Mike1984

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, perhaps, but nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that you initially handed out a warning.

I didn't hand out the warning, Hymn did. And Hymn warned both of you in the topic before he handed out any warnings.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Erm, no, he hadn't. He gave us an informal "knock it off", and we did. I did post an angry comment in that thread later, true, but that was after the warning had been confirmed (and I deleted it anyway).

It got to the point where we knew what tended to come from you (once you begin letting the A-Bombs out, there's more to follow) so he stepped in fast. While I will admit we did miss Trev initially, once pointed out, we unanimously agreed he needed to be slapped too.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

He made it damn clear that the reasons I gave were never going to be enough, despite other people getting away with much the same.

Calling people assholes is in general never justified, so in this case, you probably weren't going to wiggle out of a warning, no. But if you would've pointed out Trev's post at this time, as opposed to after the warn, it might have made it less of an issue to you.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, I agree that I did lash out, but I'm pretty sure I would have gotten a warning anyway. Hymn never once said he was giving me a warning because of what I said in the PM.

No, but what you said after that was what got your cool-off extended. Some people even thought it should have gotten you a public warning, but instead we decided just to extend the cool-off (which, I will also note, is an unofficial step like with informal warnings).

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Actually, at that point, Trev had not been warned, and he never was warned for that particular thread. He got warned for other stuff he did, but only after I went through all his posts and pointed out where he'd called me an "asshole".

Next time, tell us this when it happens, not ex post facto.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial warning was unfair.

If you feel that way, voice it better. Again, I could illustrate some of the things you said to him, but I will not. However, considering there was an informal warning, and based upon your usual history once the A-Bombs come out, we made a decision to give you a warning. Did we jump the gun? Maybe. But the alternative is potentially letting you post a post that would become very ugly, very fast, because you're a bit unpredictable in that regard. Your next post might have no A-Bombs... and it may have five.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And, once again, you go for the "screw you, we're always right, just do what I say" approach....

Right, but not for the reasons you think. Would you rather we let you run your mouth, piss more people off, get more people trolling you, crap up the thread (and thus force us to lock it) all because you want to have your say and can't bear not being the last words?

You're already unpopular precisely because for awhile we took a "hands off" approach and let Altima deal with you whenever there were problems. It got the forums nearly rioting and demanding he step down. If he goes, so do Elf and RB, and I'm not going to lose my other three admins just because of one person.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Why the hell should I just do what you tell me without you giving an explanation?

When we try to explain why, you will often complain about that. "Please stop because What's-her-face feels you're crossing a line." "No, I will NOT stop, What's-her-face doesn't know what she's talking about..."

It's never a simple "Okay, sorry," or even a "Why does she want me stop?" It comes out immediately as aggressive and hostile. Immediately. You will assume this person is trying to get you in trouble, much like you're trying to make the accusation that I'm "skipping steps" by not doing informal warnings - which is, by the way, not a part of the official warning system (and furthermore, I didn't even decide you needed this warning anyway - the mods did, so why the hell are you trying to pin this on me now?).

I gave my opinion that I agreed that a private warning was warranted in light of the situation... but so did several other people. These decisions aren't done individually, Mike; a mod will notice a situation, and he might say "cool it," but if any sort of "official" warnings are given, they tend to go to the mod forum, link to the post, and ask for opinions. We opine, we debate, we come to a consensus, and that mod (unless another mod wishes to do it) is the one who delivers the GROUP decision. I did say that warnings would be at mod discretion, yes, but it seems that is what they've settled on, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But we didn't....

You don't, we know that. I don't know what Trev thinks, but considering that he did accept responsibility for his comment, I think he took it a lot better than you have been.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you're being in any way fair.

Well, if you want me to follow "the letter of the rules," that would have gotten you a public warning, for all the nasty shit you said to Hymn. We decided not to do that, we decided to extend your cool-off instead.

Strange how you complain "I didn't get an informal warning!" but yet you have, at best, very minor complaints about this, and I'm sure you'd prefer that to being moved up to a public warning.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yes, but not when they're being totally unreasonable.

That is your opinion. The mods as a whole agreed that you felt earned a private over the thread conduct, and then we debated (including Altima) on how we should handle your PMs to Hymn, ultimately agreeing that your cool-off should be extended rather than give you a public over it.

Again, we don't like warning people. You seem convinced like we all get off to making you angry or something. Do you know how much of my time today I've spent replying to all of your points, when I could've been relaxing in other ways instead?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Again, no, we did not. Go look at the thread....

Originally Posted by Hymn of Ragnarok

Right, both of you take to VMs or PMs. You are derailing the thread. Enough.

According to Hymn, the PM did happen soon after (approximately half an hour later) but it's not like we decided to warn you immediately, and there was definitely time for you to see it and say something. Furthermore, even if that didn't earn you the private, how you treated Hymn absolutely did, so really this is more of an issue of semantics at this point.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

That doesn't change the fact that the warnings can still add up to a ban if you keep handing them out for nothing much.

The idea is that you stop doing the sorts of things you get warned for so that you're not warned for them. If you're not so aggressive, we don't warn you.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Ah, yes, what a surprise, your usual approach of "screw Mike, the majority is happy"....

I won't even comment on this. Aggressiveness, remember?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Sure, but it's not always easy to tell what is "acceptable". If the mods point out that I'm getting angry and calling names, I will probably stop, but I don't always know where the boundaries lie, since mine are rather different from yours.

Unfortunately, "probably" isn't good enough. The idea is that you don't do it at all in the first place. If someone lets it slip, they can man up and apologize, or edit their post, or things like that - if anything, doing those sorts of actions makes us more likely to do lenient action, or possibly even conclude "He fixed it himself, nothing to worry about" (like the post you deleted) and thus take no action at all.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

That's not always true, though. And, you give me warnings before even giving me the chance to stop.

You did get one. While I admit you probably should have been given more time, the general consensus was that you probably wouldn't take the "take it to VM/PM" very well and so a private warning was also decided on.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And, again, try actually explaining things rather than just stating what you want to happen and expecting people to blindly obey you.

I think I explained very clearly what we expect, so now you know: No flaming, no passive-aggressiveness. If you can't call the other guy anything but "asshole" or "dickhead," you should have enough self-restraint to not post it. If you can't practice enough self-restraint, and we catch it, we might give you a warning for it. It's a simple concept.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, of course, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that, if the mods tell me to stop, then I should immediately stop, even to the point of deleting posts I've made (and, I hate doing that, so I won't).

Wrong. I never said you had to delete anything - you'll also note I said "Or edit it and say something like 'Sorry, that was posted while I was typing this, I'll stop now'" since you obviously have no way of knowing when a mod is posting. You can, however, scroll back up before your post and see if any were made since you made it, so it's not like you have no way of knowing whatsoever. Or just open the reply in a new tab/window and refresh the main topic before you post your reply.

There's ways to do this, Mike.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But they're not "civil", the hatred just simmers under the surface instead.

Matters not. The idea is "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I would say if you KNOW you can't say something nice, put them on your ignore list, but you don't like doing that either. Again, I can only do so much, sir, and it's not like you don't have alternatives - if you don't use them or pursue them, I have to judge on what I see.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yeah and, again, they have not proven themselves at all trustworthy.

We get that you don't like that they decided you need to be warned. That doesn't automatically make them a group of biased assholes. If they really wanted to be out for you, they probably would've decided on that public warning, but they didn't. That's because they're not out for your blood, despite what you think.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Not sure why you accepted some of the ones who got in, then....

I know you don't believe it, but they are pretty damn fair.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Except that you just admitted that you have done exactly that, by handing me warnings where others would just get an informal talking-to.

Again, the "informal warning" isn't an official step. Never was. It was something they do at their discretion. The first formal step has ALWAYS been a private warning.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The problem is that you have an absurdly low tolerance for people actually being people.

Not at all, but I do expect them to obey the rules. Most other people don't fly off the handle and begin calling people assholes, or trying to get rises out of people, so the ones who do, get punished. It's a pretty simple concept, really.

The fact that "I've always been like this" isn't an excuse. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else who does it, and so we can't tolerate it from you. The only reason Tech got an informal warning is precisely because he doesn't have a history of that sort of behavior. You, unfortunately, do, and so it was decided that you would not take the VM/PM request very well and so it was decided to also make it a private.

We will learn from this, and again, in retrospect probably should have given you a little bit of time to see if you would indeed reply that way, but your reputation for exploding made us err on the side of caution there. So if we're in agreement on this, at least, then we will start trying to give you the benefit of the doubt - but again, we will be looking out for the old explosion, and if it happens, we will be punishing it accordingly.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Except that you're not punishing the others, as the post linked to in this blog proves.

As I've said multiple times now, Tech doesn't have a reputation for that sort of behavior, which is why his was lighter. You don't jail a kid for six years because he steals a candybar, do you? But you sure do jail him if he's stealing more, or more often.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But informal warnings do work on me. Not necessarily always, true but, then again, it's not like Lyco or Tech stopped after Beam told them to do so....

Actually, they did both stop. If anything, Tech stopped before Lyco.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The point I'm making is that informal warnings work just as well as formal ones, if not better. I generally appreciate you being polite and asking me to stop, rather than ordering me around, and I certainly do not appreciate being given totally unjust warnings on the basis that you don't think an informal warning will stop me.

If an informal warning will not, then a formal warning will not either. The reason I stopped in that thread was because of the informal statement Hymn made, not because of the formal warning you gave me.

As for Hymn, the fact that he wanted a warning for Tech is not surprising, and I do wonder if a large part of this is the fact that Beam is actually a nice person....

But those are the rules, sir. If you can't stop with an informal warning, we are going to be giving you a formal one - the same as everyone else. If for some reason that doesn't stop you, you get a public one. If THAT doesn't stop you, then we begin the tempbans, and if THAT doesn't stop you, then we part ways. I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude also needs to stop.

We do usually ask nicely at first, but if you go "I'm not going to stop" then we're going to keep upping it until you do, or until we have no choice but to forcibly remove you for a period of time, or eventually, permanently. You can't just expect for us to let you walk around, untouchable, because you feel "it's my right to tell you no."

This isn't a public space; it's a private forum - and that means you're subject to its rules. Those are the rules we settled on; those are the rules we expect EVERYONE to abide by and in exchange we give them access to the forums. Failure to do so means that, if need be, we reserve the right to deny them access to them. We don't WANT to do that, and I know you'll just go "There's DP's authoritarian bullshit again," but that's the simple truth of the matter.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The problem here is that you're making false assumptions about me. A more severe warning is not going to calm me down and make me stop any better than a less severe one, because if I'm not in the mood to listen, I'm not going to listen no matter how hard you are hitting me. Indeed, a more severe warning will often make me more inclined to argue back, not less.

So then the solution is simple: Be more receptive to the lighter messages, so we don't have to use the heavier ones. That you'll "probably" respond to the lighter ones isn't enough, because that means you "probably" won't respond to some of them, and in those cases, we "probably" have to escalate it up until you eventually stop, or are made to stop.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, do what Altima does and actually calm me down or talk to me, rather than slapping me with a warning the first chance you get.

While Hymn could have perhaps handled that better, it's not like you couldn't have said things more calmly to him either. I'll tell him to be a little less aggressive, but in kind, can you promise me that you will also be less aggressive the next time an issue with you comes up?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, if that's your reasoning, then you're going about it seriously the wrong way.

You've admitted that your logic behind the warnings was "well, if we give Mike a formal warning, he'll direct his anger at us and not express it in the thread". Equally, you've stated before that any communication in the forum (even PMs) is bound by the forum rules, which means that, if I express my anger to the mods on here, I will get in further trouble. So, my only option is to complain outside the forum. And, guess who the only mod who I have MSN details for is....

In case you didn't notice, mine is listed in my profile. The other admins and mods have them as well, and I'm sure if you ask them to discuss an issue over MSN, they will do so (or else discuss it over PMs, as admittedly not all of them are on MSN all of the time.) Of course, I'm probably the last person you want to talk to.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Every time you give me a warning like this, Altima has to put up with several hours minimum of angry vitrol spewed at him, together with requests for reviewing the warning (and further anger if he refuses to overturn it) and so on. Now, I accept that that's not really a good way for me to handle it, but you don't give me much of an option because I have no other outlet and, further, you have outright stated that as a tactic.

Given the choice, yes. Why? It's out of public sight. VMs are generally "quieter," but PMs are even more quiet. At the same time, just because they're less public doesn't mean they're immune from persecution. Just because you're sending a private message to a guy who you're having a heated argument with, it doesn't give you the right to call him a mingebag - a flame is a flame.

Furthermore, it's also not fair to abuse people like that, period. Not only will hours of "angry vitrol" not work with me, it will probably just lead to me blocking you eventually. I'm a firm believer in "treat others how you want to be treated," so simply put, if you are going to yell at me and call me an asshole, well, why the hell should I treat you respectfully? It goes both ways.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I an well aware of that (and I am also well aware that Altima was considering leaving).

So then let's avoid aggravating each other as much as possible. I'd rather keep these forums cool - for everyone, including you.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, I very much doubt the other admins would allow it....

Rhetorical example. I'm not going to ban you outright, because it's wrong no matter how it's sliced. But the point was if I wanted to make your life here miserable, there's ways it could have been done.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, I agree entirely with that statement, but it doesn't seem to really gel very well with your attitude throughout the rest of this discussion, which is "do as I say, or else!".

Only as far as pertains to the rules, yes, which I expect every poster to abide by, so that this forum can be orderly, and yet relaxed. The rules aren't very hard - it basically boils down to "don't call people names." This is kind of a weak point for you, since when you get angry... you would call people names.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I dunno, honestly. I would be a very lax mod, almost certainly, but I don't know if that would make the board worse. It depends on your viewpoint....

Ah, but sometimes mods need to take action...

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The problem is that you don't seem to be doing that. You just hit me with a punishment for no obvious reason.

The mods decided the punishment, not me. And in this case, you undeniably called Trev a dick and an asshole. It doesn't matter that he fired first - you still fired back.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And, again, that is just unfair. Just because I am more prone to those sort of angry outbursts than most, that doesn't mean I should be treated more harshly.

It also doesn't mean we should treat them just as harshly as we would treat a known repeat offender.

Again, we're counting on you to police yourself. If you slip up, fine, at least say "I goofed, I'm sorry." Matter settled. Don't just keep going and going.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Of course you do, but that doesn't mean your actions are automatically fair....

So would it have been fair to not temp him after warnings, then?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, Frantic was trolling, I am not a troll....

That much is true, but you are prone to outbursts, and to lashing out when people bait you. Sometimes, telling you to knock it off is to try to protect you, you know, and prevent you from saying stuff that pretty much auto-temps you.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But, yet, you expect me to do what you tell me to do and not argue....

Never said you couldn't argue it. I said argue it civilly. If you can't get your points across without resorting to name-calling, then no, I don't want you saying them - I want you learning how to say them without calling names.

I have no problem with you questioning the rules, but I expect that if you do so, you can do it in a calm, controlled manner. The second you can't do that, is the second when you step over the line. It'd be the equivalent of going to a board meeting, and then jumping up and down on the table because one person disagrees.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, perhaps, but that doesn't make the warnings any more justified.

