NationStates Jolt Archive

The ruling: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8634218&postcount=26

My question is how these posts:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8630029&postcount=17
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8631134&postcount=20
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8632490&postcount=22

are different from these:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8628475&postcount=16
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8630751&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8632314&postcount=21
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8632973&postcount=24

Just for future reference.

Edit: Editted to reflect later post.

I don't have time to investigate this now, but will look into it soon.

Having had several hours since my Tiamat post to consider this, I have decided to go ahead and contest this decision as well as my questions above.

The part about topic hijacking I am not contesting. It is where Frisbeeteria says

In this one, you/ve taken a statement that Myxx later retracted and turned it into a chance to slam Powerhungry Chipmunks for not reading your every post. I don't care how politely you phrase it, attacking a poster is flaming. That's what you're doing here.

that I am contesting.

I'm not saying Frisbeeteria is entirely wrong, but I do think he is not considering the entirety of the topic and is just considering the page in question when making his decision.

The topic: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410731&page=1&pp=15

In addition, while I do not see it as a moderator ruling (if it is, then I am also going to contest it), I do not find Frisbeeteria's statement about my style of arguing over the internet to be accurate, especially when it is utilized by myself, Powerhungry Chipmunks (the posts at the top of the page), Tekania (will provide link if asked), Vastiva (will provide link if asked), and others (will provide links if asked). I only bring this up because I am of the opinion that it clouded the process of making a decision in this case.

Please note this is my first time actually contesting a ruling.

[Entirely related side diversion]
An overzealous backhoe operator has severed my home internet access, and I don't have time at work for elaborate and complicated reviews. If another moderator wants to review this issue, please feel free.
[/diversion]

While it is possible that the thread has other offenses that need to be addressed, I had been following it somewhat and felt that the posters had resolved most of the extant issues on their own without the need for a moderator "push". Again, I'll glance back over it once I get back online at home.

I will state for the record that I wrote that warning based on only the last two posts of that thread (that being all I had time for when I wrote it), while also considering recent posts by, and complaints about, DLE in unrelated threads. I was not attempting to make a ruling on the thread, only on the overall perceived "style" of recent DLE posts. DLE, I don't consider threads in isolation. I look at posting history and consider posting style and posting trends. If someone says "you're a jerk" once, I usually don't bother warning them. If they say it all the time or have a pattern of similar mild abuse, I consider it flaming.

I've been directly or peripherally involved in several disputes and moderation actions with DLE and related puppets lately, and I'd say that there is a pattern of hijacking and "polite abuse" not just here, but in multiple threads. If you'll notice, I used phrases like "Statements like this one" and "Your posts frequently ..." to indicate that this was a broader issue than that single thread. That is the basis of my original ruling, and I stand by it as a moderation ruling.

dude its burnt everyone in pixidances region was deleted for no reason thats burnt dont you think it is if you lived in that rgion you were deleted maybe they should start calling it the pixidance rebellion :sniper:

dude its burnt everyone in pixidances region was deleted for no reason thats burnt dont you think it is if you lived in that rgion you were deleted maybe they should start calling it the pixidance rebellion :sniper:
Instead of randomly posting in threads that are totally unrelated, would it hurt you to take 10 seconds to scan the thread titles and post in the one labelled Pixidance Booting WIthout Reason (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411137)?

I'm sorry to hear about your home computer issues. I sent you a telegram yesterday that I feel is related to this, and I would comfortable if you wanted to forward that telegram to other moderators or wanted to repost it here if you would feel it would help. At the very least, I feel it offers another perspective than what has thus far has not been presented here. And I kept the content of that letter to my feelings and opinions and not an analysis of anyother person.

-Michael

Frisbeeteria, I am well aware of my percieved style. I am also well aware that I have had to run damage control on more than one occasion when someone has taken what I have said personally. The Myxx topic is not the first where I have talked people down from a rage because of my style, and I'm pretty certain it won't be the last time I'll be dealing with a similar issue.

