NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12831164&postcount=125
Quit putting words into poster's mouths, bitch. Seems like that's a consistent tendency of yours just aching to be pointed out - time, and time, and time again. In perpetuity, in fact.

Shut up.

I tend to ignore this poster since DW has a clear issue with me and it's long since left rational discourse, but I think at some point something has to be done. DW's last post to me before this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12811681&postcount=28
Nor am I liable to. I'm not interested in discussing anything further with you, Jocabia - primarily because you're overly obsessive.

Are you done yet? 'Cause I just thought you should know I don't really give a flying fuck about what you feel so passionately about (today). So please don't bother going out of your way trying to enthuse me to listening to your usual pedantic drivel. Understand? Do you understand? Can you read the bolded phrase below, Jocabia?

I - DON'T - GIVE - A - FLYING - FUCK - JOCABIA

Did you read it? Do you understand now? Will it sink in with you to any degree, the fact that I do not enjoy, nor have I ever particularly enjoyed, being subject to your indescribably boring and interminable lectures on - well, just about everything? That I enjoy your company almost as much as that of a pubic louse? Shall I go on, or do you feel you have enough material to go running off to complain about me in Moderation yet?

Oh, go blow it out your backside already, you frickin' mirthless killjoy.

Just reasonable debate is what that is.

I let the last one go, but given that this seems to be something DW cannot get over and since DW can't seem to find the ignore button, I figured it was time to bring it here.

EDIT: MODS ONLY, PLEASE.

You could always find the ignore button as well, you know. And if you can't handle being called a name, good heavens, whatever are you doing on internet forums? Your style can also be rather abrasive in your own way, and appear snobbish at times, and I've noticed a habit now and then of pushing things as far as you can without crossing the line in insulting and demeaning folks who find themselves on the wrong side of you in a debate. No idea whether you realize it or mean it or not, but it comes across as a superior talking-down-to attitude a lot of times, and that can offend just as much or more as someone blatantly telling you to sod off.

Look, it's simple. We're never going to please or get along with everyone. We've all got our limits. And we all have our own ideas of what's acceptable in a response. And you know, that's ok. By the same token, we don't have to rise to every occasion that happens to challenge our viewpoints, or every negative comment that might come our way. When you get caught up in that, you end up dragging yourself down, getting far too emotionally involved in what in the end amounts to a stupid conversation with some faceless nick on a free internet board where the exchange of ideas isn't likely in the least to change either participant's opinion of the topic, or each other for the positive.

Yes, name-calling is childish, yes there's probably better ways of expressing oneself, but you do have a choice in how you deal with it, and an opportunity to examine your own posting approach and see if there might be any merit at all in the rather pointed criticism of it. Just a thought or three. :)

EDIT: I said plenty about what I thought about Dobbs - if you can't see it, read again. You were the one with your nose out of joint, so you were the one I more directly addressed, with him, having stated he doesn't give a damn already, being addressed peripherally. As for value in moderation - you get what you pay for. I'm sure all of us could say much the same for your numerous contributions here there and everywhere in this forum, but hey - so long as it isn't closed, we're all free to post and put our two cents in. I'd think with the attitude you're showing there, you'd have a thick enough skin to receive as well as dish it out the way you do. Was I ... incorrect in that assumption? And no - I've no desire to tg you about it. Either you get something out of it, or you don't. I'm done here.

You could always find the ignore button as well, you know. And if you can't handle being called a name, good heavens, whatever are you doing on internet forums? Your style can also be rather abrasive in your own way, and appear snobbish at times, and I've noticed a habit now and then of pushing things as far as you can without crossing the line in insulting and demeaning folks who find themselves on the wrong side of you in a debate. No idea whether you realize it or mean it or not, but it comes across as a superior talking-down-to attitude a lot of times, and that can offend just as much or more as someone blatantly telling you to sod off.

Look, it's simple. We're never going to please or get along with everyone. We've all got our limits. And we all have our own ideas of what's acceptable in a response. And you know, that's ok. By the same token, we don't have to rise to every occasion that happens to challenge our viewpoints, or every negative comment that might come our way. When you get caught up in that, you end up dragging yourself down, getting far too emotionally involved in what in the end amounts to a stupid conversation with some faceless nick on a free internet board where the exchange of ideas isn't likely in the least to change either participant's opinion of the topic, or each other for the positive.