So calling people an asshole and that they're a dick isn't justified? Then tell me, what is? On most other forums, it'd get you a similar punishment.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yeah, I won't argue with the fact that I lose control, but your approach to dealing with it has not helped one bit. You give me a warning instantly without even so much as a "cool down" message (Hymn posted one in the thread, but we stopped after that), and then punished me further for being rightfully upset about it.

There was about as half an hour of time. Admittedly, again, it probably could have been handled better (by waiting to see if it did continue), but the general consensus was that you likely would not handle it well - again, you have a bit of a reputation for the bombs coming out once you begin using them, and in that case, we decided the better poison would be that we would take the bombs as opposed to ruining a thread and possibly a fanfic with them. If there is one thing we are guilty of, it is this - because we felt the alternative would've been worse.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I don't really see what money has to do with it (especially since I doubt you'd treat Koto any differently if she were constantly trolling...). The forum belongs to everyone, not just to you.

Koto knows usually when to cool it, admittedly, and she also knows when stuff is over the line usually. On those occasions where we do have to mention something, an informal (or at worst, a private) is all she needs.

We'll try to give more benefit of the doubt in terms of informals from now on, but don't expect them for anything we feel is over the line, and if we do give you one, please remember that your response to it is quite important.

Also, it probably will not be formalized as a step - it could very well be gamed, letting people troll or whatever scot-free, with no punishment or repercussion. This is why we want to make it clear, that under no circumstances should you ever expect an informal warning. It's not the first step and never has been - that's a private warning.

Granted, an informal warning is likely to be given more often than not, but if your behavior is really over the line, don't be surprised if it's an immediate private warning. After all, we made it quite clear that the start of the punishments isn't necessarily the start - do something bad enough, and it's a public warning, or even a tempban, or if it's virtual forum suicide, maybe even a permaban.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I do not cause that many problems. Occasionally I do explode, true, but not that often, and I have been getting a bit better at controlling it.

Generally, no, not that many problems, and you are getting better at controlling it. This is really the first blow-up you've had since the stuff back in early April, which is nearly two months.

Progress is always good, even if it is somewhat slow. The better you get at it, the less we'll have problems, until eventually there won't be many problems at all, which will make your day better, as well as ours.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

You certainly seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on doing what you're told....

We do expect people to follow the rules since they're pretty simple, yes. "Don't be a jerkass to other people." How hard is that, generally?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, fuck the way the world works. The current system is broken beyond repair, and the only people who don't accept that are the people in power and the rich assholes who buy their support. I'm not stupid, but I will not bow down to authority unless they bloody well force me to.

I'm hardly in power or rich, but if an officer is pointing a gun at me and telling me to get down on the ground, I damn well am doing that. Better not to get my ass shot.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Because you admitted it, that's why....

All I said is that, considering your behavior and your usual reaction to messages of "knock it off," that I didn't think that it would work very well, since they did ask me my opinion. Therefore, the mods agreed to do warn you. This decision was theirs, not mine; warnings are their purview now, remember? Hymn may have been the one to tell you of it, but they agreed as a group.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, that's not always true. I take an order to stop as "persecution". If the mod is reasonable about it and actually explains themselves, or if it's obvious that the argument is going nowhere, I will stop. However, if I've spent the last 30 minutes writing a post, I'm not going to stop doing so just because a mod said I should....

Then at least make it clear you're going to drop the argument after that post.

Furthermore, usually what we're looking for is to stop the flaming, not the argument. Constructive arguments are perfectly okay and always will be. If you can do it without calling people names, argue to your heart's content!

Originally Posted by Mike1984

See, this is the problem. You're telling me that, not only can't I use even minor insults, but I can't even state that their argument is bullshit when it actually is....

OK, it's not a great way of arguing, but I don't think it's fair of you to tell me that I can't use swear words in an argument, particularly when it's only one line with a long explanation of why it's bullshit following....

Again, I don't have a problem with you swearing - I do it all the time. But there's a difference between "Tokiomi is an asshole" and "Trevelyan is an asshole." That's the key.

I honestly, truly, really don't care about you swearing. I draw the line, however, when you're swearing at another person. You can call Zouken a fucking asshole all you want until the cows get abducted by UFOs, but the second you say that about another poster, that's when it transcends into uncool territory - and that's when we step in.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The thing is, to some extent, that's how I speak. Sure, I should tone it down, but I think you're expecting me to become a totally different person.

Further, it's easy for you to say "we'll take the heat" when the person doing so is usually Altima (even more so now angry PMs are not allowed either).

That's because you don't choose to come to any of the rest of us, which we can't control.

As for toning it down, see above. I don't care if you swear, just as long as it's not directed at another poster.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, this is probably true to some extent. I do explode too much, although the way I get treated (and the way Sakura gets treated) does not exactly help matters in that respect.

Correct, but again, only you can change that perception. I can't. I'd love it if you did, because it's less trouble for you (and thus for us, because we're not having to watch out for as many people trolling you and the like) but ultimately, to have to change, you want to have to change, and that may mean clashing against some of your long-time stances.

Ultimately, the choice is yours. I'm not going to demand or force you to change - because I can't and because it's wrong of me to expect that - but I do at least expect you to abide by the simple rules that are laid out here, which when you think about it, isn't really that hard. Half the battle is catching when you're going to open up the can - the other half is knowing to tighten the lid down.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Fair enough, but your approach to it is not really a good one. Handing out warnings for things you wouldn't warn others for and then getting Altima to absorb all the anger does not help.

Again, the difference here is that Tech usually doesn't post things like that, in the sense of being inflammatory to other posters. You have a habit of this - and furthermore, you also have a habit of disagreeing when being told "chill out" in a thread. You do tend to take them better as a VM or a PM, I will concede that, but really, if we tell you in the thread, it's just as valid as if it were more private.

Was it bad that we jumped the gun? Probably. But the mods thought it'd be worse to let you lash out in the thread, so they made the decision to private warn for it.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, fair enough, you do at least seem to be trying, even if your approach is a bit silly....

Sometimes, the silly choices are still the right ones. Their genius just isn't noticed for awhile.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Again, no he didn't. The first time Hymn posted in that thread, the argument stopped. Then, I got a PM from Hymn immediately telling me I was going to get a warning.

And, nor did Trev get warned for that particular argument, for that matter. Hymn specifically said he had just had a talking-to. He was warned for flaming me in a different thread several days earlier (and consistently trolling me for a week or so prior to that).

There was half an hour between the in-thread warn and the private warn. Trev was told to chill, but since we hadn't caught the behavior (until you'd pointed it out), he wasn't warned. When we found out, we investigated, and he got warned for it. Had we been informed of this, admittedly, he probably would've been warned and you would've gotten the slap on the wrist, but well, we can only react to what we know and see.

Even the mods don't look in every topic and every post - if you've got a serious beef with a user, you need to come to us with a couple posts as examples and say "Look, this guy is starting to piss me off. Can you do something about it?"

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, true. And, not exploding is definitely good for me in general....

However, you seem to be trying to do it by forcing me to obey anything you tell me, which is not a good way to do so. It works far better if you talk to me and treat me like an equal, rather than ordering me around and punishing me.

Not really - the main rule we expect you to follow is "don't call people names." That's probably 80% of your problem.

The other 20% is when you slowly get pulled by a troll and respond accordingly, because you feel the need to have the last word, even with that.

The more serious problem is definitely the name-calling, though. If you can reduce that, you'll save yourself a ton of grief.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Of course. I don't disagree with either of these statements.

However, that doesn't change the fact that I got warned for something which other people wouldn't have.

Depends on the person. For someone who's usually not like that? Admittedly, they probably would've only gotten an informal.

Someone who has a history of problems, like Frantic? Hell yes he would've skipped the formal stage.

It's not just you - it's based mostly on warning history. If you've got a rep for it, you're admittedly more likely to get the official warning. And once again, I reiterate, informal warnings are not an official step, so you should NEVER expect one to be handed out before a private warning, because they have never been a part of the warning system.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But we weren't, though. Go look at the thread....

As I showed above, you were. Hymn said that informal went out about half an hour before your private. Granted, from there, it was handled less than ideally, but it's not like you were warned out of the blue - and even if you would have been, the informal warning is strictly a politeness thing; it's not an official step and never has been, so again, don't expect them.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Since this has come up quite a lot, I'd like to point out that Hymn had not given me (or Trev) any informal warning to stop before issuing me with the formal one, and nor was Trev warned for his actions in that thread (his warning was for something he had done a few days earlier and which the mods had not seen).

The post where Hymn warns us is here: http://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread...l=1#post773983

Note that, after that, Trev does not post at all, and my posts are all entirely on-topic. Further, I got the warning before I made any of them. (I did make one post in there complaining about Hymn's moderation, but that was after he had already handed me a warning, and I ended up deleting it and moving it to the blog instead...).

Again, the informal warning has no "binding" effect. It's not even anything official; it's something the mods began to do on their own.

The first official punishment step is the private, and if you hadn't earned that for what you said to Trev, you definitely had for the PMs you gave to Hymn over it.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, to be fair, I did have quite a lot to reply to (and I'm not sure if DP can ignore post length limits, possibly even by default)....

I can't. I had to raise the limit twice over this.

Make that three times. In a row. Goddammit, Mike. I'm trying to make these smaller, not larger!

Jesus Christ these walls.
Mike, you already sent me a PM and you made this blog post before I could sit down with you and give you the skinny(I had told you I'd be out all day remember?). You really do say things with 1000 words what you could say with ten.

To make a long story short, you think the decision was purely arbitrary and it wasn't. We've renounced warnings if we thought they were unfair for you before. I can also attest that other people than you have gotten warnings for obnoxious behavior and the like over the past few weeks. We take all things into account and talk over a lot more things.

As Dark said about your warning, we talked all throughout that process, but you jumped so hard instead of politely asking for an explanation, you went too crazy, too fast for what is essentially only the first step. Yes, you may think it's bollocks, but you'd be surprised what calmly stating your case gets you, instead of an emotional outburst. 9/10 on other forums if I could explain my case with tact and decorum to a mod, my sentence was either dropped or we just shot the breeze and I got my feelings across so they saw the bigger picture. The reason your case was more scrutinized was because of how you acted afterward, since like I said, it was talked about for awhile. If you can't make your points calmly while angry, don't try to, you dig yourself in a hole that way.

Now I said it to you in our convos, but I'll say it once again here. The rules have not been altered to get you banned, not at all. We make revisions for everyone's benefit and through long deliberations.

Now I sincerely hope this is the last blog post we will have about this particular topic. You want to bring up a complaint, then PM and point it out, these long dialogue soapboxes going over the same thing again and again are just hot air being blown with minimal good points in them.

Originally Posted by Dark Pulse

I didn't hand out the warning, Hymn did. And Hymn warned both of you in the topic before he handed out any warnings.

Again, no, he didn't. Or, rather, he posted an informal warning in the thread and then immediately handed me a formal one.

It got to the point where we knew what tended to come from you (once you begin letting the A-Bombs out, there's more to follow) so he stepped in fast. While I will admit we did miss Trev initially, once pointed out, we unanimously agreed he needed to be slapped too.

But you've only made me more angry, and caused more "A-bombs". What did you think you were resolving here?

Calling people assholes is in general never justified, so in this case, you probably weren't going to wiggle out of a warning, no. But if you would've pointed out Trev's post at this time, as opposed to after the warn, it might have made it less of an issue to you.

But calling someone a cunt is justified...?

No, but what you said after that was what got your cool-off extended. Some people even thought it should have gotten you a public warning, but instead we decided just to extend the cool-off (which, I will also note, is an unofficial step like with informal warnings).

I know that, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial warning was unjustified.

Next time, tell us this when it happens, not ex post facto.

Honestly, I didn't because I didn't think it was worthy of censure, in the same way as I didn't think my post was. You just happened to have changed the way you interpreted the rules without telling anyone.

If you feel that way, voice it better. Again, I could illustrate some of the things you said to him, but I will not. However, considering there was an informal warning, and based upon your usual history once the A-Bombs come out, we made a decision to give you a warning. Did we jump the gun? Maybe. But the alternative is potentially letting you post a post that would become very ugly, very fast, because you're a bit unpredictable in that regard. Your next post might have no A-Bombs... and it may have five.

Look, you really don't get this. If you're worried about "A-bombs", then the last thing you should do is give me an official warning. That is certain to piss me off, and it won't necessarily always be expressed in a PM (especially given that you seem intent on penalising those too).

Right, but not for the reasons you think. Would you rather we let you run your mouth, piss more people off, get more people trolling you, crap up the thread (and thus force us to lock it) all because you want to have your say and can't bear not being the last words?

No, I want you to actually be reasonable, rather than authoritarian.

You're already unpopular precisely because for awhile we took a "hands off" approach and let Altima deal with you whenever there were problems. It got the forums nearly rioting and demanding he step down. If he goes, so do Elf and RB, and I'm not going to lose my other three admins just because of one person.

No, it got a small number of people who want me banned "rioting and demanding that he step down", because they want me banned and knew damn well that Altima wasn't likely to do so without a very good reason.

When we try to explain why, you will often complain about that. "Please stop because What's-her-face feels you're crossing a line." "No, I will NOT stop, What's-her-face doesn't know what she's talking about..."

Well, then discuss it, rather than just threatening me. I do not respond well to threats.

It's never a simple "Okay, sorry," or even a "Why does she want me stop?" It comes out immediately as aggressive and hostile. Immediately.

No, not always. Sometimes, yes.

You will assume this person is trying to get you in trouble, much like you're trying to make the accusation that I'm "skipping steps" by not doing informal warnings - which is, by the way, not a part of the official warning system

I'm not accusing you of "skipping steps", I'm accusing you of treating me unfairly by handing me a warning for something you ignore for others. And, given that you have admitted that, you don't really have a leg to stand on here.

(and furthermore, I didn't even decide you needed this warning anyway - the mods did, so why the hell are you trying to pin this on me now?).

Well, the mods take their lead from the admins, so I suspect you have something to do with this. Plus, you're the one defending it, and arguing that I should be treated more harshly, so I am entirely justified in "pinning this on you".

I gave my opinion that I agreed that a private warning was warranted in light of the situation... but so did several other people. These decisions aren't done individually, Mike; a mod will notice a situation, and he might say "cool it," but if any sort of "official" warnings are given, they tend to go to the mod forum, link to the post, and ask for opinions. We opine, we debate, we come to a consensus, and that mod (unless another mod wishes to do it) is the one who delivers the GROUP decision. I did say that warnings would be at mod discretion, yes, but it seems that is what they've settled on, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

Yeah, I got that, but that doesn't change the fact that I was unfairly treated.

You don't, we know that. I don't know what Trev thinks, but considering that he did accept responsibility for his comment, I think he took it a lot better than you have been.

Trev got a warning for something entirely different. And, the fact that he's "accepted responsibility" does not make your statement any less wrong.

Hymn did not give an informal warning which we ignored. He gave an informal warning and then handed me a formal one immediately.

Well, if you want me to follow "the letter of the rules," that would have gotten you a public warning, for all the nasty shit you said to Hymn. We decided not to do that, we decided to extend your cool-off instead.