Now, as for my style issue: Take a look in TIB's repeal attempt. Or Myxx's topic about protecting endangered animals. Or in the thread about the TPP, where I brought up an arguement that may be attempted to be used to bring up awareness of it in case it ever is used. Or, for that matter, take a look in the draft thread for the Rights to All Intelligences. Hell, take a look in the thread about a UN constitution if you want to see it used against a proposal. Then there's the Accountability for International Criminals, one in which my comments resulted in aloophole closed by the author.

Finally, I would like an explanation as to why you felt a need to target just myself on the issue of copying and commenting on every line when it is a common tactic on the forum. You want examples?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8594043&postcount=2
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8594141&postcount=3
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8602405&postcount=5
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8607279&postcount=13
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506444&postcount=17
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8562084&postcount=93
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8562762&postcount=102
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8573284&postcount=158
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8579236&postcount=174

The above examples are only from a couple of threads, both of which you posted on.

Frisbeeteria, to be honest, I am of the opinion that you have not been objective when making your comments and have not considered the whole issue at hand.

Here is my earlier telegram, posted exactly as it was when I sent it to Frisbeeteria after I noticed his ruling made in the UN forum:

In the link Frisbeeteria replied to it felt to me as though this person (or his puppet) were using that thread and example in order to single me out as yet ANOTHER attack on my character.

This is the section that I felt was directed at me:


As many times as I have stated it on this forum, to Mik and several others, the only way you cannot know is to be a newb, to have forgotten it, to have not paid attention (not an accepted excuse), or to be willfully ignoring past posts.

Why do I consider this the latest attack on my character? Answer: I was mentioned by name (the only person) in a way implies I can not know something because I'm a newbie, willfully ignoring, or not paying attention.


For weeks this player has been publically accusing me of being a troll in the UN forum, something which I would think the number of helpful United Nations Association archive posts, constructive / polite participation in a number of threads, and finally participation in talking about the new proposed UN rules would establish to ANYBODY that I am geniuely interested the NationStates United Nations forum.

Frisbeeteria recently asked you and me to "discover" and make use of the ignore feature, but he also opened the door for us to offer constructive ways to participate without bumping heads.

This is more for Frisbeeteria's eyes (since he'll be policing me). I thought about this last night and realized that I should focus on what I like about NationStates:

- writing proposals or editing other people's proposals

Proposals will rise or fall based on their own merit, but I personally like planting seedlings of ideas (be it formatting and grammar or a continuity reference like talking about prior resolutions to use as spring boards)

- conducting polls / surveys

I do this to figure out how and why people think certain ways. The information is out there, and sometimes listening and lurking is just as fun as actively talking to people

- chatting

Pure chatting. :) The best part about asking for UN Delegates to read your proposal is when they reply back and you both start talking about the craziest things. Flags and logos are great starting points for chatting with somebody. My only regret is "when it rains, it pours". I've found it difficult to talk to too many people at the same time.


In any event, there are periods when I'm fairly inactive in one forum, but when I spend a bit of time either on another forum -or- give myself a mini-break.

Sometimes I fall away from these ideas, and as Frisbeeteria, Myrth, the Most Glorious Hack, or Cogitation will be quick (sometimes too quick) to point out, and end up spoiling the fun of other players. More often than not, the moderators are right. Not always, but frequently ... that is kinda why they were given the position.

So with respect to this particular case, I just want to affirm that while the person who posted that comment may not have felt that his quote was an attack on me, it felt like one to me. That is the important thing here. I should be allowed to say, "Hey! That is unfair to me!" and I'm doing that now.

I think it is possible to use an example without attaching a name to it, especially if the example has a negative tone. So for my last bit of "constructive ideas" per Fris's request, I would say, if you want to make a point, think twice about it, and try to avoid using somebody's name if you think there is a REMOTE possibility their feelings will be hurt.