Yes, name-calling is childish, yes there's probably better ways of expressing oneself, but you do have a choice in how you deal with it, and an opportunity to examine your own posting approach and see if there might be any merit at all in the rather pointed criticism of it. Just a thought or three. :)

Flaming is in violation of the rules of the site. Nothing more. Nothing less. Putting DW on ignore won't change whether or not it's a flame.

If being abrasive were in violation of the rules, then most of us wouldn't be here including yourself. When they make it against the rules to say things in a way that might be regarded as abrasive, I'll be happy to change my behavior or move on. Until then, I'm happy to just remain within the rules as requested of me by the owner of the site and those that work for him.

My question would be whether you have anything to add that regards the actual request here? Apparently not, since you've not said that DW is within the rules. You've only stated what you think of my style. (By the way, while I don't think your reply has value in moderation, you're free to TG me. I don't mind hearing what you think provided it's a calm and rational as what you posted above.)

As such, from here on out, MODS ONLY, PLEASE.

Dobbsworld is the one who should be tought the use of the ignore button. Dobbsworld initiated the discussion, and then it took one (ONE!) intelligent and nonbaiting reply from Jocabia for DW to fly off of the handle.

Jocabia is not in the wrong at all in this situation, and if Dobbsworld cannot handle Jocabia's abrasive style, why did DW reply to Jocabia in the first place?

EDIT: Sorry, started the post before the Mod's only request.

I'd like to point out that all of the above posts were made before I suggested MODS ONLY.

You know, sorry to burst in (I know, mods only and all that) but if we're reporting Dobbs anyway, he consistently flamebaits by using terms such as "Zark the Nark"to refer to me (No, it's not meant to be a nice nickname. It's clearly meant to be an insult). I just ignored him up 'til now (Besides pointing out that it was trollish), but if we're reporting him anyway, I figured I might toss that in here.

Sorry...It just didn't seem right to start a whole 'nother thread when we Dobbs was already being reported.

Jocabia, If you feel this is an unreasonable post for this thread, just say so and I'll delete it.

Links, please. I don't much like having lies inserted into my mouth in Moderation.

*24-hour bump*

I know it's hard-core flaming, but I can't help but take a perverse pleasure out of it. It happens to be pretty d-mn funny.

I know it's hard-core flaming, but I can't help but take a perverse pleasure out of it. It happens to be pretty d-mn funny.

You don't seem to know what MODS ONLY means, do you? Plus, baiting in moderation is perhaps not wise.

I'm just not seeing it, Jocabia. It looks to me like a typical General discussion where people with strong opinions in opposition pay no attention to the arguments of the other side. The only one that's even close is the use of 'bitch', and that's not worth getting in an uproar about.

Both of you are abrasive in your own ways, as has been pointed out. You rub each other the wrong way, it's clear. Do we need to be a part of this? I'm not seeing it. Sorry.



FreedomAndGlory, don't post in 'Mods only' threads that don't directly impact one of your own posts or threads.

I'm just not seeing it, Jocabia. It looks to me like a typical General discussion where people with strong opinions in opposition pay no attention to the arguments of the other side. The only one that's even close is the use of 'bitch', and that's not worth getting in an uproar about.

Both of you are abrasive in your own ways, as has been pointed out. You rub each other the wrong way, it's clear. Do we need to be a part of this? I'm not seeing it. Sorry.



FreedomAndGlory, don't post in 'Mods only' threads that don't directly impact one of your own posts or threads.

Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't even care enough about the first one to post it here, until the second one appeared. I don't see how "bitch" is not a flame, but I'm not overly concerned about that.

I don't see how "bitch" is not a flame, but I'm not overly concerned about that.

That being the case, why bother? Seems like a knowing waste of the Moderator's time to me.

The mods are here to make judgments, Dobbsworld. It's every player's right to ask us, and we'll be sure to point out when it's frivolous.

Also keep in mind that another mod could have just as easily ruled the other way. That's why we call them 'judgment calls'.

I know this is Mods Only now, but I have a serious grievance here.

Just exactly how many free passes does Dobbsworld get?

Concerning Jocabia, he got a warning from Most Glorious Hack here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11880345&postcount=7

Since this instance and another:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12675532&postcount=5

have occurred without action.

He has also had these reports that seem actionable but have had not even a official warning:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505952
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491988
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485312

He has a long history of harrassing posters, baiting posters, flaming posters, and issuing ignore threats (even on moderation threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11374930&postcount=14)). It seems like everytime that it occurs either no action is taken, or action is taken and completely forgotten when the bad behavior continues.