Well, given that you suddenly added PMs to the rules without telling anyone (even the mods weren't aware of it), that would have been rather unfair....

Strange how you complain "I didn't get an informal warning!" but yet you have, at best, very minor complaints about this, and I'm sure you'd prefer that to being moved up to a public warning.

Well, yeah, because what I said to Hymn was quite nasty. That still doesn't make the initial warning any less unfair, though, and it also demonstrates how totally absurd your stated strategy of "get Mike to direct his anger at us" is....

That is your opinion. The mods as a whole agreed that you felt earned a private over the thread conduct, and then we debated (including Altima) on how we should handle your PMs to Hymn, ultimately agreeing that your cool-off should be extended rather than give you a public over it.

Yes, and this is your opinion....

Again, we don't like warning people. You seem convinced like we all get off to making you angry or something. Do you know how much of my time today I've spent replying to all of your points, when I could've been relaxing in other ways instead?

Well, then, why did you do it when you don't hand out warnings to others?

According to Hymn, the PM did happen soon after (approximately half an hour later) but it's not like we decided to warn you immediately, and there was definitely time for you to see it and say something.

I didn't say anything because Hymn told us to stop, not to clog up the thread with yet more crap apologising for the previous argument. I had assumed that actually stopping would be sufficient....

Furthermore, even if that didn't earn you the private, how you treated Hymn absolutely did, so really this is more of an issue of semantics at this point.

No, it's not, because if you hadn't given me the initial warning, then the argument with Hymn would not have happened.

I won't even comment on this. Aggressiveness, remember?

Yeah, well, if you'd actually listen to me and treat me fairly, I wouldn't be so aggressive about it....

Unfortunately, "probably" isn't good enough. The idea is that you don't do it at all in the first place. If someone lets it slip, they can man up and apologize, or edit their post, or things like that - if anything, doing those sorts of actions makes us more likely to do lenient action, or possibly even conclude "He fixed it himself, nothing to worry about" (like the post you deleted) and thus take no action at all.

Look, if I don't know what the "boundaries" are, then how am I supposed to know when I'm crossing them...?

You seem to think that things that I consider perfectly normal are actionable.

You did get one. While I admit you probably should have been given more time, the general consensus was that you probably wouldn't take the "take it to VM/PM" very well and so a private warning was also decided on.

But I said nothing in the thread, just like Hymn told me to. If Hymn wanted to discuss it with me, why didn't he send me a VM/PM saying "please stop", which I would have replied to with "I already did..."? I mean, if you're trying to stop a stupid argument cluttering up a thread, the last thing you want is another long discussion about how you're sorry for the previous argument....

You're penalising me here for doing exactly what I was told to do. Further, you seem to have this false impression that I will react better to an official warning than to an unofficial one.

I think I explained very clearly what we expect, so now you know: No flaming, no passive-aggressiveness. If you can't call the other guy anything but "asshole" or "dickhead," you should have enough self-restraint to not post it. If you can't practice enough self-restraint, and we catch it, we might give you a warning for it. It's a simple concept.

Except that you don't give warnings to other people for the exact same things....

Wrong. I never said you had to delete anything - you'll also note I said "Or edit it and say something like 'Sorry, that was posted while I was typing this, I'll stop now'" since you obviously have no way of knowing when a mod is posting. You can, however, scroll back up before your post and see if any were made since you made it, so it's not like you have no way of knowing whatsoever. Or just open the reply in a new tab/window and refresh the main topic before you post your reply.

Look, if I've spent half an hour writing a reply, I'm not going to not post it. That is just a total waste of time. Sure, I'll add something saying "OK, I'll stop now", but I'm not just going to erase all my work because a mod said so.

Matters not. The idea is "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I would say if you KNOW you can't say something nice, put them on your ignore list, but you don't like doing that either. Again, I can only do so much, sir, and it's not like you don't have alternatives - if you don't use them or pursue them, I have to judge on what I see.

Except you are not juysding me on "what you see", you are judging me on how you think I will act, without even giving me a chance.

We get that you don't like that they decided you need to be warned. That doesn't automatically make them a group of biased assholes. If they really wanted to be out for you, they probably would've decided on that public warning, but they didn't. That's because they're not out for your blood, despite what you think.

Well, given that they handed me a warning and ignored similar actions from others, I would say that they are most definitely "biased".

I know you don't believe it, but they are pretty damn fair.

No, they aren't. What happened here proves it.

Again, the "informal warning" isn't an official step. Never was. It was something they do at their discretion. The first formal step has ALWAYS been a private warning.

That doesn't change the fact that I got a warning for something that someone else got away with.

Not at all, but I do expect them to obey the rules. Most other people don't fly off the handle and begin calling people assholes, or trying to get rises out of people, so the ones who do, get punished. It's a pretty simple concept, really.

Exactly, you expect people to just bend over and take whatever you decide to give them.

The fact that "I've always been like this" isn't an excuse. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else who does it, and so we can't tolerate it from you. The only reason Tech got an informal warning is precisely because he doesn't have a history of that sort of behavior. You, unfortunately, do, and so it was decided that you would not take the VM/PM request very well and so it was decided to also make it a private.

But you didn't even give me a chance. Further, if you know what I am like, then you should also know that a formal warning is not going to calm me down.

Your logic makes zero sense here.

We will learn from this, and again, in retrospect probably should have given you a little bit of time to see if you would indeed reply that way, but your reputation for exploding made us err on the side of caution there. So if we're in agreement on this, at least, then we will start trying to give you the benefit of the doubt - but again, we will be looking out for the old explosion, and if it happens, we will be punishing it accordingly.

But, again, you were not "erring on the side of caution". My response to the warning demonstrates that. If I'm going to explode at an informal warning, I will most certainly explode at a formal one.

As I've said multiple times now, Tech doesn't have a reputation for that sort of behavior, which is why his was lighter. You don't jail a kid for six years because he steals a candybar, do you? But you sure do jail him if he's stealing more, or more often.

Sure, if you're just looking to get rid of me. If you're intending to actually help me, then acting draconian at every opportunity is the last thing you want to do.

Actually, they did both stop. If anything, Tech stopped before Lyco.

But not immediately. If you were applying the same logic to them as you are to me, then they'd have both had warnings.

But those are the rules, sir. If you can't stop with an informal warning, we are going to be giving you a formal one - the same as everyone else. If for some reason that doesn't stop you, you get a public one. If THAT doesn't stop you, then we begin the tempbans, and if THAT doesn't stop you, then we part ways. I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude also needs to stop.

So, in other words, you do want me to stop being anti-authoritarian, despite denying it.

Sorry, it just ain't going to happen.

We do usually ask nicely at first, but if you go "I'm not going to stop" then we're going to keep upping it until you do, or until we have no choice but to forcibly remove you for a period of time, or eventually, permanently. You can't just expect for us to let you walk around, untouchable, because you feel "it's my right to tell you no."

But you did not "ask nicely". If you had, then this argument would not be happening.

This isn't a public space; it's a private forum - and that means you're subject to its rules. Those are the rules we settled on; those are the rules we expect EVERYONE to abide by and in exchange we give them access to the forums. Failure to do so means that, if need be, we reserve the right to deny them access to them. We don't WANT to do that, and I know you'll just go "There's DP's authoritarian bullshit again," but that's the simple truth of the matter.

Well, yes, that's because it is "authoritarian bullshit".

So then the solution is simple: Be more receptive to the lighter messages, so we don't have to use the heavier ones.

But, when I actually was "receptive" to it, you gave me a formal warning anyway.

That you'll "probably" respond to the lighter ones isn't enough, because that means you "probably" won't respond to some of them, and in those cases, we "probably" have to escalate it up until you eventually stop, or are made to stop.

Of course, but that doesn't mean you should skip the lighter step because I might ignore it. If nothing else, it makes your warning seem more justifiable if you've said "stop or you'll get a warning" in the thread first, like Beam did with Lyco and Tech.

Honestly, as much as I'm complaining about it, I think Beam handled that rather well. I'm just annoyed that I didn't get the same courtesy, just because I have a "history" of exploding at people. If you're going to act like that, then I will end up banned, because you'll ignore the trolls (because they "don't have a history") and then slap me with a warning one the first slight mistake that I make.

While Hymn could have perhaps handled that better, it's not like you couldn't have said things more calmly to him either. I'll tell him to be a little less aggressive, but in kind, can you promise me that you will also be less aggressive the next time an issue with you comes up?

Well, I accept entirely that my response was stupid (although it's how I've responded to Altima in the past), and I'm sorry for that. Even so, he didn't give me a chance there, despite me having taken heed of his statement in the thread and stopped the argument.

In case you didn't notice, mine is listed in my profile. The other admins and mods have them as well, and I'm sure if you ask them to discuss an issue over MSN, they will do so (or else discuss it over PMs, as admittedly not all of them are on MSN all of the time.) Of course, I'm probably the last person you want to talk to.

Well, I can't discuss it via PM because I'm in danger of getting a warning if I do (at least when I'm angry, which was the entire point of your "strategy"). As for MSN, I have RB, Elf and Altima on there already, but Altima is the only one who is regularly online when I am, so he's the one who almost always ends up absorbing my anger..

Given the choice, yes. Why? It's out of public sight. VMs are generally "quieter," but PMs are even more quiet. At the same time, just because they're less public doesn't mean they're immune from persecution. Just because you're sending a private message to a guy who you're having a heated argument with, it doesn't give you the right to call him a mingebag - a flame is a flame.

And, again, you're missing the point here.

I cannot talk to the mods via PM when I'm angry, because there's a high chance of me exploding at them. Sure, that's better for you than me exploding on the board, but I still get a warning either way, so why would I?

Furthermore, it's also not fair to abuse people like that, period. Not only will hours of "angry vitrol" not work with me, it will probably just lead to me blocking you eventually. I'm a firm believer in "treat others how you want to be treated," so simply put, if you are going to yell at me and call me an asshole, well, why the hell should I treat you respectfully? It goes both ways.

Yeah, sure it isn't, but you just admitted that your "strategy" is to have me direct that "angry vitrol" at the mods/admins rather than expressing it on the board. And, the one who always gets it is Altima, largely because he actually is willing to sit there and listen to it until I calm down....

So then let's avoid aggravating each other as much as possible. I'd rather keep these forums cool - for everyone, including you.

I won't argue with that, but the actions of the mods in the last week or so certainly did not assist in that respect. By worrying that an informal warning might aggrivate me slightly, you instead aggrivated me massively, to the point of me going on about it for three days afterwards and deliberately going after Beam in her thread.

Rhetorical example. I'm not going to ban you outright, because it's wrong no matter how it's sliced. But the point was if I wanted to make your life here miserable, there's ways it could have been done.

Perhaps, but you seem to be managing it without even trying.

Ah, but sometimes mods need to take action...

Well, yes, and I would admit that I'd probably be a crap mod since I wouldn't "take action".

The mods decided the punishment, not me. And in this case, you undeniably called Trev a dick and an asshole. It doesn't matter that he fired first - you still fired back.

Sure, just like Tech called Lyco a "cunt"....

It also doesn't mean we should treat them just as harshly as we would treat a known repeat offender.

I occasionally explode, and then I calm down. If you really think I deserve to be treated harshly due to that, then that implies that you think I should just be banned outright....

Again, we're counting on you to police yourself. If you slip up, fine, at least say "I goofed, I'm sorry." Matter settled. Don't just keep going and going.

Except that, when I actually did stop, you warned me anyway.

So would it have been fair to not temp him after warnings, then?

Erm, what?

That much is true, but you are prone to outbursts, and to lashing out when people bait you. Sometimes, telling you to knock it off is to try to protect you, you know, and prevent you from saying stuff that pretty much auto-temps you.

Sure, but giving me a formal warning does not help. It just gets my back up and causes me to want to continue the argument.

Never said you couldn't argue it. I said argue it civilly. If you can't get your points across without resorting to name-calling, then no, I don't want you saying them - I want you learning how to say them without calling names.

Well, sure, but your definition of "calling names" is seemingly ludicrously strict.

I have no problem with you questioning the rules, but I expect that if you do so, you can do it in a calm, controlled manner. The second you can't do that, is the second when you step over the line. It'd be the equivalent of going to a board meeting, and then jumping up and down on the table because one person disagrees.

Well, I am "calm and controlled" right now, mostly. I'm not throwing out pointless insults, just expressing my opinion.

So calling people an asshole and that they're a dick isn't justified? Then tell me, what is? On most other forums, it'd get you a similar punishment.

And calling someone a "cunt" is?

There was about as half an hour of time. Admittedly, again, it probably could have been handled better (by waiting to see if it did continue), but the general consensus was that you likely would not handle it well - again, you have a bit of a reputation for the bombs coming out once you begin using them, and in that case, we decided the better poison would be that we would take the bombs as opposed to ruining a thread and possibly a fanfic with them. If there is one thing we are guilty of, it is this - because we felt the alternative would've been worse.

Half an hour of time in which I had entirely followed Hymn's instructions, you mean?

And, not only did you decide to "take the bombs" yourself (thereby making them worse), you then punished me further for that, despite it being part of your intended strategy in the first place. So, you deliberately made me angrier so I would focus the anger on you and not Trev, and then punished me for doing exactly what you had intended for me to do. How is that remotely fair?

Koto knows usually when to cool it, admittedly, and she also knows when stuff is over the line usually. On those occasions where we do have to mention something, an informal (or at worst, a private) is all she needs.

The point still stands, though. If she did end up deserving a warning, you wouldn't hesitate to give her one. And, similarly, had I provided funding for the new board (which, if it had happened a few months later, I almost certainly would have), you would still presumably be treating me much the same way. So, you can't really argue the "money" angle here.

We'll try to give more benefit of the doubt in terms of informals from now on, but don't expect them for anything we feel is over the line, and if we do give you one, please remember that your response to it is quite important.

OK, fair enough. That's the main thing I wanted to hear, really.

Also, it probably will not be formalized as a step - it could very well be gamed, letting people troll or whatever scot-free, with no punishment or repercussion. This is why we want to make it clear, that under no circumstances should you ever expect an informal warning. It's not the first step and never has been - that's a private warning.

Yeah, sure, I'm not expecting it to be "formalised". I just want you to be consistent, and not to hand out warnings you don't need to hand out.

Granted, an informal warning is likely to be given more often than not, but if your behavior is really over the line, don't be surprised if it's an immediate private warning. After all, we made it quite clear that the start of the punishments isn't necessarily the start - do something bad enough, and it's a public warning, or even a tempban, or if it's virtual forum suicide, maybe even a permaban.

Of course. I don't want a horribly rigid system, because horribly rigid systems tend to disadvantage me and help the trolls.

Generally, no, not that many problems, and you are getting better at controlling it. This is really the first blow-up you've had since the stuff back in early April, which is nearly two months.

Exactly. So, why did you feel the need to hand out a warning when an informal warning seemed to be doing the job so far?

If I'd exploded in the thread, then hand one out, not immediately.

Progress is always good, even if it is somewhat slow. The better you get at it, the less we'll have problems, until eventually there won't be many problems at all, which will make your day better, as well as ours.