Bear in mind that the NS United Nations forum is important to me. Many of the people there I consider on-line friends, and I respect them, and I'd like them to respect me. I shouldn't have to log on and see somebody claiming I'm a troll, or stupid, or anything else. And I don't think it is fair or polite to do this indirectly, and true or not, it is hard for people to respect somebody that is constantly being labeled a troll.

< ~snip~ of long list of examples that made no sense to me in the context given>
Then there's the Accountability for International Criminals, one in which my comments resulted in aloophole closed by the author.
I'd be among the first to agree that some of your posts have been helpful in promoting positive activities in the UN. Had I felt otherwise, you'd most likely be looking at an offical warning or a forumban. Instead, I've simply asked/told you to evaluate your current style and try altering it to something less confrontational. It's not the first time I've made this request of you, so pardon me if it came across as short-tempered.
I would like an explanation as to why you felt a need to target just myself on the issue of copying and commenting on every line when it is a common tactic on the forum.
I can see where you reached this conclusion, and I understand why you are challenging based on this. I was rushed when I made the initial post, and haven't had a chance to respond before now.

The difference that I didn't make clear in my initial post was not the fact that you use the quote boxes, but the way in which you employ them on a constant basis. It becomes an issue when you don't make the effort to selectively edit, but instead choose to perpetuate minor topic hijacking into major topic hijacking. I have warned other posters about this exact same thing (Komokom comes to mind), and I've generally seen those suggestions reflected positively in their posting style. You acknowledge the warning, and then proceed to continue the practice. No, you're not the only one, but I have dealt and will continue to deal with the others as I see them.
My question is how these posts: <snip> are different from these: <snip>
The obvious difference I've seen is that your quotes have a much greater tendency to attack the poster, where the referenced posts have a greater tendency to attack the argument. Examples of attacking the poster in bold, attacking the conclusion left as plain text:
Amazingly, you're the only one who didn't figure it out.
PC, since you seem to be so big on the evidence comments, why don't you provide some?
Unlike PC, I'm actually willing to provide you links
I have to wonder how much of this is legitimate and how much is pettiness.
I wonder which of us that makes look bad?
As many times as I have stated it on this forum, to Mik and several others, the only way you cannot know is to be a newb, to have forgotten it, to have not paid attention (not an accepted excuse), or to be willfully ignoring past posts.The reasoning behind the conclusion is not explained at all.
This conclusion is unhelpful because there's no explaination as to what part of the proposal this would be abusing
This conclusion is not well supported.
DLE never explains Why it won't pass.
But DLE has come out with predictions like these repeatedly. Where they come from is anyone's guess, though DLE seems to act as though they are some sort of supreme authority.
I hope DLE does not think attempts to patronize me are in any way convincing me that he's is always helpful. On the contrary, if DLE were to become defensive or childish here, it'd only increase the drought of personal positive evaluations I have for his comments.
It's true that Powerhungry Chimunks did some minor character attacks, but only in the context of disassembling the argument. You on the other hand disassembled the argument by attacking the poster's credibility rather than the argument's credibility. That's the difference between debating and flaming.
Frisbeeteria, to be honest, I am of the opinion that you have not been objective when making your comments and have not considered the whole issue at hand.
After spending more than an hour reading over the referenced posts and threads, and considering the various contexts that they might be viewed in, I continue to believe that my initial assessment was accurate and objective. If you still believe otherwise, you are welcome to appeal to another moderator or to one of the admins.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Here is my earlier telegram, posted exactly as it was when I sent it to Frisbeeteria after I noticed his ruling made in the UN forum:

In the link Frisbeeteria replied to it felt to me as though this person (or his puppet) were using that thread and example in order to single me out as yet ANOTHER attack on my character.

This is the section that I felt was directed at me:



Why do I consider this the latest attack on my character? Answer: I was mentioned by name (the only person) in a way implies I can not know something because I'm a newbie, willfully ignoring, or not paying attention.