Again as it pertains to this particular instance Hack issued a warning:

Dobbsworld: Once could have been viewed as a lurker popping up to make a comment and going away again. Continued harassment is quite another. Knock it off; now. Try to act like a mature netizen. If someone's posts are insufferably dull, don't read them. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

Now, considering that Dobbsworld started the discussion with Jocabia and then started calling Jocabia a bitch after Jocabia replied, how is this not actionable?

I know this is Mods Only now, but I have a serious grievance here.

Just exactly how many free passes does Dobbsworld get?

Concerning Jocabia, he got a warning from Most Glorious Hack here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11880345&postcount=7

Since this instance and another:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12675532&postcount=5

have occurred without action.

He has also had these reports that seem actionable but have had not even a official warning:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505952
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491988
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485312

He has a long history of harrassing posters, baiting posters, flaming posters, and issuing ignore threats (even on moderation threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11374930&postcount=14)). It seems like everytime that it occurs either no action is taken, or action is taken and completely forgotten when the bad behavior continues.

Again as it pertains to this particular instance Hack issued a warning:



Now, considering that Dobbsworld started the discussion with Jocabia and then started calling Jocabia a bitch after Jocabia replied, how is this not actionable?

Wow. I'd totally forgotten about that. It's so funny to me that people tend to remember things involving better than I do (not you, just generally). Once Hack dealt with that issue, I completely put it out of my mind.

I'd say that given the nature of Hack's response, that it appears that DW just waited a bit and basically returned to do the EXACT same thing.

That said, it seems like everyone seems to mention how abrasive I am as an excuse for these types of posts, but I challenge anyone mod or other wise to find a post that resembles this one - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12811681&postcount=28

I've been here over three years and it's NEVER happened. I get a little annoyed that everyone keeps acting like aggressively attacking in an argument is the same as popping in for a post that is SOLELY an aggressive attack on the poster. Being abrasive in the course of an argument and being abrasive in lieiu of an argument are not the same thing, and I'd appreciate if people would stop pretending that they are. It's quite clear that you, as mods, treat them quite differently.

Also keep in mind that another mod could have just as easily ruled the other way. That's why we call them 'judgment calls'.Which is happening right now. Not trying to step on toes here, but...

1) Jacabia, I want to kick you for making me read through that damned thread.
2) Said thread fails because nobody mentioned One Bad Pig.
3) As an isolated event, I wouldn't even consider reevaluating Fris's ruling. However, taking into account post history brought up by Vittos, I felt the thread needed to be looked at again.

Dobbsworld had commented in the thread earlier. Not stellar content, but content nonetheless. I was going to uphold Fris's ruling, but I kept reading until I stumbled over this (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12831553&postcount=130) post. It's a retread of the same thing I warned him for previously. Warnings are given out for a reason. They're given to let posters know that their patterns are treading dangerously close rule-breaking, or have actually crossed the line. They are generally given to let people know that continued behavior will result in consequences.

They do not expire.

Dobbsworld: FORUMBANNED for three days. The pop-up trolling ends now. We all know that you don't like Jocabia. We don't need you telling the world how much you don't care. Put him on your ignore list and be done with it. Clearly, acting mature and avoiding his posts isn't an option for you. You can either have Jolt do the work for you, or I'll do it for you. My way is rather more punative.


The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Which is happening right now. Not trying to step on toes here, but...

1) Jacabia, I want to kick you for making me read through that damned thread.
2) Said thread fails because nobody mentioned One Bad Pig.
3) As an isolated event, I wouldn't even consider reevaluating Fris's ruling. However, taking into account post history brought up by Vittos, I felt the thread needed to be looked at again.

Dobbsworld had commented in the thread earlier. Not stellar content, but content nonetheless. I was going to uphold Fris's ruling, but I kept reading until I stumbled over this (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12831553&postcount=130) post. It's a retread of the same thing I warned him for previously. Warnings are given out for a reason. They're given to let posters know that their patterns are treading dangerously close rule-breaking, or have actually crossed the line. They are generally given to let people know that continued behavior will result in consequences.

They do not expire.

Dobbsworld: FORUMBANNED for three days. The pop-up trolling ends now. We all know that you don't like Jocabia. We don't need you telling the world how much you don't care. Put him on your ignore list and be done with it. Clearly, acting mature and avoiding his posts isn't an option for you. You can either have Jolt do the work for you, or I'll do it for you. My way is rather more punative.