Well, of course, but this whole episode has definitely had a negative effect. If Hymn had just left it with the informal "please calm down" and maybe a PM saying the same, this whole week would not have happened. And, even if I had ignored it and exploded in the thread, you'd have still avoided the week of arguing that followed, since the warning would have been far harder to argue against.

We do expect people to follow the rules since they're pretty simple, yes. "Don't be a jerkass to other people." How hard is that, generally?

Well, of course, and that's not unreasonable. I do try not to explode too much, but I occasionally just get angry.

I'm hardly in power or rich, but if an officer is pointing a gun at me and telling me to get down on the ground, I damn well am doing that. Better not to get my ass shot.

Well, of course, but that's them forcing me to. I will, however, listen to them if they're being fair and reasonable, like I would with anyone else.

All I said is that, considering your behavior and your usual reaction to messages of "knock it off," that I didn't think that it would work very well, since they did ask me my opinion. Therefore, the mods agreed to do warn you. This decision was theirs, not mine; warnings are their purview now, remember? Hymn may have been the one to tell you of it, but they agreed as a group.

Well, honestly, you are completely misunderstanding me there. Sure, an informal warning might not work, but if it doesn't a formal one will certainly not work. The only reason I shouted at Hymn in the PM and didn't continue arguing in the thread was because I'd already stopped the argument in the thread. And, even then, I still considered posting there just to prove I wasn't going to listen to him....

Then at least make it clear you're going to drop the argument after that post.

Furthermore, usually what we're looking for is to stop the flaming, not the argument. Constructive arguments are perfectly okay and always will be. If you can do it without calling people names, argue to your heart's content!

That's fair. I do usually do that, though....

pquote]Again, I don't have a problem with you swearing - I do it all the time. But there's a difference between "Tokiomi is an asshole" and "Trevelyan is an asshole." That's the key.[/quote]

Well, yes, that makes sense, but I do naturally use swear words a lot, even where it's not supposed to be particularly insulting.

I honestly, truly, really don't care about you swearing. I draw the line, however, when you're swearing at another person. You can call Zouken a fucking asshole all you want until the cows get abducted by UFOs, but the second you say that about another poster, that's when it transcends into uncool territory - and that's when we step in.

Well, perhaps, but there are other ways to be insulting, which you seem OK with ignoring.

That's because you don't choose to come to any of the rest of us, which we can't control.

No, I can't come to "any of the rest of you". Elf and RB are rarely on MSN, and talking to you would be utterly pointless given our mutual dislike for each other. The mods are a possibility, I guess, but there's none of them I even remotely get on with (which was one of the reasons I was unhappy with the choice, because there wasn't a mod I was comfortable talking to).

As for toning it down, see above. I don't care if you swear, just as long as it's not directed at another poster.

Well, yes, but even that is a part of how I speak to some extent. Like I said, I will try to tone down how I act and stop being aggressive, but I can't always succeed.

Correct, but again, only you can change that perception. I can't. I'd love it if you did, because it's less trouble for you (and thus for us, because we're not having to watch out for as many people trolling you and the like) but ultimately, to have to change, you want to have to change, and that may mean clashing against some of your long-time stances.

Well, of course....

Ultimately, the choice is yours. I'm not going to demand or force you to change - because I can't and because it's wrong of me to expect that - but I do at least expect you to abide by the simple rules that are laid out here, which when you think about it, isn't really that hard. Half the battle is catching when you're going to open up the can - the other half is knowing to tighten the lid down.

Well, like I said, the problem here was the warning I got. If that hadn't happened, I'd have been quite happy stopping the argument where I did, because spamming someone's fic thread like that is just not fair.

Again, the difference here is that Tech usually doesn't post things like that, in the sense of being inflammatory to other posters. You have a habit of this - and furthermore, you also have a habit of disagreeing when being told "chill out" in a thread. You do tend to take them better as a VM or a PM, I will concede that, but really, if we tell you in the thread, it's just as valid as if it were more private.

But, again, you did not even give me a chance here.

Was it bad that we jumped the gun? Probably. But the mods thought it'd be worse to let you lash out in the thread, so they made the decision to private warn for it.

Except that that made me more likely to "lash out in the thread", not less.

Sometimes, the silly choices are still the right ones. Their genius just isn't noticed for awhile.

Not here, though.

There was half an hour between the in-thread warn and the private warn. Trev was told to chill, but since we hadn't caught the behavior (until you'd pointed it out), he wasn't warned.

Half an hour in which I did nothing to earn said private warning....

When we found out, we investigated, and he got warned for it. Had we been informed of this, admittedly, he probably would've been warned and you would've gotten the slap on the wrist, but well, we can only react to what we know and see.

Well, fair enough, that was somewhat my fault. I only realised it when I went back looking at his posts, though, which was after the warning was given.

In the end, I am very liberal, so I tend to ignore insults like that, rather than reporting them. As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to be insulting sometimes, and I apply that to others as much as to myself.

Even the mods don't look in every topic and every post - if you've got a serious beef with a user, you need to come to us with a couple posts as examples and say "Look, this guy is starting to piss me off. Can you do something about it?"

Well, of course. I do that sometimes (usually with Altima), but I do tend to be rather liberal about it, and my natural instinct is to solve the problem myself.

Not really - the main rule we expect you to follow is "don't call people names." That's probably 80% of your problem.

The other 20% is when you slowly get pulled by a troll and respond accordingly, because you feel the need to have the last word, even with that.

The more serious problem is definitely the name-calling, though. If you can reduce that, you'll save yourself a ton of grief.

Well, yes, of course, but I am by no means the only one who does so. You just seem willing to let other people off....

Depends on the person. For someone who's usually not like that? Admittedly, they probably would've only gotten an informal.

But, you admitted I have been "good" recently. So, why punish me because of what I've done way back in the past?

It's not just you - it's based mostly on warning history. If you've got a rep for it, you're admittedly more likely to get the official warning. And once again, I reiterate, informal warnings are not an official step, so you should NEVER expect one to be handed out before a private warning, because they have never been a part of the warning system.

But, how is that fair? It means that people who troll me can get away with it just because they're new.

As I showed above, you were. Hymn said that informal went out about half an hour before your private. Granted, from there, it was handled less than ideally, but it's not like you were warned out of the blue

But I didn't do anything to move from an informal to a formal warning. So, yes, it was "out of the blue".

and even if you would have been, the informal warning is strictly a politeness thing; it's not an official step and never has been, so again, don't expect them.

All I'm asking is that you be fair, and not punish me more harshly than other people for the same offense just because I occasionally get angry at people.

Again, the informal warning has no "binding" effect. It's not even anything official; it's something the mods began to do on their own.

And, again, that's not the point. The point is the total inconsistency between what happened to me and what happened to Tech.

The first official punishment step is the private, and if you hadn't earned that for what you said to Trev, you definitely had for the PMs you gave to Hymn over it.

Perhaps, but that's not why you gave it to me.

I can't. I had to raise the limit twice over this.

Make that three times. In a row. Goddammit, Mike. I'm trying to make these smaller, not larger!

Yeah, I did notice the limit getting higher.

Originally Posted by Altima of the Gates

Jesus Christ these walls.
Mike, you already sent me a PM and you made this blog post before I could sit down with you and give you the skinny(I had told you I'd be out all day remember?). You really do say things with 1000 words what you could say with ten.

But you had already spent the two days following the warning basically saying "it was deserved" and ignoring all my arguments, so I wasn't expecting anything better now....

To make a long story short, you think the decision was purely arbitrary and it wasn't. We've renounced warnings if we thought they were unfair for you before. I can also attest that other people than you have gotten warnings for obnoxious behavior and the like over the past few weeks. We take all things into account and talk over a lot more things.

But I've given a explicit example of someone getting away with a very similar offense. Warning me was entirely arbitrary.

As Dark said about your warning, we talked all throughout that process, but you jumped so hard instead of politely asking for an explanation, you went too crazy, too fast for what is essentially only the first step. Yes, you may think it's bollocks, but you'd be surprised what calmly stating your case gets you, instead of an emotional outburst. 9/10 on other forums if I could explain my case with tact and decorum to a mod, my sentence was either dropped or we just shot the breeze and I got my feelings across so they saw the bigger picture. The reason your case was more scrutinized was because of how you acted afterward, since like I said, it was talked about for awhile. If you can't make your points calmly while angry, don't try to, you dig yourself in a hole that way.

OK, my response was admittedly silly, but that doesn't make the initial warning any more justified. And, whenever I get warned, I am always going to be angry about it, unless I've done something utterly terrible. Really, if you want me to justify myself, you need to ask me before you hand out the warning, when I will perhaps be at least somewhat calm. Afterwards, I'm just going to make things worse....

Now I sincerely hope this is the last blog post we will have about this particular topic. You want to bring up a complaint, then PM and point it out, these long dialogue soapboxes going over the same thing again and again are just hot air being blown with minimal good points in them.

Sorry, but I am being perfectly calm here, I don't see your problem....

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Again, no, he didn't. Or, rather, he posted an informal warning in the thread and then immediately handed me a formal one.

We basically decided to tell you guys to knock it off and then send you the private. Even then, there was about half an hour of time between the two actions.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But you've only made me more angry, and caused more "A-bombs". What did you think you were resolving here?

The threadshit. It worked.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But calling someone a cunt is justified...?

No, but Tech doesn't have a habit of calling people names. You do.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I know that, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial warning was unjustified.

That's your opinion. We know how you get when you're angry, and that it will ruin a thread. We decided not to allow that.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Honestly, I didn't because I didn't think it was worthy of censure, in the same way as I didn't think my post was. You just happened to have changed the way you interpreted the rules without telling anyone.

No, it's more like you assumed that we only meant posts. I personally thought people would read the rules and go "okay, don't be a jerk." Not "Okay, don't be a jerk only in posts, but PMs are fair game!" like you seem to have.

This was probably me being a bit too naive and optimistic, not realizing there would be some people out there who are going to take the rules "to the letter." This will be corrected.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Look, you really don't get this. If you're worried about "A-bombs", then the last thing you should do is give me an official warning. That is certain to piss me off, and it won't necessarily always be expressed in a PM (especially given that you seem intent on penalising those too).

I would say you're the one not getting it. We don't care about A-Bombs. We care when those A-Bombs are directed at people. Got it?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, I want you to actually be reasonable, rather than authoritarian.

And for that to work, you, too, have to be reasonable. That works fine as long as you cooperate, but it's not going to work when you refuse to cooperate. Guess what we have to do then, sir?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, it got a small number of people who want me banned "rioting and demanding that he step down", because they want me banned and knew damn well that Altima wasn't likely to do so without a very good reason.

It wasn't just you; they also mentioned other situations, so don't make this out like "Secret board plot to get rid of me." It's not like they need Altima either - if the other three of us decided you had to go, honestly, it doesn't matter worth a damn what Altima thinks, because there's your 3-1 majority.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, then discuss it, rather than just threatening me. I do not respond well to threats.

And what do we do when you refuse to discuss it, Mike? Discussion works just fine as long as you're going to actually discuss. The problem is, sometimes you feel that you aren't in the wrong, and so if we ask you to discuss, you just flat out refuse. Then we have no choice but to take harsher action, and it pisses you off, and I spend my days writing walls like these.

I'm not going to do this every time you have a problem, man. I can't. Do you know how many man-hours the mods and myself have put in over this little, single spat? Probably more than 35. I'm a third of this alone. Tobias and Beam are most of the rest.

I'm all for wanting to get issues resolved, but to be blunt, I'm getting tired of you stomping your feet every time you get a warning. It's a fucking warning. It means chill out for a little while and you're back on the square. I know you'll put in some concerns of "It could lead to me being banned" and while yes, that's true, you are the one who has to control yourself so that it doesn't go further. So far so good, but really, do you realize how silly the bellyaching can look to some people?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, not always. Sometimes, yes.

The only times I've seen you conciliatory in this sense is when you know you are wrong. The problem is, that is less often than it actually is by our standards. You may think it's perfectly fine to lash back out at someone when they're nasty to you, but we don't - and it's our rules that matter while you're here, Mike. While we're understanding of the circumstances, the rules here are made to make the community as a whole work, not to make you work.

And please, don't even start with the authoritarian bullshit, either. I'm getting tired of hearing that too.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I'm not accusing you of "skipping steps", I'm accusing you of treating me unfairly by handing me a warning for something you ignore for others. And, given that you have admitted that, you don't really have a leg to stand on here.

Repeat offenders get stiffer punishment. Simple fact. Tech doesn't usually call people those things, whereas when you get angry, you do. If a guy has a reputation for drunken brawls, do you slap him on the wrist after the fifth one? Nope, he gets a stiffer punishment. That's how it works here too.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, the mods take their lead from the admins, so I suspect you have something to do with this. Plus, you're the one defending it, and arguing that I should be treated more harshly, so I am entirely justified in "pinning this on you".

Wrong, the mods are mostly resolving things on their own. There have been situations that flared up while I wasn't here (at work or something) and resolved by the time I came home. If admins are around, they usually do ask for their opinions (and I was there at the time, so I did agree you deserved the private warn) but past that, it's not like they go "What should we do?" and I tell them. They decide the punishments, and they might ask if I agree or disagree, but I'm not dictating what they are to them.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yeah, I got that, but that doesn't change the fact that I was unfairly treated.

You have a right to your opinion. But honestly, your opinion doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, and it's not changing the system or how we do things. Again, we're not going to tailor the system to you. People who aren't repeat offenders get lesser punishments than ones who are, for the simple fact that usually we can write it off as a slip of reason, whereas with the repeat offenders... well, a stiffer stance has to be taken because the lighter stuff tends not to work so well.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Trev got a warning for something entirely different. And, the fact that he's "accepted responsibility" does not make your statement any less wrong.

Hymn did not give an informal warning which we ignored. He gave an informal warning and then handed me a formal one immediately.

That's what was decided on. Again, the informal warning is a polite thing, but if it's severe enough, there is no need for a formal warning, just like a massive explosion can move you right to tempban territory. If anything, the right thing he should've done would've been to issue you the private warning, and not even post to "cool it," because by that point the thread had already progressed to the point where an informal was pointless. He probably did that, more than anything, to let you both know that we weren't going to tolerate further escalation.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, given that you suddenly added PMs to the rules without telling anyone (even the mods weren't aware of it), that would have been rather unfair....

They've always been covered. Nobody seemed to notice the "Report Message" button on PMs, and furthermore, I didn't think I needed to spell out "Don't be a dick anywhere on the site." That was my mistake, due to being a little too optimistic about how people can conduct themselves.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yeah, because what I said to Hymn was quite nasty. That still doesn't make the initial warning any less unfair, though, and it also demonstrates how totally absurd your stated strategy of "get Mike to direct his anger at us" is....

I'd rather have you mad at us than threadshitting, yes. Put it this way, your "vitrol," as you put it, is sometimes bad enough to completely discourage authors from writing stories. That's pretty bad, man, and to me it's unacceptable.

Would I rather have you not mad at me? Of course, but not to the point that I'm going to let the forums have it instead. I'll swallow that poison so they don't have to.