Actually, Mikitivity, I was using your name as an example of the people I have said my preference for the accusations to be backed with evidence to. Our fights are famous enough he can easily find one where I have said it. When distance exists between the times of mentioning, I find it forgivable to not remember them and am more likely to gently remind.

For weeks this player has been publically accusing me of being a troll in the UN forum, something which I would think the number of helpful United Nations Association archive posts, constructive / polite participation in a number of threads, and finally participation in talking about the new proposed UN rules would establish to ANYBODY that I am geniuely interested the NationStates United Nations forum.

Try for about four months. The reasons behind that are stated below.

Frisbeeteria recently asked you and me to "discover" and make use of the ignore feature, but he also opened the door for us to offer constructive ways to participate without bumping heads.

This is more for Frisbeeteria's eyes (since he'll be policing me). I thought about this last night and realized that I should focus on what I like about NationStates:

- writing proposals or editing other people's proposals

Proposals will rise or fall based on their own merit, but I personally like planting seedlings of ideas (be it formatting and grammar or a continuity reference like talking about prior resolutions to use as spring boards)

- conducting polls / surveys

I do this to figure out how and why people think certain ways. The information is out there, and sometimes listening and lurking is just as fun as actively talking to people

- chatting

Pure chatting. :) The best part about asking for UN Delegates to read your proposal is when they reply back and you both start talking about the craziest things. Flags and logos are great starting points for chatting with somebody. My only regret is "when it rains, it pours". I've found it difficult to talk to too many people at the same time.


In any event, there are periods when I'm fairly inactive in one forum, but when I spend a bit of time either on another forum -or- give myself a mini-break.

Sometimes I fall away from these ideas, and as Frisbeeteria, Myrth, the Most Glorious Hack, or Cogitation will be quick (sometimes too quick) to point out, and end up spoiling the fun of other players. More often than not, the moderators are right. Not always, but frequently ... that is kinda why they were given the position.

Mikitivity, there is one thing to keep in mind about forum context: In certain situations, long posts that are heavily explanative can be a more effective form of trolling than suggesting to a group that their mothers used to be raped by cats (in this case, it can go either way, but I'm posting under a different context for this than normal). The reason is that it is often perceived as being a greater insult by being a lot more indirect and a lot longer. There are other items that, while minor, can be entirely innocent but come across as not when combined together (even if they are innocent). If you wish a full list, including the items I have recieved from others, I'll TG it to you. I'm here to deal with a mod ruling, not fight with a player.

Even if you do not intend to come across as one, you sometimes do to some people because of the above. Just like I come across as an asshole because of my posts, with the only difference being that in my case it's partly on purpose. That doesn't stop either of us from being helpful, but it does create a situation where some of the posters I have talked to are thinking the UN forum is full of assholes and trolls. And, to be honest, it's entirely perception based on people not personally knowing each other. I do not state this as an enemy, but as someone who thinks they have found the problem behind why we don't get along and why we can never get along for long periods of time.

A better example is your first reply to my idea on Hersfold's topic. It wasn't necessary to go into that much information when all I was doing was suggesting a class be added. If anything, all it required was another post from Hersfold and the entire conversation would have been completed in two more posts (total) instead of the arguement that sprung up. Even if you felt the need to say that, all you had to do was go for simplicity with your post and left me to decide how I wanted to respond to it, which likely would have been very different. The posting of the longer explanation you did, while having good intentions behind it, naturally led to the opposite of what was intended.

Now, kindly note the glaring absense of a moderator title near my name. Anything I have said, while possibly or not possibly reflecting the opinions of others, is entirely as a concerned player and not in any official capacity. This disclaimer included to prevent the thought I am trying to act as a mod, as I am only trying to be concerned.

I think it is possible to use an example without attaching a name to it, especially if the example has a negative tone. So for my last bit of "constructive ideas" per Fris's request, I would say, if you want to make a point, think twice about it, and try to avoid using somebody's name if you think there is a REMOTE possibility their feelings will be hurt.