The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

TMGH, honestly, if I'd had any idea the post you linked mattered I'd have supplied it. I really didn't. I barely noticed it, honestly, but in the context of what VO provided, it makes sense. I guess my memory is failing in my old age, but you can kick me if you like.

Thanks for the effort.

TMGH, honestly, if I'd had any idea the post you linked mattered I'd have supplied it. I really didn't.In and of itself, it probably wasn't especially critical. However, in light of my previous rulings, it demonstrated a return to previous behavior.

And, I would have had to read the fool thread regardless. Full context and interaction was needed. Shrug.

In and of itself, it probably wasn't especially critical. However, in light of my previous rulings, it demonstrated a return to previous behavior.

And, I would have had to read the fool thread regardless. Full context and interaction was needed. Shrug.

In the future, I'll be sure to pepper the thread with lots of smilies. I know that definitely makes it more entertaining for you.

Again,, thanks for the effort.

TMGH, honestly, if I'd had any idea the post you linked mattered I'd have supplied it. I really didn't. I barely noticed it, honestly, but in the context of what VO provided, it makes sense. I guess my memory is failing in my old age, but you can kick me if you like.

Thanks for the effort.

I wouldn't worry about it, TMGH was obviously, as he said, speaking to Jacabia, not you.....

*ducks*

In and of itself, it probably wasn't especially critical. However, in light of my previous rulings, it demonstrated a return to previous behavior.

And, I would have had to read the fool thread regardless. Full context and interaction was needed. Shrug.

I'm kinda curious about this...
Now, appearently Dobbs had come in the thread earlier with valid content (I may have missed that post, I'm not sure...)
He then re-entered, not to face any of Jocabia's arguments, but only to call him a bitch. There was no build up, just immediate name calling. When Jocabia pointed out his error (which initially led to the "bitch" comment), he stated that he didn't "give a rats ass", demonstrating that he had no desire to have a discussion, he was just looking for an opportunity to call Jocabia a bitch.

Now, you said that it was primarily actionable only after considering previous action...personally, I think it was very agressive as it showed no desire to discuss, but only to name call...

I guess my question is why this isn't actionable on its own? The "like I give a rats ass" comment stuck out to me immediatly, but I figured I would leave it to Jocabia to report if he so chose...but it seemed directly actionable to me at the moment of that comment.

I'm kinda curious about this...
Now, appearently Dobbs had come in the thread earlier with valid content (I may have missed that post, I'm not sure...)
He then re-entered, not to face any of Jocabia's arguments, but only to call him a bitch. There was no build up, just immediate name calling. When Jocabia pointed out his error (which initially led to the "bitch" comment), he stated that he didn't "give a rats ass", demonstrating that he had no desire to have a discussion, he was just looking for an opportunity to call Jocabia a bitch.

Now, you said that it was primarily actionable only after considering previous action...personally, I think it was very agressive as it showed no desire to discuss, but only to name call...

I guess my question is why this isn't actionable on its own? The "like I give a rats ass" comment stuck out to me immediatly, but I figured I would leave it to Jocabia to report if he so chose...but it seemed directly actionable to me at the moment of that comment.

Honestly, until TMGH mentioned it, I never made the connection you're making right now. I don't know if I'm just slow or I just don't care, but I find it interesting that everyone else saw this so much more clearly. I don't know if should be embarrassed or proud that I missed this point.

Honestly, until TMGH mentioned it, I never made the connection you're making right now. I don't know if I'm just slow or I just don't care, but I find it interesting that everyone else saw this so much more clearly. I don't know if should be embarrassed or proud that I missed this point.

I think I was just confused why people post things like "I don't care" or "I don't give a rats ass"..clearly you do, if you took the time to call out a poster and then post yet again to clarify that you "don't care".

I'd be proud that I missed it (ya know...if I had...) Might mean that you're lacking a bit of the agression I have had recently.

Is it time for a jolt-mandated session of kumbaya?

Why do I instead hear the strains of a joyful 'ding dong the witch is dead'?

There's a taste of gloating in the air, and it's disturbing to the digestion.

Is it time for a jolt-mandated session of kumbaya?

Why do I instead hear the strains of a joyful 'ding dong the witch is dead'?

There's a taste of gloating in the air, and it's disturbing to the digestion.

Honestly I don't know why anyone would celebrate a ban of DW. Other than the rants I posted here, I don't really see a reason to want DW to not be around. All we were talking about there is how I didn't realize the post that got acted on was actionable.