Regardless, the choices the mods make are theirs. They decided you warranted a public warning, and the informal was perhaps a bit tacked-on, but the intention was never "give mike an informal, then see how it goes." You have a history of destroying threads once you begin calling names, so the private was to be issued pretty much from the start. Hymn did want to give you a chance to explain yourself, or perhaps to soften things (although I will concede he did word it poorly while talking to you), but you escalated it rather than try to cool the tension. Again, work with us, Mike. Even if it looks like we're "out to get you," keeping a cool head and cooperating will get you less strict punishment.

Or you can just keep going on about how we're all authoritarian nazis and making things harder on yourself, not because we want to make them harder, but because you're basically being a stubborn ass who refuses to cooperate if he feels he's wronged in even the tiniest way possible.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, then, why did you do it when you don't hand out warnings to others?

Because you have a habit of being less-than-cooperative when a "knock it off" is sent, especially if it's from someone you don't like - I can guarantee that if I try to tell you something, for example, the chance that I can get you to talk to me calmly about it is probably less than 5%.

In this case, sadly, it seems you would have been receptive to cooling it, but due to the reputation you have of basically being stubborn and not wanting to listen, we had already decided the informal was less likely to work and we wanted to get it across that we were serious - so the private was issued.

If there's the mistake, it was this. Which is why I'm trying to make it clear, if you make a greater effort to be calm and cooperative with us, we will make a greater effort to give you a little more leeway in how we treat you when the next problem arises. But it's going to need cooperation from both sides; it's not going to work if we go "Mike, chill out," and you go "I'm NOT going to chill out because I was clearly wronged." All that will do is result in us just going "Alright, it didn't work" and upping it accordingly, because our goal is to stop the threadshit.

If we come to you with something like this, the truth is it's still not set in stone. We can damn well reduce or even change our minds on punishments or cool-offs. It's always better to work with us; even if you're angry and don't feel it's justified, keeping a cool head and trying to explain yourself without turning it into authoritarianism or nazi accusations can go a long way. Again, we have no problem with civil arguments against these things, but stomping your feet and refusing to cooperate pretty much leaves us with no recourse.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I didn't say anything because Hymn told us to stop, not to clog up the thread with yet more crap apologising for the previous argument. I had assumed that actually stopping would be sufficient....

See above. But in the future, hit the report button, or if you really feel it's ultra-urgent, send a PM to whatever mods and admins you see are on. (I'll probably up the limit on usernames to 10 so that you can do this; that should be enough to cover all the mods and admins on at any given time, as it's very rare for all eight mods plus four admins to be on at once.) Stuff like that can definitely sway opinion in your favor - "Mike sent us this PM... alright, this guy is clearly trying to get a rise out of him, let's give him a private."

Again, we're still not everywhere. The report function is good, but it depends on us checking our emails. PMing mods and admins should be an option you should also consider, especially if things are looking like they're close to boiling over. While I can't guarantee action will be taken, it will at least be looked into and discussed.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, it's not, because if you hadn't given me the initial warning, then the argument with Hymn would not have happened.

And again, probably our worst mistake was Hymn putting his message down like an informal warning. I've already explained what the decision was, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but I've also said ways we can try to prevent it from happening in the future. What has already happened isn't going to change, so let's stop debating "if it was right or wrong" because if anything, both sides are a bit wrong and both sides are making valid arguments. Working out misunderstandings is something we'll both benefit from, and so that is now my goal.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yeah, well, if you'd actually listen to me and treat me fairly, I wouldn't be so aggressive about it....

And as I said above, if you're a bit more cooperative and conciliatory with us, this will also help you. Reputation can destroy a man too, after all.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Look, if I don't know what the "boundaries" are, then how am I supposed to know when I'm crossing them...?

You seem to think that things that I consider perfectly normal are actionable.

You know them now - don't flame other people, regardless of PM/VM/Blog/Post/Usergroup, and if someone's trying to troll you, tell us rather than give them what they want by replying. You have a right to your opinion, but if you can't express your dislike of the person without calling them names, we don't want to see it.

Furthermore, as we've stated all along, if your rules clash with our rules, we do expect our rules to take precedence. I understand you don't like that, but while you're using our forums, you are going to abide by our rules over yours. If you can't cope with this, then occasionally you're going to be punished when you're in contravention of them, but if you also ask us calmly to explain things when we say you have broken them, you will probably save yourself most of the grief, if not all of the grief.

We have no problem with explaining things, but we can't explain them to someone throwing a temper tantrum, either. What's the point, when they won't listen anyway?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But I said nothing in the thread, just like Hymn told me to. If Hymn wanted to discuss it with me, why didn't he send me a VM/PM saying "please stop", which I would have replied to with "I already did..."? I mean, if you're trying to stop a stupid argument cluttering up a thread, the last thing you want is another long discussion about how you're sorry for the previous argument....

You're penalising me here for doing exactly what I was told to do. Further, you seem to have this false impression that I will react better to an official warning than to an unofficial one.

No, the impression we had is that you wouldn't react to the unofficial warning and so an official one was needed. Again, your reputation did you in here a bit - you tend not to take it very well, period, when most mods or admins try to exert any level of authority over you. We also know that while you react strongly negatively to official warnings, it's also likely to get us the ultimate goal - stopping the threadshit.

Could it have been handled better? Yes, probably, especially if you're indicating the informal message would have worked. That's why I'm trying to make it clear that if you're willing to work with us on it, we'll not to be so forceful. We can't prevent this situation, but we can at least try to prevent future ones, and as long as there's mutual understanding and agreement, we will both generally get what we want - we will know you'll be more receptive to lighter suggestions, and you won't have to worry that we've got a bullseye on you.

If we can do that, it will save us both much grief, and will make our relationship more amicable. I don't think it will ever be buddy-buddy, but it doesn't need to be - as long as we can agree on things and they don't turn into "No, you're all authoritarian bastards!" from your end, it will work enough that we shouldn't need to do things so strictly on ours.

Mind you, it's not always going to be the informal warning - sometimes, it warrants immediate private/public warnings, or even tempbans. The precise reason we're not "formalizing" the informal warning is because if we did, then people could game that endlessly.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Except that you don't give warnings to other people for the exact same things....

Again, offender history. The guy who doesn't have a rep for that is likely to get less punishment than the one who does.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Look, if I've spent half an hour writing a reply, I'm not going to not post it. That is just a total waste of time. Sure, I'll add something saying "OK, I'll stop now", but I'm not just going to erase all my work because a mod said so.

Then I suggest you get in the habit of that when you see us asking you to cool it before you post a post of yours, because without that "I'll stop now," it can look very well like you're fully intending to continue the argument.

Though I would, again, argue this is also a bit of your need to "get the last word in," which is something that ideally should also be curbed, but it's far less of a sin than throwing around flames. At least if we see "I'll stop now," we know you are intending to stop, and while it may or may not be forgivable (depending on what's in the post), at least we know you're not intending to further the heat.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Except you are not juysding me on "what you see", you are judging me on how you think I will act, without even giving me a chance.

Again, reputations can make or break people. Unfortunately, you have a rep for not being very conductive to a mod trying to talk with you about a problem, or lighter punishments working, so the harder punishments will work (because then you don't want to get banned) but with the downside of much vitrol to us. We do achieve our goal, though obviously we then have to deal with things like this for the next week or two.

If you're indicating you're more willing to work with us whenever there is a breach of the rules, I am telling you that we will likewise give you a little more leeway, but again, for it to work, you have to at least be willing to discuss it with us when we come to you with it, even if you feel you're being absolutely wronged - stomping your feet and saying "I'm not wrong, end of discussion!" tends to leave us little recourse. If we can agree to at least discussion before actions, it will probably work better for the both of us, provided you can keep a clear head about it and not degenerate as you tend to do when faced with authority.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, given that they handed me a warning and ignored similar actions from others, I would say that they are most definitely "biased".

I will again mention your reputation for vitrol towards other users, and Tech's virtual lack of it. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, they aren't. What happened here proves it.

See above.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

That doesn't change the fact that I got a warning for something that someone else got away with.

See above the above.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Exactly, you expect people to just bend over and take whatever you decide to give them.

Wrong, but if we do have a problem with them, they're usually more likely to respond to us telling them to knock it off or us wanting to talk to them about a problem situation. As opposed to you, who... well, look at the language you just used.

If you keep thinking "the admins/mods are my enemy," you're going to make life here harder on yourself, because then we get to points like we're at now: We have a problem with you, we feel you won't respond to discussion or lighter punishment, so we go for heavier stuff.

Working with us isn't "bending over and taking it." Working with us can save you probably 80% of the grief you have on these forums, if anything, because if you're willing to talk with us, we're not going to go for stiffer punishments immediately. If, on the other hand, we get told the equivalent of "Go piss off," well... why should we bother with anything but the stuff we know will make you stop?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But you didn't even give me a chance. Further, if you know what I am like, then you should also know that a formal warning is not going to calm me down.

Your logic makes zero sense here.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but again, your reputation did you in. However, since I do think it could have been handled better, and furthermore, you're indicating you WOULD be more receptive to it, I would like to take that new policy with you, because as long as you're able to discuss things with us without being automatically suspicious or accusatory, it could work well for all of us.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But, again, you were not "erring on the side of caution". My response to the warning demonstrates that. If I'm going to explode at an informal warning, I will most certainly explode at a formal one.

The idea is that you don't explode at all. Even if the decision is "we're going to warn you, sorry," all exploding will do is make it worse.

I'm sure it will sound like "bending over and taking it" again to you, but really, if you are getting punished, the best thing to do is really just to accept that it's going to happen and not make things worse for yourself.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Sure, if you're just looking to get rid of me. If you're intending to actually help me, then acting draconian at every opportunity is the last thing you want to do.

Again, if we wanted to get rid of you, you would've probably been gone long ago. Assuming we want to get rid of you and that we're authoritarians is the wrong way to go about it.

Frantic Author sent me some VMs last night saying that he was actually surprised at how much we let him get away with, saying this was one of the most relaxed forums he's been to, and that most other forums would've banned him fast. It got to the point where he actually felt bad about it, and that's why he stopped - our leniency basically changed his ways.

The simple fact, and I'm sure even you will agree with this, is that most places would've gotten rid of you long, long ago. The fact you are still here, allowed to say what you are, and generally only get stiffer punishments than warnings when you deserve it (and you do admit when you go over the line for tempbans) should pretty much prove we're one of the least authoritarian forums out there.

You stop thinking we're authoritarian nazis, and we'll stop resorting to the harder punishments to start with unless it's clear that you deserve them. Fair deal?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But not immediately. If you were applying the same logic to them as you are to me, then they'd have both had warnings.

Again, reputation... they don't usually pull that shit (Lyco has his own issues, but I'm not going to get into that).

Originally Posted by Mike1984

So, in other words, you do want me to stop being anti-authoritarian, despite denying it.

Sorry, it just ain't going to happen.

Wrong. But I want you to at least work with us. Otherwise, your time here is going to be difficult, because if you persist in not obeying the rules, even when we keep telling you to stop, we will eventually wind up banning you for it; it's just a question of when.

Furthermore, as I said above, if we really wanted to be authoritarian assholes, this blog would be gone, and you probably would've gotten tempbanned by now for complaining. Let's save the authoritarian vitrol for people who are actually authoritarian, shall we?

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But you did not "ask nicely". If you had, then this argument would not be happening.

And again, that is because in our general experience (after all, it's not like the Mods haven't seen your blow-ups before they were mods), the "nice" way tends to get us a "Fuck off, you're not going to tell me what to do."

If it's going to work now, great, then let's try to make it that way from now on. Meet us halfway and we'll extend the same courtesy to you from now on.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, that's because it is "authoritarian bullshit".

"Authoritarian bullshit" would be "No complaining or you get warned" or "Our decision is final, you're banned if you disagree." A generally-agreed framework of rules (and very lax rules at that) is hardly "authoritarian bullshit."

You want authoritarian? Go look at North Korea, or the USSR, or, in some ways, China. Those are authoritarian societies, sir. They don't even let you have a voice. The very fact this blog entry is still up and that I'm using my time to reply to your points instead of deleting them proves that we're not authoritarian, so stop treating us like we are.

I really can't stress this enough. Much as you're tired of "feeling targeted," I'm tired of being called something I'm not. If I wanted to be an authoritarian asshole, believe me - you'd know it.

I don't think that asking that you follow a simple few rules and that you work with us when we have problems is anything extraordinary, or irrational. If you work with us, it saves us both lots of headaches.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But, when I actually was "receptive" to it, you gave me a formal warning anyway.

And again, I will blame that on the reputation you have for usually handling informal things poorly. If you're willing to work with us on proving that you're more open to those, then we will likewise try not to be so assumptive of "How will Mike handle this? Is he going to explode or not?"

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Of course, but that doesn't mean you should skip the lighter step because I might ignore it. If nothing else, it makes your warning seem more justifiable if you've said "stop or you'll get a warning" in the thread first, like Beam did with Lyco and Tech.

Honestly, as much as I'm complaining about it, I think Beam handled that rather well. I'm just annoyed that I didn't get the same courtesy, just because I have a "history" of exploding at people. If you're going to act like that, then I will end up banned, because you'll ignore the trolls (because they "don't have a history") and then slap me with a warning one the first slight mistake that I make.

Which is why I'm trying to make our position clear now, so that in the future, messes like this can be avoided. If we know you're going to put up things like "Alright, I'll stop" if a post comes after a mod posts to stop, we know you're not going to keep it going past that point - we can then consider the matter settled, unless, of course, it doesn't settle itself. Likewise, if we can come to you about a problem without having an 80% chance of being told to piss off, it makes us more willing to go to that step of coming to you with problems.

I do want to reiterate again, however, that you shouldn't expect us to come to you with an informal every time there is something with you. Some things will flat-out qualify for a private or higher, and I don't want to get you into the thinking of "No matter how bad I am, they're going to talk with me about it." While we probably will, really flagrant violations can go higher up on the list, and we have made that clear in the last revision of the rules (it will be made even clearer in the next one, if we can).

Usually, your problems aren't serious enough to go right to tempban territory, but occasionally if you really lose your cool, they may well go into the warning categories immediately. But you are improving keeping your cool, so hopefully this decreases.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, I accept entirely that my response was stupid (although it's how I've responded to Altima in the past), and I'm sorry for that. Even so, he didn't give me a chance there, despite me having taken heed of his statement in the thread and stopped the argument.

As I said, it could have been handled better. I would like to do that from now on, but since a good deal of it is due to how you tend to act when confronted by authority, we need to know that if we do have a problem with you, that you're at least willing to discuss it without telling us to go screw within a few messages. If you can agree to that, we will at least extend you this in kind.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, I can't discuss it via PM because I'm in danger of getting a warning if I do (at least when I'm angry, which was the entire point of your "strategy"). As for MSN, I have RB, Elf and Altima on there already, but Altima is the only one who is regularly online when I am, so he's the one who almost always ends up absorbing my anger..

The anger is something you do have to keep in mind, yes. While I won't punish you, per se, for anything you tell me over MSN, I'm also not going to bind myself by the rules that I bind myself to here - on MSN, you would be dealing strictly with Dark Pulse the person, and Dark Pulse the person doesn't put up with some of the shit that Dark Pulse the admin must put up with for the sake of the community.

I am entirely open to civil communication. If it begins getting angry and insulting, I will tell you to stop. If it does not stop, I will simply ignore you after awhile, and if it is really that offensive, a block, either temporary or permanent, will happen.