If I did that, I would never use names. People's feelings can get hurt by just about anything, even though it is a remote chance. Using a name in such a context provides the opposition a case where they can look up what was said.

But, in this case I don't think you have a real right to complain. The last time we were advised, in this forum, to ignore each other was because of you doing the exact same thing and my subsequent reaction to it. Don't forget the mod ruling that using a person's past when talking is not against the rules.

I'd be among the first to agree that some of your posts have been helpful in promoting positive activities in the UN. Had I felt otherwise, you'd most likely be looking at an offical warning or a forumban. Instead, I've simply asked/told you to evaluate your current style and try altering it to something less confrontational. It's not the first time I've made this request of you, so pardon me if it came across as short-tempered.

Yes, I know of those requests. And I also know they were made as a player, not as a mod. The style itself exists as a way to get it across to a person exactly what my point is and bring their attention directly to it, all the while allowing them a chance to respond and a chance to take out their anger. I've actually stopped an arguement before and helped a person calm down when it has gone too far (see the first time Myxx went off on me) or suggested they calm down a bit (making it a point, after the first time, to add in something stating I'm not intending it to be condescending in hopes they get that it's concern on my part). And, yes, I do sometimes lose, and I admit it (either with an outright statement or an indirect one). Take a look at that one arguement over Hack's draft where Mikitivity ripped my entire arguement to shreds.

But as it is, I don't really see the style as that different from what is being used by others. Read the posts of Vastiva and Tekania. Or, at times, those of YGSM (used to be Asshelmetta), The Irish Brotherhood, or even a lot of the younger members who come on the board. Compared to what some of the younger members say, I'm actually quite nice. Even if you do get me to change, the style itself will be alive and thriving on the forums, making it so that later on you'll have to go after others. And, in this case targetting an individual may be the worst option you could take.

I can see where you reached this conclusion, and I understand why you are challenging based on this. I was rushed when I made the initial post, and haven't had a chance to respond before now.

The difference that I didn't make clear in my initial post was not the fact that you use the quote boxes, but the way in which you employ them on a constant basis. It becomes an issue when you don't make the effort to selectively edit, but instead choose to perpetuate minor topic hijacking into major topic hijacking. I have warned other posters about this exact same thing (Komokom comes to mind), and I've generally seen those suggestions reflected positively in their posting style. You acknowledge the warning, and then proceed to continue the practice. No, you're not the only one, but I have dealt and will continue to deal with the others as I see them.

That's because you do it as a player, not as a mod, in the few times I ever remember you saying anything about it. Players have the option of ignoring the advice of other players. You want to know why I use quoteboxes like that and that often? Go to the General forum during a period of the most hits during the day, choose the most controversial topic, and try to keep up and have your posts make sense without them. I've seen a few cases where even the UN forum gets close to that speed with certain topics, in other cases having the posts I am responding to a couple pages behind the current because of how many posts were made since then. They're a habit that allows for the possibility another post will be made while I am posting mine.

It's true that Powerhungry Chimunks did some minor character attacks, but only in the context of disassembling the argument. You on the other hand disassembled the argument by attacking the poster's credibility rather than the argument's credibility. That's the difference between debating and flaming.

Wow. Then explain to me how this is dissembling my arguements:

For one thing, DLE doesn't always give his conclusions very well. And if one asks for clarification (or misunderstands and doesn't ask), the most common response, it seems, is "read my previous posts".

I see where Myxx comes from: I rarely read positive remarks from DLE; often, when someone disagrees with his posts, DLE resorts to personal attacks; and DLE has more than once been arbitrarily condescending.

Constructive criticism and grumpiness are not the same.

Oh, and puppet-wanking is still dumb...