Is it time for a jolt-mandated session of kumbaya?

Why do I instead hear the strains of a joyful 'ding dong the witch is dead'?

There's a taste of gloating in the air, and it's disturbing to the digestion.

No Nees, it's not just you who's picking up on that distinct tang of adolescent gloat-age. Sadly, Jocabia has no idea at all what he hath wrought with his latest outing as what Dobbs likes to call a "junior hall monitor wannabe."

Jocey - Keep gloating kiddo, it will give you something to pass the time while you wait for your balls to drop.

No Nees, it's not just you who's picking up on that distinct tang of adolescent gloat-age. Sadly, Jocabia has no idea at all what he hath wrought with his latest outing as what Dobbs likes to call a "junior hall monitor wannabe."

Jocey - Keep gloating kiddo, it will give you something to pass the time while you wait for your balls to drop.

Um. Wow. Just wow. Someone takes this stuff waaaaaaay to seriously. I'll keep my eyes out for what I "hath wrought", okay? That is, while I'm waiting for my balls to drop.

EDIT: I still don't know why I would want DW to have been modded. Doesn't it make more sense that I would prefer that DW stay around, keep posting opinions and debate, and simply left off the kinds of posts I reported? That was all I was asking in the first place. I don't even particularly disagree with DW much of the time. I don't see where the percentage is in DW being gone.

Now first off, I have not noticed any gloating, Jocabia was going to let this drop until Sarkhaan and I made rather strong points against Dobbsworld's behavior, and even then Jocabia only made comments to the extent of "You know, you are right."

Secondly, why in the hell shouldn't we be happy that Dobbsworld got punished? Do either of you two have any reason to think that Dobbsworld shouldn't have been punished?

I personally like to see this forum maintain an air of civility and rationality in its discussion, and I have never seen Dobbsworld maintain civility and/or rationality for more than three or four posts when faced with differing opinion.

The mods did their job, did it right, and I am happy about it.

EDIT: And just who is Wickerman? Must be quite a lurker.

Jocey - Keep gloating kiddo, it will give you something to pass the time while you wait for your balls to drop.

Flaming in Moderation = bad idea

Wickermen, you just earned an Official Warning, flaming on your permanent record. Congratulations.

gloat gloat gloat

Flaming in Moderation = bad idea

Wickermen, you just earned an Official Warning, flaming on your permanent record. Congratulations.

O NOES!!||!!eleventy!!bbq!!

My PERMANENT record? Say it ain't so teacher. What's the punishment - you gonna ship me to Guantanamo? No, give me a spanking. I DEMAND a spanking!

*slaps butt at Frisbeteeria then walks out arm-in-arm with Dobbs. Music swells. fini.*

O NOES!!||!!eleventy!!bbq!!

My PERMANENT record? Say it ain't so teacher. What's the punishment - you gonna ship me to Guantanamo? No, give me a spanking. I DEMAND a spanking!

*slaps butt at Frisbeteeria then walks out arm-in-arm with Dobbs. Music swells. fini.*

Not smart to do that to a mod in Moderation.....

I DEMAND a spanking!

Done. Two week paddling vacation granted.

gloat gloat gloat

Wtf?

Gee, Dobbs. That was dumb. Now both Wickermen and Dobbsworld are gone for breaking forumban. I'd have checked before posting the ban, but the system's running a tad slow.

Despite the death of both nations, you're still forumbanned, now for two weeks. If you decide to grace us with your presence before the two weeks are up, you'll be pushing for a permanent ban or a delete on sight status.

Don't be stupid. Take a vacation from NationStates.

Fris, they're posting from the same home, but Wickermen isn't Dobbs. She's his wife.

Gee, Dobbs. That was dumb. Now both Wickermen and Dobbsworld are gone for breaking forumban. I'd have checked before posting the ban, but the system's running a tad slow.

Despite the death of both nations, you're still forumbanned, now for two weeks. If you decide to grace us with your presence before the two weeks are up, you'll be pushing for a permanent ban or a delete on sight status.

Don't be stupid. Take a vacation from NationStates.
Just for the record:
Wickermen is Dobbsworld's wife. They're merely using the same IP address, rather unsurprisingly.


Edit: Leave it to hiccupy jolt to make me redundant...

There's more to it than just an IP check, folks. From our perspective, they're the same account. Another game mod and an admin have reviewed the case, and the deletions stand.

There's more to it than just an IP check, folks. From our perspective, they're the same account. Another game mod and an admin have reviewed the case, and the deletions stand.