I'm not going to block you or ignore you here, out of necessity, but also because it's not fair to do that since you can't block or ignore me. But MSN is "off-board," and so I hold it to a totally different set of rules.

With that knowldge in mind, it's up to you what you want to do, in regards for MSN. I expect you to not be directly insulting to a person either way, but MSN is off-board, so even if you're vitrolic as hell, I'm not going to punish you on the board for things you say on it. I may, however, block you if it's bad enough, and then you would have to go through the board and the rules that are set for it if you wish to communicate me from then on. I can take a good deal of abuse, but even I have limits.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And, again, you're missing the point here.

I cannot talk to the mods via PM when I'm angry, because there's a high chance of me exploding at them. Sure, that's better for you than me exploding on the board, but I still get a warning either way, so why would I?

Very well, then talk to them after you've cooled off. Surely you have ways to dissipate your anger other than a rant, or a hostile PM?

If you know you're going to be angry and you know it'll be bad if you reply, that's good, because it means you're aware of your anger. Step two is then getting rid of that anger, so that once it's gone, you can go to step three: Presenting your side of the story, in a much calmer, collected, and coolheaded way. Believe it or not, that might sway us. One time I warned Kratosirving over a situation, and he replied to me very calmly and met my points with points of his own. I thought it over and reversed my decision - and his punishment - a day or two later.

Punishments aren't set in stone, Mike. They never are. Indeed, I'm already feeling a little bad over how this situation was handled, so I'm going to strive to change it in the future, because that's the right thing to do. It would help us greatly if you could, likewise, not be so hostile to a mod or an admin questioning you. Perhaps the hostility is only imagined on our part, but if that's how we're thinking, it's proof we're at a disconnect and we need to change it. Unfortunately, I can't make you work with us; that's something you have to do. But if you're willing to try, so are we.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yeah, sure it isn't, but you just admitted that your "strategy" is to have me direct that "angry vitrol" at the mods/admins rather than expressing it on the board. And, the one who always gets it is Altima, largely because he actually is willing to sit there and listen to it until I calm down....

Well, the ideal solution is to have you discuss things calmly, rather than angrily yelling at people. But if you must angrily yell, yes, I'd rather you bitch at us than threadshit.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I won't argue with that, but the actions of the mods in the last week or so certainly did not assist in that respect. By worrying that an informal warning might aggrivate me slightly, you instead aggrivated me massively, to the point of me going on about it for three days afterwards and deliberately going after Beam in her thread.

Perceptions cloud judgment... on both sides. Let's strive to eliminate it in the future.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Perhaps, but you seem to be managing it without even trying.

Except I'm not trying to. I've got far better things to do with my time and my energy than "Piss off some guy a quarter of the world away."

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, and I would admit that I'd probably be a crap mod since I wouldn't "take action".

Or worse, that you couldn't take action against those you see as friends.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Sure, just like Tech called Lyco a "cunt"....

Record time: Reputation.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I occasionally explode, and then I calm down. If you really think I deserve to be treated harshly due to that, then that implies that you think I should just be banned outright....

No, not really, because everyone explodes once in awhile. What I'd like to do is make that as minimal as possible... and ideally, to reduce the anger to the point where you might be mad, but you're not resorting to namecalling.

I have no problem with you being angry. The problem I have is the namecalling. Reducing it is my goal.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Except that, when I actually did stop, you warned me anyway.

As I said, could have been handled better, and it will be going forward, especially if you edit posts and the like (if one happens after a mod post) indicating that you are going to drop it. This way, if it continues, it's the other person, and they will undoubtedly receive the stiffer punishment.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Erm, what?

The argument you made sounded like it wasn't fair to escalate punishments.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Sure, but giving me a formal warning does not help. It just gets my back up and causes me to want to continue the argument.

Then we need to make sure it stops with the informals, so that we don't have to go to the formals.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, sure, but your definition of "calling names" is seemingly ludicrously strict.

Not really. If it's directed at another, actual person, then it's name-calling. You can think I'm an asshole all you want, you can even say my ideas are nonsense - but if you call me a cunt whose ideas are bullshit... that's the difference, mate.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, I am "calm and controlled" right now, mostly. I'm not throwing out pointless insults, just expressing my opinion.

And that's good, because it means we can get our points across and be reasonably sure the other side is going to listen to them. That makes for a more conductive argument, period.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And calling someone a "cunt" is?

Again, I never said it was justified. Tech was definitely wrong. The difference is - yet again - Tech doesn't have a history of name-calling. If a pattern emerges, severity increases based upon that, but right now, since that's not something he usually does, telling him "don't do that again" is sufficient.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Half an hour of time in which I had entirely followed Hymn's instructions, you mean?

And, not only did you decide to "take the bombs" yourself (thereby making them worse), you then punished me further for that, despite it being part of your intended strategy in the first place. So, you deliberately made me angrier so I would focus the anger on you and not Trev, and then punished me for doing exactly what you had intended for me to do. How is that remotely fair?

Again, perception clouds judgment. I don't think we need to remind you that when it comes to you "versus" us, we are usually at impasses - you feel we're too strict, and we feel we can't give you any leniency because if we do, you're just going to tell us to shove off.

I'd like to change that, so that we are BOTH better for it, but in order to do that, we have to work together. If I extend my hand but you refuse to shake it, it won't work; likewise, if you're willing to work with us but we're stubborn and obtuse, it won't work either.

If we can agree to work together, this will clear lots of misunderstanding. Then this way if an issue comes up, we can trust that if we come to you, you're not going to automatically shrug us off, and likewise, you don't have to worry that if we're coming to you, it's for a punishment that's guaranteed set in stone.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The point still stands, though. If she did end up deserving a warning, you wouldn't hesitate to give her one. And, similarly, had I provided funding for the new board (which, if it had happened a few months later, I almost certainly would have), you would still presumably be treating me much the same way. So, you can't really argue the "money" angle here.

Koto's donor status also doesn't give her any special treatment, so that's not what I meant. The point here was that Koto knows the line rather well; she toes it sometimes but generally knows the bounds and so we generally have no issues with her.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

OK, fair enough. That's the main thing I wanted to hear, really.

Good, then we're in agreement. Let's hope this is the last time such a flare-up occurs.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yeah, sure, I'm not expecting it to be "formalised". I just want you to be consistent, and not to hand out warnings you don't need to hand out.

Well, the main factor was the "reputation" one. A person who does it out of the blue and has no rep is likely to get a bit lighter punishment for it, as opposed to someone for whom this is habit.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Of course. I don't want a horribly rigid system, because horribly rigid systems tend to disadvantage me and help the trolls.

I don't like a too rigid system either. I like something with a general framework that is otherwise lax; a medium between pure anarchy and absolute rigidity.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Exactly. So, why did you feel the need to hand out a warning when an informal warning seemed to be doing the job so far?

If I'd exploded in the thread, then hand one out, not immediately.

Mostly due to the perception that you wouldn't heed the informal.

Again, if there was a grand mistake we made, this was it, and we're going to try to change that, but it also means we need to be able to come to you without thinking we're just going to be told off.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, of course, but this whole episode has definitely had a negative effect. If Hymn had just left it with the informal "please calm down" and maybe a PM saying the same, this whole week would not have happened. And, even if I had ignored it and exploded in the thread, you'd have still avoided the week of arguing that followed, since the warning would have been far harder to argue against.

Correct. Our mistake was thinking you were inapproachable, but to be fair, you tend not to be very happy when we confront you on anything, so it's not entirely without justification.

Ergo, if you will strive to be more open with us when we try to talk with you, we will try more polite means of resolving disputes first.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, of course, and that's not unreasonable. I do try not to explode too much, but I occasionally just get angry.

We're only human. It happens. If you really did mess up, either delete the post (to avoid inflaming the situation entirely) or, if for some reason you don't want to delete the post, at least edit it with an apology or something, or put it in a new post if you want. Little things like that DO help your cause. Knowing you get angry and admitting you get angry is good, but apologizing for your actions is also something that can really change how people see you. It doesn't excuse the behavior, and I'm sure you know that, but at least then people can say "At least Mike owns up when he makes a mistake."

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, of course, but that's them forcing me to. I will, however, listen to them if they're being fair and reasonable, like I would with anyone else.

Good, but that means also letting us explain why before you make the judgment. Admittedly, it's one thing to say you will do this, but it's another if your reply to it when a mod says something is "That's a bunch of bullshit."

Perception, sir, it's all about the perception.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, honestly, you are completely misunderstanding me there. Sure, an informal warning might not work, but if it doesn't a formal one will certainly not work. The only reason I shouted at Hymn in the PM and didn't continue arguing in the thread was because I'd already stopped the argument in the thread. And, even then, I still considered posting there just to prove I wasn't going to listen to him....

And then you decided "Not worth the trouble or the increased problems" and nuked it. Which is good. We did notice you had posted it, and then we noticed you also nuked it, which is good, because that probably would have moved you up to a public warning had it stayed (since by the time you'd posted it, you were being fully nasty over those PMs).

It shows you have some self-restraint and are able to "self-censor" a bit, and that's why I think we can improve our communication. We're willing to do our best in that regard, as long as you're also willing to make a committed effort. We may not agree on everything - indeed, it'd be strange if we did - but at least this way, issues don't become major problems.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

That's fair. I do usually do that, though....

Well yes, but admittedly, when you put a post after a mod says "knock it off" (because you didn't know they were posting), look at it from our point of view - it looks like you're completely and totally ignoring our request. That's why I said at least editing it to say "Sorry, I didn't see Beam's request until after I posted, I'll stop now" will make things much clearer and easier on us.

Granted, please don't use this an excuse to get the "last shot in." We expect you to be somewhat reasonable. Something that happens within ten or twenty minutes, depending on the length of the post, is understandable. If it's an hour later, it'd better be a damn long post, or you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, that makes sense, but I do naturally use swear words a lot, even where it's not supposed to be particularly insulting.

Again, swearing is fine, but our perception - out of necessity - is that if we see swear words directed at a person, and we can't tell it's an obvious joke - we have to treat it seriously. I think you would agree that ignoring this would be the worse way to go around it; it's better to be a bit too proactive than to give the illusion that you're not doing anything.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, perhaps, but there are other ways to be insulting, which you seem OK with ignoring.

Like? We can't catch everything, but we try to.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

No, I can't come to "any of the rest of you". Elf and RB are rarely on MSN, and talking to you would be utterly pointless given our mutual dislike for each other. The mods are a possibility, I guess, but there's none of them I even remotely get on with (which was one of the reasons I was unhappy with the choice, because there wasn't a mod I was comfortable talking to).

I don't dislike your person... more like I dislike your attitude and having to deal with it. But I do so because that's my job, and because it's not fair to you if I just blow you off.

Regardless, we both have to work together if we want to solve our problems, so that's what I strive to do. Either way, if we can't talk to the other, this situation isn't going to improve at all, and I think we both can agree on that.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, but even that is a part of how I speak to some extent. Like I said, I will try to tone down how I act and stop being aggressive, but I can't always succeed.

We don't expect you to click your heels and yes-sir up immediately, which is why I said there's bound to be some bumps, but as long as we can keep communication open, I think we will manage to smooth over most of them. We need to eliminate both stigmas - that talking to you isn't very effective (from our end) and that we're out to get you (from yours). If we can't do this, we're just going to keep repeating these sorts of things over and over, and I'm pretty sure we're both sick of them.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, like I said, the problem here was the warning I got. If that hadn't happened, I'd have been quite happy stopping the argument where I did, because spamming someone's fic thread like that is just not fair.

So lessons learned on both sides. Even Hymn acknowledged he could have handled this better, and he's said he will remember it in the future, especially if a situation involves you. In the meanwhile, you can also help us out a bit by making your intentions a little more clear, too - ultimately we need to reduce the misunderstandings as much as we humanly can.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But, again, you did not even give me a chance here.

Perhaps not, but at least now you know our thinking - part "repeat offender," part "probably won't listen." To me, that's more of the issue than the warning, because now we're generally coming to a conclusion that there is a communicatory disconnect. To me, that's the most important thing to fix, because if we can't, we're just going to be back here within three months, yet again, wasting both our times.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Except that that made me more likely to "lash out in the thread", not less.

But that would also get you a stiffer punishment, which is a bit harder to deny. It also causes more headaches for you (and for us) and ultimately neither of us wants that.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Not here, though.

I'll judge if I'm right or not later on. It's still too early to tell.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Half an hour in which I did nothing to earn said private warning....

Which again, is something we could have handled better. Too late to go back now for this one, but let's work on it for the future.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, fair enough, that was somewhat my fault. I only realised it when I went back looking at his posts, though, which was after the warning was given.

In the end, I am very liberal, so I tend to ignore insults like that, rather than reporting them. As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to be insulting sometimes, and I apply that to others as much as to myself.

Well, it's a more careful line we have to toe. After all, should we apply this to everyone? How much leeway/insulting should we "allow" before we step in? Furthermore, what about new posters who are coming in, and they post a fanfic that's very amateur? Should we allow someone to come in and tell them their work sucks a donkey dick?

The better solution, even if a bit more stifling, is to not allow that sort of thing to go on. I'm pretty damn liberal too - but as I said, there are some things where it is better to be a little more locked down than others. How you treat your fellow forumites, to me, is a big one, because the last thing we need to do is scare new people away just because there's rules that say you can be a little insulting until a mod says "that's enough."

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, of course. I do that sometimes (usually with Altima), but I do tend to be rather liberal about it, and my natural instinct is to solve the problem myself.

That's fine, but then you're responsible for it - for better or for worse. If you try to solve it but blow up, you're taking responsibility for it. Likewise, if the person who you're trying to solve it reports it to us, and we look at it... we see Mike being the aggressor. Guess who gets punished?

Sometimes, it does pay to come to us, especially if you feel it might not work out so good. Again, we can only go by what we see. In cases like this, we will try to offer more of a chance to explain your side, but the mods are there for a reason - to settle disputes so that you don't have to.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, yes, of course, but I am by no means the only one who does so. You just seem willing to let other people off....

If they're a repeat offender, they definitely don't get slaps on the wrist. Again, there has to be a little wiggle room, and "frequency of this type of infraction" is one of the factors in that. Tech doesn't tend to do that, so he just got told "Don't do it again."

Make no mistake, we do keep track of stuff. We know who are generally more problematic in what situations. Was it bad we didn't talk to you about it? Sure, but it's probably just as bad that we feel we can't talk to you. When the mods can't talk to you because you accused them all of being in a clique who's out to get you in trouble, we're all in seriously hot water - we can't have that anymore. We need to be able to talk to you, and you need to be able to talk to us. If we can't do this, then we're going to get absolutely nowhere.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But, you admitted I have been "good" recently. So, why punish me because of what I've done way back in the past?

Part of it was admittedly how you reacted to the new mods. Accusing them of all being out to get you, and that I picked them just to get you banned? Come on, man. Give me a break.

The other part of it is because most of them feared if they tried to talk to you, they'd just get some angry message back - which would just cause them to enact the private anyway, so the general consensus was "just do it." We see now it should have been done differently, but before we can change how we act towards you, you also have to be willing to give us a little more comfort and openness in trying to talk with you.