Keep in mind that is his first post in the topic and the arguement started because of this. The link:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8627001&postcount=10

And, just because you may want the context, here's the replies:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8627001&postcount=10
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8628475&postcount=16

Now, explain to me how PC's posts there don't include attacking my credibility. Also, I noticed you have editted the comments involved, which was one of my complaints about how PC was using his quotes. Taken out of context like that, they look worse than they are (well, most of them) while PC's comments look better than they are. If you were going to post them, posting the entire statement instead of just part of it (especially on a topic where people can see the context before reading your post) would have been better.

After spending more than an hour reading over the referenced posts and threads, and considering the various contexts that they might be viewed in, I continue to believe that my initial assessment was accurate and objective. If you still believe otherwise, you are welcome to appeal to another moderator or to one of the admins.

I plan on doing so. I do not see your decision as objective and your last post only convinces me more of that.

I plan on doing so. I do not see your decision as objective and your last post only convinces me more of that.
Noted.

I will point out that your warning was of the "knock it off" nature, not an official warning, a forumban, or a deletion of one or more of your nations. If you really feel that contacting the admin over an informal warning is something worth spending time upon, that is your prerogative. Given that no sanctions have been taken, no warnings recorded, and no negative repercussions (apart from the slight on my objectivity) have occured in-game, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Be that as it may.

Keep in mind that is his first post in the topic and the arguement started because of this. The link:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8627001&postcount=10

And, just because you may want the context, here's the replies:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8627001&postcount=10
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8628475&postcount=16


[Bolding mine]

To service the mod who takes this case up, the bolded, second link listed is incorrect (it's the same as the first link listed).

The thread in question is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410731). Post #10 is my first post, subsequent posts in the back-and-forth include 15-18, 20-22, 24 and 26 (Fris's ruling).

Mikitivity, there is one thing to keep in mind about forum context: In certain situations, long posts that are heavily explanative can be a more effective form of trolling than suggesting to a group that their mothers used to be raped by cats (in this case, it can go either way, but I'm posting under a different context for this than normal). The reason is that it is often perceived as being a greater insult by being a lot more indirect and a lot longer. There are other items that, while minor, can be entirely innocent but come across as not when combined together (even if they are innocent). If you wish a full list, including the items I have recieved from others, I'll TG it to you. I'm here to deal with a mod ruling, not fight with a player.

Even if you do not intend to come across as one, you sometimes do to some people because of the above. Just like I come across as an asshole because of my posts, with the only difference being that in my case it's partly on purpose. That doesn't stop either of us from being helpful, but it does create a situation where some of the posters I have talked to are thinking the UN forum is full of assholes and trolls. And, to be honest, it's entirely perception based on people not personally knowing each other. I do not state this as an enemy, but as someone who thinks they have found the problem behind why we don't get along and why we can never get along for long periods of time.


This post is another example of an attack. You claim that there are others who share your opinion, "If you wish a full list, including the items I have recieved from others, I'll TG it to you. I'm here to deal with a mod ruling, not fight with a player."

I've yet to see this from others. If you are telling the truth, point to these other accusations. If you are going to attack people, back up the claims. Otherwise, it is a form of harassment! What you are implying is that there is a long list of players whom consider me a troll.

If anybody feels I'm trolling, they should come out and publically make a factual based accusation for the moderation staff and allow them to deal with it. Not making the claim, is under the game rules a direct form of flamebaiting and an offense that the moderators could choose to use against you. Thus far, all you've done is used this as yet ANOTHER excuse to flame and attack me, and are pretending that there is "secret" telegrams supporting your claims.


Next time you are trying to defend or justify your actions, do not turn them around into an attack on another player. Here I came and complained that you continue to accuse me of being a troll in support of a moderator __suggestion__ that you should tone down your posts in the UN forum, but instead of listening to a moderators advice or apologizing to a player you've been harassing since Oct. 2004, you've offered no support for that previous attack and just go right on claiming I'm a troll. Now you are suggesting I'm a troll because my posts are LONG??!!?? Do you need me to point to the hundreds of long posts in any of the NationStates forums? It is incredibly illogical to say that just because somebody's posts are long, that they are a troll.