So had Wickermen posted from an internet cafe instead, she'd have a 2 week ban instead of a nation deletion?

Interesting.

Edit: Kat, you're too quick on the delete!

From our perspective, they're the same account.

I believe that is how the IRS handles it.

And if Dobbsworld's wife came on NS to make a scene about DW's three day forumban, I really hope those two see eye to eye on everything. They would have some knock-down-drag-outs.

So had Wickermen posted from an internet cafe instead, she'd have a 2 week ban instead of a nation deletion?
Neesika, that would have been irrelevant for reasons I'm not going to explain.

I'd like to point out that while Wickermen may or may not have been his wife's nation, neither you nor I know who was typed that post and clicked Submit Reply. Since we cannot tell who is sitting at the keyboard at any given time, it has long been site policy that players accessing NationStates from the same computer are considered to be the same person, unless exceptional evidence proves otherwise. Such evidence did not exist in this case.

Please read Ejected from the UN? Here's why (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=274575), for [violet]'s official ruling on shared computers. Despite the fact that it's about UN multis, the same standards apply.


.

Hmmm...the link doesn't seem to be working for some reason, but I'm sure I've got the gist of it at least. (thanks, working fine now)

So what is the final ruling? Dobbs and Wickermen have both been deleted, and have a two week forumban?

And Vitt...can you stop the gloating/personal comments? Seriously.

Correct on all counts, including the scolding of Vittos.

Is it time for a jolt-mandated session of kumbaya?

Why do I instead hear the strains of a joyful 'ding dong the witch is dead'?

There's a taste of gloating in the air, and it's disturbing to the digestion.
I hope that "gloating" thing isn't directed at me, as that really wasn't my intention.
I am still curious, and hopefully a mod can answer...why was the post only actionable when considering the posters history?

for sake of clarity, I'll just link to the post where I initially asked the question:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12838067&postcount=21

why was the post only actionable when considering the posters history?

Presumably because they've been told to knock off the semi-flames before, and they didn't do it.

why was the post only actionable when considering the posters history?

Because Hack either remembered prior interactions with the player, or took the time to do more research than I did. I only looked at the context of the thread, and admittedly didn't take the time to analyze the implications of where he entered the thread and how it all began.

A thorough analysis of a poster's history can take an hour or more. Hell, reading and ruling on just one multi-page thread can take an hour, and that can stretch to two or three when you factor in history, discussion with other mods, and following up on posts such as this one.

While a single action may be of vital importance to you as the affected player, bear in mind that we're currently handling the various issues of 85,705 nations in 11,134 regions, not to mention the UN and other housekeeping. That, and we occasionally like to play some too.

In short (and as was stated before), it was a judgment call, and Hack's judgment was different than mine. It's not that uncommon, and any of us could go either way on something like this.

Because Hack either remembered prior interactions with the player, or took the time to do more research than I did. I only looked at the context of the thread, and admittedly didn't take the time to analyze the implications of where he entered the thread and how it all began.

A thorough analysis of a poster's history can take an hour or more. Hell, reading and ruling on just one multi-page thread can take an hour, and that can stretch to two or three when you factor in history, discussion with other mods, and following up on posts such as this one.

While a single action may be of vital importance to you as the affected player, bear in mind that we're currently handling the various issues of 85,705 nations in 11,134 regions, not to mention the UN and other housekeeping. That, and we occasionally like to play some too.

In short (and as was stated before), it was a judgment call, and Hack's judgment was different than mine. It's not that uncommon, and any of us could go either way on something like this.
alright...makes sense. Thanks

I know it's hard-core flaming, but I can't help but take a perverse pleasure out of it. It happens to be pretty d-mn funny.
I cannot but help it either. :D

Further, I really do not see anything that meritted the response Dobbs gave to Jocabia in his posts. I will admit I intensely dislike his debating style, but that this time he gave no excuse for such an angry, hate-filled post. I wish BAAWAKnights would return to pay back the real flamers on this forum in kind. ;)

I cannot but help it either. :D

Further, I really do not see anything that meritted the response Dobbs gave to Jocabia in his posts. I will admit I intensely dislike his debating style, but that this time he gave no excuse for such an angry, hate-filled post. I wish BAAWAKnights would return to pay back the real flamers on this forum in kind. ;)

except BAAWAKnights would, at times, get carried away with his flames.

except BAAWAKnights would, at times, get carried away with his flames.
Except he did no such thing.