We're not out to be your enemies, Mike. We have far too many other people to worry about, and other things to do in our personal lives, than to make our mission "Make Mike1984's life as miserable as possible until he's banned." To me, that's such incredibly childish thinking. We're both adults in our late-20s; we should be able to at least treat each other like that, not like a couple of goddamn 15 year olds.

That's why I'm making it clear, if you're willing to be more open to talking with us when issues arise, we will also be more open when situations arise with you. That's the only way we're ever going to prevent situations like this from continuing cyclically, and it's going to require cooperation from both sides.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But, how is that fair? It means that people who troll me can get away with it just because they're new.

A new poster here isn't going to know of your reputation, let's be honest. It's your job to present yourself how you want to be presented.

We know all you're trying to do is get your viewpoints across, and disagree with others on theirs as necessary, but there's a smooth way to do it and a way that's like firewalking 500 miles. You're starting to curb it, and I commend you for that, so now we need to make it work to improve our relationships with the other. You'll know what we expect, you'll know that you don't have to sweat bullets if you see a message from a green or cyan name, and we'll know that if we have an issue we need to discuss, we won't be blown off, insulted, and given an absolute show of defiance.

Ultimately, in time, I think you can get to "where we want you to be," but with it feeling natural for you. Is it always going to be smooth? No, especially since you're clashing against long-term beliefs and stances you hold, but if we can communicate the differences, at least then we can get it to a gentleman's agreement and make all our lives easier. This, in turn, will help your own reputation immensely.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

But I didn't do anything to move from an informal to a formal warning. So, yes, it was "out of the blue".

What ended up getting you moved was our own gun-shyness in trying to talk it over with you. We can't have that anymore.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

All I'm asking is that you be fair, and not punish me more harshly than other people for the same offense just because I occasionally get angry at people.

Which is why if we can talk to you, this will pretty much resolve itself; at the same time, whether or not we punish other people for an offense is admittedly none of your business.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And, again, that's not the point. The point is the total inconsistency between what happened to me and what happened to Tech.

We knew Tech would be receptive to knock it off; we hedged a bet on that you generally aren't and in this case we bet wrong. If we can talk to you, we have a much higher chance of getting it right and clearing up any misconceptions on either side.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Perhaps, but that's not why you gave it to me.

Admittedly not, no. But if you're willing to talk with us over stuff, and we don't have to worry about you biting our heads off whenever we have a problem with you, it will benefit both of us in the long run.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Yeah, I did notice the limit getting higher.

...Four times now. Can we drop some of these points already?

Originally Posted by Dark Pulse

We basically decided to tell you guys to knock it off and then send you the private. Even then, there was about half an hour of time between the two actions.

Yes, and?

That doesn't change the fact that you immediately gave me the private warning without giving me any chance to stop.

The threadshit. It worked.

Except that it didn't. It just upset me even more, and the only reason the thread was not impacted is because I had stopped already.

No, but Tech doesn't have a habit of calling people names. You do.

So what?

It is entirely unfair to judge me just because I get angry more often than he does. Unless you are basically looking for an excuse to ban me, then treating me more harshly for getting angry just because it happens more often is not going to resolve anything. It just breeds distrust and anger.

That's your opinion. We know how you get when you're angry, and that it will ruin a thread. We decided not to allow that.

Yeah, and giving me a private warning makes me angrier, so....

I would say you're the one not getting it. We don't care about A-Bombs. We care when those A-Bombs are directed at people. Got it?

But, when I'm angry, they will be "directed at people". Otherwise you wouldn't give a fuck about them in the first place. And, you know damn well that that is the case, and you still planned on having me do exactly that.

Sure, my response to Hymn was unacceptable, but if you stick your hand in a Tiger's mouth, then you shouldn't complain when it gets bitten off. I was at fault there, but so were you. The difference is that I'm willing to admit it.

And for that to work, you, too, have to be reasonable. That works fine as long as you cooperate, but it's not going to work when you refuse to cooperate. Guess what we have to do then, sir?

Sure, but you didn't even give me a chance to "co-operate" here.

It wasn't just you; they also mentioned other situations, so don't make this out like "Secret board plot to get rid of me." It's not like they need Altima either - if the other three of us decided you had to go, honestly, it doesn't matter worth a damn what Altima thinks, because there's your 3-1 majority.

Yeah but, fortunately, the other admins are also generally reasonable. That doesn't stop Altima getting the flak for defending me, though.

And what do we do when you refuse to discuss it, Mike? Discussion works just fine as long as you're going to actually discuss. The problem is, sometimes you feel that you aren't in the wrong, and so if we ask you to discuss, you just flat out refuse. Then we have no choice but to take harsher action, and it pisses you off, and I spend my days writing walls like these.

Yeah, perhaps that happens sometimes, but it's not what happened here. You handed me a warning without any discussion whatsoever, and without even giving me a chance to listen to you.

I'm not going to do this every time you have a problem, man. I can't. Do you know how many man-hours the mods and myself have put in over this little, single spat? Probably more than 35. I'm a third of this alone. Tobias and Beam are most of the rest.

Well, given that it's a problem that you caused, I think it's entirely reasonable for you to do so.

I'm all for wanting to get issues resolved, but to be blunt, I'm getting tired of you stomping your feet every time you get a warning. It's a fucking warning. It means chill out for a little while and you're back on the square. I know you'll put in some concerns of "It could lead to me being banned" and while yes, that's true, you are the one who has to control yourself so that it doesn't go further. So far so good, but really, do you realize how silly the bellyaching can look to some people?

Sorry, but a warning is a lot harsher than you are claiming, particularly when you don't know how long it lasts for and when it has ended. Sure, it has no practical effect, but it's still not very pleasant to be under one.

The only times I've seen you conciliatory in this sense is when you know you are wrong. The problem is, that is less often than it actually is by our standards.

Well, of course. I'm hardly going to accept that I'm wrong when I'm not....

Repeat offenders get stiffer punishment. Simple fact. Tech doesn't usually call people those things, whereas when you get angry, you do. If a guy has a reputation for drunken brawls, do you slap him on the wrist after the fifth one? Nope, he gets a stiffer punishment. That's how it works here too.

Sorry, but that is a terrible way to handle things, unless you intend to ban me eventually. Sure, for someone who is deliberately acting in such a manner, it makes sense, but getting angry is getting angry, no matter how many times you do it.

Wrong, the mods are mostly resolving things on their own. There have been situations that flared up while I wasn't here (at work or something) and resolved by the time I came home. If admins are around, they usually do ask for their opinions (and I was there at the time, so I did agree you deserved the private warn) but past that, it's not like they go "What should we do?" and I tell them. They decide the punishments, and they might ask if I agree or disagree, but I'm not dictating what they are to them.

Well, you're still the one defending their actions. Plus, you chose the mods in the first place....

People who aren't repeat offenders get lesser punishments than ones who are, for the simple fact that usually we can write it off as a slip of reason

But it's a "slip of reason" with me too, I just do it more often.

whereas with the repeat offenders... well, a stiffer stance has to be taken because the lighter stuff tends not to work so well.

That's just crap, though. A "stiffer stance" resolves nothing with me, whereas the "lighter stuff" often does.

That's what was decided on. Again, the informal warning is a polite thing, but if it's severe enough, there is no need for a formal warning, just like a massive explosion can move you right to tempban territory. If anything, the right thing he should've done would've been to issue you the private warning, and not even post to "cool it," because by that point the thread had already progressed to the point where an informal was pointless. He probably did that, more than anything, to let you both know that we weren't going to tolerate further escalation.

But, then, why did Tech not deserve a private warning when I did for the same offense?

I'd rather have you mad at us than threadshitting, yes. Put it this way, your "vitrol," as you put it, is sometimes bad enough to completely discourage authors from writing stories. That's pretty bad, man, and to me it's unacceptable.

Would I rather have you not mad at me? Of course, but not to the point that I'm going to let the forums have it instead. I'll swallow that poison so they don't have to.

Sure, but you're deliberately acting in a way that makes me mad at you and then punishing me when I actually do get mad at you. How the hell is that fair?

Regardless, the choices the mods make are theirs.

Which only proves my reservations about the choice of mods true. I thought they would be biased against me, and they are.

They decided you warranted a public warning, and the informal was perhaps a bit tacked-on, but the intention was never "give mike an informal, then see how it goes." You have a history of destroying threads once you begin calling names, so the private was to be issued pretty much from the start.

But giving me a private warning does not resolve that at all. It just makes me angrier and more likely to destroy the threads.

Hymn did want to give you a chance to explain yourself, or perhaps to soften things (although I will concede he did word it poorly while talking to you), but you escalated it rather than try to cool the tension.

Except that he did not make any effort whatsoever to "soften things". He just told me I was getting a warning and refused to listen to anything I said.

Again, work with us, Mike. Even if it looks like we're "out to get you," keeping a cool head and cooperating will get you less strict punishment.

Except that you had no intention of not giving me a private warning, so that statement is provably not true, at least in this case.

Because you have a habit of being less-than-cooperative when a "knock it off" is sent, especially if it's from someone you don't like - I can guarantee that if I try to tell you something, for example, the chance that I can get you to talk to me calmly about it is probably less than 5%.

You did not give me a chance to be co-operative, though.

In this case, sadly, it seems you would have been receptive to cooling it, but due to the reputation you have of basically being stubborn and not wanting to listen, we had already decided the informal was less likely to work and we wanted to get it across that we were serious - so the private was issued.

Which is exactly the problem. You assumed I would not listen, based on your false recollection of past outcomes (I have been stopped plenty of times by an informal warning), and conseqentially escalated a one-thread argument into a week-long angry rant.

If there's the mistake, it was this.

Well, I'm glad you can admit this, at least.

Which is why I'm trying to make it clear, if you make a greater effort to be calm and cooperative with us, we will make a greater effort to give you a little more leeway in how we treat you when the next problem arises. But it's going to need cooperation from both sides; it's not going to work if we go "Mike, chill out," and you go "I'm NOT going to chill out because I was clearly wronged." All that will do is result in us just going "Alright, it didn't work" and upping it accordingly, because our goal is to stop the threadshit.

Look, I can't promise that I will always be co-operative, but I will not always explode either, and if I do surely you can hand out a warning then. Giving me a formal warning will not stop me where an informal warning would not. If I object to being told to "chill out", I will definitely object to being given a warning for it.

If we come to you with something like this, the truth is it's still not set in stone. We can damn well reduce or even change our minds on punishments or cool-offs. It's always better to work with us; even if you're angry and don't feel it's justified, keeping a cool head and trying to explain yourself without turning it into authoritarianism or nazi accusations can go a long way. Again, we have no problem with civil arguments against these things, but stomping your feet and refusing to cooperate pretty much leaves us with no recourse.

Well, yes, I guess. The problem was that Hymn didn't seem inclined to actually listen to me. IIRC, my first PM in response was angry but not abusive. It's only after he refused to take note of my arguments that I got abusive towards him.

Honestly, it'd probably be better if, next time, you get someone who I don't already distrust to talk to me about it. I know they're all mods, but if they've made a collective decision, then there's no reason why the mod who originally handled it needs to be the one who conveys the decision.

See above. But in the future, hit the report button, or if you really feel it's ultra-urgent, send a PM to whatever mods and admins you see are on. (I'll probably up the limit on usernames to 10 so that you can do this; that should be enough to cover all the mods and admins on at any given time, as it's very rare for all eight mods plus four admins to be on at once.) Stuff like that can definitely sway opinion in your favor - "Mike sent us this PM... alright, this guy is clearly trying to get a rise out of him, let's give him a private."

Well, yeah, that makes sense (and I have sent PMs to the mods before), although at least some of the mods/admins are invisible (Altima included), so that wouldn't actually work for them.

Having said that, that was not a solution in this case. Hymn had already found the thread and told us to stop, so reporting Trev would have been superfluous.

Again, we're still not everywhere. The report function is good, but it depends on us checking our emails. PMing mods and admins should be an option you should also consider, especially if things are looking like they're close to boiling over. While I can't guarantee action will be taken, it will at least be looked into and discussed.

Well, yeah, of course. I am often rather wary of doing so, though, because I don't really trust your judgement enough that I don't expect to get a warning myself....

And again, probably our worst mistake was Hymn putting his message down like an informal warning.

Not really. The formal warning would have annoyed me just as much without that, and I'd have had the same issue here if he had not issued it.

What has already happened isn't going to change, so let's stop debating "if it was right or wrong" because if anything, both sides are a bit wrong and both sides are making valid arguments. Working out misunderstandings is something we'll both benefit from, and so that is now my goal.

Well, yeah, fair enough. Arguing over this is not going to help. However, explaining how we feel will.

And as I said above, if you're a bit more cooperative and conciliatory with us, this will also help you. Reputation can destroy a man too, after all.

Fair enough, but you never gave me that option....

You know them now - don't flame other people, regardless of PM/VM/Blog/Post/Usergroup, and if someone's trying to troll you, tell us rather than give them what they want by replying.

Well, yeah, that makes sense, and it is what I have usually been doing.

Furthermore, as we've stated all along, if your rules clash with our rules, we do expect our rules to take precedence. I understand you don't like that, but while you're using our forums, you are going to abide by our rules over yours. If you can't cope with this, then occasionally you're going to be punished when you're in contravention of them, but if you also ask us calmly to explain things when we say you have broken them, you will probably save yourself most of the grief, if not all of the grief.

Well, I suspect I'm going to get occasionally punished, then, because I don't follow arbitrary rules.

Having said that, "don't be a dick" is not really an unreasonable rule to follow, so I don't see a massive conflict there.

No, the impression we had is that you wouldn't react to the unofficial warning and so an official one was needed. Again, your reputation did you in here a bit - you tend not to take it very well, period, when most mods or admins try to exert any level of authority over you.

But that impression is not warrented. Sure, I don't like being told what to do, but I respond far better to being politely asked to stop than to being ordered around.

We also know that while you react strongly negatively to official warnings, it's also likely to get us the ultimate goal - stopping the threadshit.

But, that's not true, though. And, further, you then punished me for my reaction having deliberately acted to encourage said reaction.

Could it have been handled better? Yes, probably, especially if you're indicating the informal message would have worked. That's why I'm trying to make it clear that if you're willing to work with us on it, we'll not to be so forceful. We can't prevent this situation, but we can at least try to prevent future ones, and as long as there's mutual understanding and agreement, we will both generally get what we want - we will know you'll be more receptive to lighter suggestions, and you won't have to worry that we've got a bullseye on you.

Exactly.

I will not always respond perfectly to an informal warning, but usually I am not as bad as you make out.

Mind you, it's not always going to be the informal warning - sometimes, it warrants immediate private/public warnings, or even tempbans. The precise reason we're not "formalizing" the informal warning is because if we did, then people could game that endlessly.

Of course. Not every offense is the same, and people being able to game the system probably disadvantages me.

Again, offender history. The guy who doesn't have a rep for that is likely to get less punishment than the one who does.

But that is just unfair, especially when I have been calm recently.

Then I suggest you get in the habit of that when you see us asking you to cool it before you post a post of yours, because without that "I'll stop now," it can look very well like you're fully intending to continue the argument.