However, by your logic: Long posts = trolls, your "long" reply to my complaint is a troll. And since trolling is a forum offense, do you honestly feel that you should now be publically branded a troll EVERY SINGLE FRAKING DAY? If the answer is no, you are advocating a double standard.

Seriously, you've been asked by moderation staff to cut it out in flames you started against Komokom, myself, and the Powerhungry Chipmunks ... all in the span of the last few weeks. Logic would say if there is one player who is constantly getting into trouble and ignoring the advice from moderation, and three other players and a moderator whom have not recently gotten into trouble with others, that the problem is not with that other group.

To service the mod who takes this case up, the bolded, second link listed is incorrect (it's the same as the first link listed).

The thread in question is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410731). Post #10 is my first post, subsequent posts in the back-and-forth include 15-18, 20-22, 24 and 26 (Fris's ruling).

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the mistake.

This post is another example of an attack. You claim that there are others who share your opinion, "If you wish a full list, including the items I have recieved from others, I'll TG it to you. I'm here to deal with a mod ruling, not fight with a player."

I've yet to see this from others. If you are telling the truth, point to these other accusations. [b]If you are going to attack people, back up the claims. Otherwise, it is a form of harassment! What you are implying is that there is a long list of players whom consider me a troll.

If anybody feels I'm trolling, they should come out and publically make a factual based accusation for the moderation staff and allow them to deal with it. Not making the claim, is under the game rules a direct form of flamebaiting and an offense that the moderators could choose to use against you. Thus far, all you've done is used this as yet ANOTHER excuse to flame and attack me, and are pretending that there is "secret" telegrams supporting your claims.


Next time you are trying to defend or justify your actions, do not turn them around into an attack on another player. Here I came and complained that you continue to accuse me of being a troll in support of a moderator __suggestion__ that you should tone down your posts in the UN forum, but instead of listening to a moderators advice or apologizing to a player you've been harassing since Oct. 2004, you've offered no support for that previous attack and just go right on claiming I'm a troll. Now you are suggesting I'm a troll because my posts are LONG??!!?? Do you need me to point to the hundreds of long posts in any of the NationStates forums? It is incredibly illogical to say that just because somebody's posts are long, that they are a troll.

However, by your logic: Long posts = trolls, your "long" reply to my complaint is a troll. And since trolling is a forum offense, do you honestly feel that you should now be publically branded a troll EVERY SINGLE FRAKING DAY? If the answer is no, you are advocating a double standard.

Seriously, you've been asked by moderation staff to cut it out in flames you started against Komokom, myself, and the Powerhungry Chipmunks ... all in the span of the last few weeks. Logic would say if there is one player who is constantly getting into trouble and ignoring the advice from moderation, and three other players and a moderator whom have not recently gotten into trouble with others, that the problem is not with that other group.

Okay Mik, I've had enough of this. I've tried to be nice to you. I've tried to be diplomatic. And instead, this is what I get.

You want names? Fine then. Myself, Vastiva, The Black New World, Knootoss, and Enn have effectively said the same thing. Even HotRodia and East Hackney have admitted that your constant involvement in it means you are likely the problem. And TilEnca has said he can understand why we feel that way in the same post he was trying to defend you in. And if you'll notice, it's not just me on this one. It includes some of the most respected names in the UN. Pretty much, I'd say I'm the only one willing to try to be polite when pointing it to you out during the few times it is considered worth attempting. Also, note how many of them have been on the wrong side of the mods.

As for attacking people: Let me quote your attacks from your last post, the one where you complain about it.

Thus far, all you've done is used this as yet ANOTHER excuse to flame and attack me, and are pretending that there is "secret" telegrams supporting your claims.

However, by your logic: Long posts = trolls, your "long" reply to my complaint is a troll. And since trolling is a forum offense, do you honestly feel that you should now be publically branded a troll EVERY SINGLE FRAKING DAY? If the answer is no, you are advocating a double standard.

