on the same hill??

Sent from the X-31 Space Modulator using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

Temper tantrum as he is not getting his way! In case you were not aware, he has been a member for 10 years and have over 3k post.

 

Your assertions about Joe Sackey have already been reviewed and rejected by the moderation team. So I'm not even going to waste time on repeatedly refuting what's already been addressed.

But I am going to comment on your claim of support by the "silent majority".

You have 3135 posts with 1350 likes, starting in 2013, about 43% over the entire period.

Joe Sackey has 57,174 posts with 14,853 likes, starting in 2006, about 26% over the entire period.

If you go by absolute numbers, Joe Sackey has you beat hands down. If you go by ratios, it flips, but not as strongly.

But those ratios aren't valid numbers. The "like" system was only added to the site about 2017 with the switchover to the Xenforo system. Consequently an apples-apples comparison would require an adjustment to remove those posts where the "like" feature wasn't available. Counting only the 6 most recent years from 2017 and assuming roughly constant posting rate, we get:

Paul500 - 72% like/post ratio

Joe Sackey - 74% like/post ratio

The "like" system doesn't signify that much, sometimes it just means the user thought your post was funny or nice, not right versus wrong. Neither of you have any claim to a mandate from the "silent majority". It's either a slight edge for Joe or can be considered a tie within the error of the estimation method.

We don't moderate based on "likes", but since you want to raise "likes" as a justification for your behavior, you should look at the "likes" you've gotten on this thread in comparison to the "likes" of posts criticizing your behavior. It's at least 10:1 against you.

Now I suggest that you follow what you said that garnered 2 out of your bare handful of likes

Otherwise, I direct you to GatorFL's last post.

 

Dude.....you have to give up the right to be right if you want to be part of any online forum. What do Likes have to do with anything? I have 9,401 posts and 15,909 likes over the same 10 years......which means what? Hopefully it means I am part of something and I treat others as I would if they were my off line friends.

I have been banned on numerous occasions but most were deserved (not really my fault because Silver is a Honey Trap for people like me ........more on that in a moment). I know it is hard to hear.......just give up the attitude or move on. I have seen a few people over time who did not listen to the Mod warnings. Eventually they got permanently Banned just because their ego believed standing their ground was more important.

I don't envy being a moderator on a forum that has the intensity of Fchat but I love being part of it.

Back to the Silver comment......you haven't subscribed to Fchat and you are complaining about how it is run?

 

Wow. So you think everyone on Fchat agrees with you and the people that run and manage it oppress you and your like minded friends?

To support this you cite your number of likes and DMs received from other members? Yet, the Likes in evidence do not support the argument and without seeing the DMs neither do they.

The real question is: What is really going on? People who post about being oppressed and right usually have a high amount of displaced aggression driven by something else.


I have a couple of NASA engineer friends who have OCD so bad that if you propose to do something different from the way they do it and see it gets ugly every time.

Righteous, argumentative and sanctimonious are not attractive qualities. Even if they are 100% right……they are wrong because they failed how to effectively communicate their knowledge. Fortunately, for my friends…..they do have a sense of humor which helps manage our conversations.

I’m new to this thread but I can tell you that seeking validation that you are right and everyone else is wrong on an online forum will not end well.

And for the record, I think your argument about any silent majority on Fchat is disingenuous and wholly untrue. If you actually get a subscription to Fchat and spend some time in P&R you will see how absurd that statement is.

 

Since you can't take direct warnings and instead choose to continue your meaningless drivel about how right you are over a millimeter or two, take 30 days off to think about it. I'd advise you to have a different attitude upon your return or you'll be gone forever.

 

The un-silent majority says BRAVO

 

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

Your honor, this is my lawyer

 

Hmm... I never thought about likes/messages as a metric. I'm at 71%. But it appears the all-time winner is @TSOYBELIS. He has 46,103 likes to 11,622 messages for an almost 400% ratio! I've never heard of him. I guess he must hang out "below the line."