Seriously, you've been asked by moderation staff to cut it out in flames you started against Komokom, myself, and the Powerhungry Chipmunks ... all in the span of the last few weeks. Logic would say if there is one player who is constantly getting into trouble and ignoring the advice from moderation, and three other players and a moderator whom have not recently gotten into trouble with others, that the problem is not with that other group.

And, this claim is unsupported by evidence:

Here I came and complained that you continue to accuse me of being a troll in support of a moderator __suggestion__ that you should tone down your posts in the UN forum, but instead of listening to a moderators advice or apologizing to a player you've been harassing since Oct. 2004, you've offered no support for that previous attack and just go right on claiming I'm a troll.

I'll note the one time I came close to apologizing was a time you turned around and turned a simple mistake involving your name into an attack on my entire history on the forums. And, yes, I have the links to back it if anyone wants them.

Now, what really gets me is even your information on mod rulings is incorrect. The last ruling about us was telling both of us to leave each other alone. The PC ruling, the one we are talking about in this very topic, had this said by the very mod who made it:

I was not attempting to make a ruling on the thread, only on the overall perceived "style" of recent DLE posts.

Finally, if that last post was a personal attack, I would have been called on it. After all, don't forget a mod posted immediately after that and this is the moderation forum, so that even if he missed it another wouldn't.

Mikitivity, as much as I would like to help you, I can't. Certain things are beyond my skill to help and, frankly, this is one of them. And as it stands, I don't even want to. As long as your name or any of your posts are not brought up in a conversation to me, as far as I'm concerned you don't exist. If they do, I'll tell the person you are one of which I do not speak. I advise you to take the same policy towards myself. At least this way we can keep from fighting all the damned time.

As for the TPP: I'm handling that as soon as I am done with this post. Let's just say you and I will never have to deal with each other again.

As DLE has mentioned me, I feel I should contribute to this discussion.

I don't consider Mik to be a troll. However, I consider him to be among a number of players who often gets worked up over very slight things, and then posts without thinking about what is being said. Nothing intentional, but it can still be offensive. He also appears to at times take things personally that are not intended to be.

Similarly, DLE can sometimes be offensive, but I do not think she intends doing so either.

DemonLordEnigma, Mikitivity, Moderation is not the place for the continuation of your feud. Cease and desist.

~ Tsar the Mod.

You want names? Fine then. Myself, Vastiva, The Black New World, Knootoss, and Enn have effectively said the same thing.*Nitpicks* Of course, there are also the players who consider you to be a troll, intending to disrupt the actual, normal proceedings in the UN with pointless hijacks that contribute nothing (tm) (Specifically, the tech issues).

Like, uh, me.

East Hackney rarely uses these forums and is away at the moment, so is unlikely to see this thread. He's a close friend of mine and I think I can state with confidence that he is unlikely to be happy to be cited in this manner, as it implies that he believes Mikitivity to be "the problem". Far from it.

Comments like these can have consequences for the players being cited and I wouldn't want Mik to think that EH has been slandering behind his back when he in fact has NOT.

Here's the problem with citing people in this manner. Apologies for butting in, I'd like to make it clear that I'm otherwise offering no criticism of DLE's posting manner, etc. I'm sure he didn't intend to put EH in a potentially uncomfortable position.

Since my name was cited in the below post in this thread, I figured it would be best to post this here. If I should have started a new thread or something, I apologize in advance.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8650791&postcount=15

Here's what I actually said in context. It should clarify what DLE was referring to.


Actually, I like Mik, and think that it's unfortunate how many people he's developed bad relationships with. I'm pretty sure its just a series misunderstandings, but with Mik being the common denominator in those situations, I have to consider that he is inadvertantly causing the problem. He probably honestly does not think he is being rude, or misinterpreting anything, so I can understand his frustration. Honestly, the whole thing is rather unfortunate.