OK, fair enough.

Again, reputations can make or break people. Unfortunately, you have a rep for not being very conductive to a mod trying to talk with you about a problem, or lighter punishments working, so the harder punishments will work (because then you don't want to get banned) but with the downside of much vitrol to us. We do achieve our goal, though obviously we then have to deal with things like this for the next week or two.

But this is totally false, though. Harsher punishments don't work, often, because they anger me further, especially when I can actually justifiably say they are unfair like I could here. Conversely, Altima has managed to talk me down plenty of times, even if I do sometimes get angry.

If you're indicating you're more willing to work with us whenever there is a breach of the rules, I am telling you that we will likewise give you a little more leeway, but again, for it to work, you have to at least be willing to discuss it with us when we come to you with it, even if you feel you're being absolutely wronged - stomping your feet and saying "I'm not wrong, end of discussion!" tends to leave us little recourse. If we can agree to at least discussion before actions, it will probably work better for the both of us, provided you can keep a clear head about it and not degenerate as you tend to do when faced with authority.

Well, yeah, that does make sense, and as long as you're willing to talk to me reasonably rather than just threatening me, I have no problem with doing the same in reverse.

Wrong, but if we do have a problem with them, they're usually more likely to respond to us telling them to knock it off or us wanting to talk to them about a problem situation. As opposed to you, who... well, look at the language you just used.

But you never even gave me a chance.

If you keep thinking "the admins/mods are my enemy," you're going to make life here harder on yourself, because then we get to points like we're at now: We have a problem with you, we feel you won't respond to discussion or lighter punishment, so we go for heavier stuff.

And if you keep acting like my enemy, then I will keep believing you are....

If you treat me more harshly than other people because you think I'll react badly, and then punish me for reacting in the way you had expected and anticipated, how do you expect me to feel?

Working with us isn't "bending over and taking it." Working with us can save you probably 80% of the grief you have on these forums, if anything, because if you're willing to talk with us, we're not going to go for stiffer punishments immediately. If, on the other hand, we get told the equivalent of "Go piss off," well... why should we bother with anything but the stuff we know will make you stop?

But warning me is not going to "make me stop". Talking to me like a fellow person and not just jumping straight into threats is far more likely to do so.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but again, your reputation did you in.

Yes, and I'm starting to sound like a broken record too but, again, that is not remotely fair or reasonable.

However, since I do think it could have been handled better, and furthermore, you're indicating you WOULD be more receptive to it, I would like to take that new policy with you, because as long as you're able to discuss things with us without being automatically suspicious or accusatory, it could work well for all of us.

OK, good. I will try to avoid exploding at informal warnings. If it does happen occasionally, though, please don't assume it will happen every time and go back to just threatening me straight out.

The idea is that you don't explode at all. Even if the decision is "we're going to warn you, sorry," all exploding will do is make it worse.

Perhaps, but I am not the sort of person to keep silent when I've been wronged, no matter what the consequences. If you're not willing to be fair to me and actually talk to me like a person, then I will complain.

I'm sure it will sound like "bending over and taking it" again to you, but really, if you are getting punished, the best thing to do is really just to accept that it's going to happen and not make things worse for yourself.

Sorry, but I am not going to lie down and let you walk all over me.

Frantic Author sent me some VMs last night saying that he was actually surprised at how much we let him get away with, saying this was one of the most relaxed forums he's been to, and that most other forums would've banned him fast. It got to the point where he actually felt bad about it, and that's why he stopped - our leniency basically changed his ways.

Yeah, I saw that.

Honestly, I agree that you are more lenient than most forums. But, then, I think the mods on every other forum I've been on are complete wankers, by and large, so that doesn't really prove very much....

The simple fact, and I'm sure even you will agree with this, is that most places would've gotten rid of you long, long ago. The fact you are still here, allowed to say what you are, and generally only get stiffer punishments than warnings when you deserve it (and you do admit when you go over the line for tempbans) should pretty much prove we're one of the least authoritarian forums out there.

Again, I wouldn't argue with that, which is why I am still friends with Altima and Elf, and don't even totally blank you. But, my general opinion of moderators and admins (backed up by experience) is that they're fascist morons on a power trip, and this forum is the only one I've found which is at least usually a counter-example to that (well, excluding TFF, which doesn't have any mods). So, saying you're much better than the rest is like claiming your country is more liberal than any 13th century Kingdom....

You stop thinking we're authoritarian nazis, and we'll stop resorting to the harder punishments to start with unless it's clear that you deserve them. Fair deal?

Well, I can't help what I think. Ultimately, only how you act can change my opinion. However, if you're willing to treat me more fairly and not hand out warnings immediately (unless it's something that really does deserve it), then I will certainly be less likely to think of you that way. And, I will try to not treat you as enemies even when you are actually trying to be helpful.

Again, reputation... they don't usually pull that shit (Lyco has his own issues, but I'm not going to get into that).

Well, as you pointed out, Lyco kind-of does....

Furthermore, as I said above, if we really wanted to be authoritarian assholes, this blog would be gone, and you probably would've gotten tempbanned by now for complaining. Let's save the authoritarian vitrol for people who are actually authoritarian, shall we?

Well, yeah, I guess this is true. I have a pretty broad definition of "authoritarian", though, which notably includes the British government despite them allowing peopel to criticise them.

And again, that is because in our general experience (after all, it's not like the Mods haven't seen your blow-ups before they were mods), the "nice" way tends to get us a "Fuck off, you're not going to tell me what to do."

Really?

Do you have any examples of that?

If it's going to work now, great, then let's try to make it that way from now on. Meet us halfway and we'll extend the same courtesy to you from now on.

Well, I will certainly try to work with you. I can't promise I will never disagree with you or explode, but I will try not to.

You want authoritarian? Go look at North Korea, or the USSR, or, in some ways, China. Those are authoritarian societies, sir. They don't even let you have a voice. The very fact this blog entry is still up and that I'm using my time to reply to your points instead of deleting them proves that we're not authoritarian, so stop treating us like we are.

Well, no, strictly speaking it proves you are less authoritarian....

I really can't stress this enough. Much as you're tired of "feeling targeted," I'm tired of being called something I'm not. If I wanted to be an authoritarian asshole, believe me - you'd know it.

Well, yeah, that's understandable....

And again, I will blame that on the reputation you have for usually handling informal things poorly. If you're willing to work with us on proving that you're more open to those, then we will likewise try not to be so assumptive of "How will Mike handle this? Is he going to explode or not?"

I'm not really sure where that "reputation" even came from, though. I do explode sometimes, yes, but I also explode at formal warnings. Indeed, the explosion I got a three-day ban for was caused by Altima giving me a formal warning without talking to me first, and me losing total control of my anger as a result.

Which is why I'm trying to make our position clear now, so that in the future, messes like this can be avoided. If we know you're going to put up things like "Alright, I'll stop" if a post comes after a mod posts to stop, we know you're not going to keep it going past that point - we can then consider the matter settled, unless, of course, it doesn't settle itself. Likewise, if we can come to you about a problem without having an 80% chance of being told to piss off, it makes us more willing to go to that step of coming to you with problems.

OK, fair enough. I will try to do such things in the future (although I have usually done so in the past too).

I do want to reiterate again, however, that you shouldn't expect us to come to you with an informal every time there is something with you. Some things will flat-out qualify for a private or higher, and I don't want to get you into the thinking of "No matter how bad I am, they're going to talk with me about it." While we probably will, really flagrant violations can go higher up on the list, and we have made that clear in the last revision of the rules (it will be made even clearer in the next one, if we can).

Yeah, sure, I fully accept that. To expect you to treat every offense equally would just be absurd. However, I do expect every person to be treated fairly, and not to be judged on "reputation" rather than on their true nature or their actual posts.

Usually, your problems aren't serious enough to go right to tempban territory, but occasionally if you really lose your cool, they may well go into the warning categories immediately. But you are improving keeping your cool, so hopefully this decreases.

Yeah, of course. As long as it's actually fair, I have no problem with that (although that doesn't mean I won't be angry at the time...).

As I said, it could have been handled better. I would like to do that from now on, but since a good deal of it is due to how you tend to act when confronted by authority, we need to know that if we do have a problem with you, that you're at least willing to discuss it without telling us to go screw within a few messages. If you can agree to that, we will at least extend you this in kind.

Well, I will make every effort to discuss it reasonably and without just sending angry flames. I understand that it's not really fair for you to have to deal with abuse just because I'm unhappy with the way you're doing the job, and even I accept the need for some moderation.

The anger is something you do have to keep in mind, yes. While I won't punish you, per se, for anything you tell me over MSN, I'm also not going to bind myself by the rules that I bind myself to here - on MSN, you would be dealing strictly with Dark Pulse the person, and Dark Pulse the person doesn't put up with some of the shit that Dark Pulse the admin must put up with for the sake of the community.

Well, of course.

I am entirely open to civil communication. If it begins getting angry and insulting, I will tell you to stop. If it does not stop, I will simply ignore you after awhile, and if it is really that offensive, a block, either temporary or permanent, will happen.

I'm not going to block you or ignore you here, out of necessity, but also because it's not fair to do that since you can't block or ignore me. But MSN is "off-board," and so I hold it to a totally different set of rules.

Yeah, that makes sense.

With that knowldge in mind, it's up to you what you want to do, in regards for MSN. I expect you to not be directly insulting to a person either way, but MSN is off-board, so even if you're vitrolic as hell, I'm not going to punish you on the board for things you say on it. I may, however, block you if it's bad enough, and then you would have to go through the board and the rules that are set for it if you wish to communicate me from then on. I can take a good deal of abuse, but even I have limits.

Well, yeah, I can be very insulting on MSN when I'm angry. Like you say, though, it would be unreasonable to punish me on the board for something I say there.

Very well, then talk to them after you've cooled off. Surely you have ways to dissipate your anger other than a rant, or a hostile PM?

Well, usually by ranting at Altima....

If you know you're going to be angry and you know it'll be bad if you reply, that's good, because it means you're aware of your anger. Step two is then getting rid of that anger, so that once it's gone, you can go to step three: Presenting your side of the story, in a much calmer, collected, and coolheaded way. Believe it or not, that might sway us. One time I warned Kratosirving over a situation, and he replied to me very calmly and met my points with points of his own. I thought it over and reversed my decision - and his punishment - a day or two later.

Yeah, that does make sense. It's just not easy to do, especially when it doesn't seem like you're going to be receptive (as it did with Hymn).

Punishments aren't set in stone, Mike. They never are. Indeed, I'm already feeling a little bad over how this situation was handled, so I'm going to strive to change it in the future, because that's the right thing to do.

OK, fair enough. As much as I'd like the warning I got here revoked, I can live with it remaining if you are willing to see my side and deal with it differently next time around, and I'm willing to attempt to discuss things more calmly.

It would help us greatly if you could, likewise, not be so hostile to a mod or an admin questioning you. Perhaps the hostility is only imagined on our part, but if that's how we're thinking, it's proof we're at a disconnect and we need to change it. Unfortunately, I can't make you work with us; that's something you have to do. But if you're willing to try, so are we.

Well, it is true that I often act "hostile", although the fact that it was Hymn warning me and the way he acted didn't encourage me to act otherwise. I'll try my hardest to avoid acting like that in future. However, it is also true that I can sometimes come across as "hostile" even when I'm not, due to the very blunt manner in which I speak.

Perceptions cloud judgment... on both sides. Let's strive to eliminate it in the future.

Yeah, definitely. This entire thing was pretty much caused by the false perceptions that both sides had of the other....

[quote]Or worse, that you couldn't take action against those you see as friends.[/quore]

Actually, that's not true. I am generally a fair person, so I wouldn't let someone off just because they're a "friend". Having said that, I'd be lenient enough that someone who I felt deserved punishment would probably not be a friend for long....

No, not really, because everyone explodes once in awhile. What I'd like to do is make that as minimal as possible... and ideally, to reduce the anger to the point where you might be mad, but you're not resorting to namecalling.

Exactly.

So, then, why treat me more harshly just because I explode more often than most?

Then we need to make sure it stops with the informals, so that we don't have to go to the formals.

Fair enough.

Not really. If it's directed at another, actual person, then it's name-calling. You can think I'm an asshole all you want, you can even say my ideas are nonsense - but if you call me a cunt whose ideas are bullshit... that's the difference, mate.

Well, perhaps, but it's often hard to make an argument without implying something bad about the person you're arguing with....

And that's good, because it means we can get our points across and be reasonably sure the other side is going to listen to them. That makes for a more conductive argument, period.

Yeah, this is true.

Again, perception clouds judgment. I don't think we need to remind you that when it comes to you "versus" us, we are usually at impasses - you feel we're too strict, and we feel we can't give you any leniency because if we do, you're just going to tell us to shove off.

You're seeing this in totally the wrong way, though. The stricter you are, the more likely I am to just tell you to "shove off". Indeed, if you're too strict, I end up going totally off the deep end and deliberately making a nuisance of myself, like I did when I got the three-day ban and like I did to Beam a few days back.

If we can agree to work together, this will clear lots of misunderstanding. Then this way if an issue comes up, we can trust that if we come to you, you're not going to automatically shrug us off, and likewise, you don't have to worry that if we're coming to you, it's for a punishment that's guaranteed set in stone.

Well, I will make every effort to remember this, and not to assume you will not listen to me and explode before even giving you a chance to explain yourself.

Good, then we're in agreement. Let's hope this is the last time such a flare-up occurs.

Yeah.

Correct. Our mistake was thinking you were inapproachable, but to be fair, you tend not to be very happy when we confront you on anything, so it's not entirely without justification.

Well, this is true, but you have to "confront" me to hand out a warning, so your reasoning is somewhat flawed here.

Ergo, if you will strive to be more open with us when we try to talk with you, we will try more polite means of resolving disputes first.

I will try to do so, and not to just shout abuse as soon as a mod tries to talk to me.

We're only human. It happens. If you really did mess up, either delete the post (to avoid inflaming the situation entirely) or, if for some reason you don't want to delete the post, at least edit it with an apology or something, or put it in a new post if you want. Little things like that DO help your cause. Knowing you get angry and admitting you get angry is good, but apologizing for your actions is also something that can really change how people see you. It doesn't excuse the behavior, and I'm sure you know that, but at least then people can say "At least Mike owns up when he makes a mistake."

Yeah, I guess, although I often don't realise that there's anything even wrong with it. And, that doesn't only apply when I do it, either (I didn't see anything wrong with Trev calling me an asshole a few days before, hence why I didn't report it).

Good, but that means also letting us explain why before you make the judgment. Admittedly, it's one thing to say you will do this, but it's another if your reply to it when a mod says something is "That's a bunch of bullshit."

Yeah, true, I guess.

And then you decided "Not worth the trouble or the increased problems" and nuked it. Which is good. We did notice you had posted it, and then we noticed you also nuked it, which is good, because that probably would have moved you up to a public warning had it stayed (since by the time you'd posted it, you were being fully nasty over those PMs).

Well, yeah, although it was a very close-run thing that I calmed down in time to see sense, plus I found a better place to post it. Certainly, it proves that the warning did not stop me, and a public warning would probably have inflamed me further, to the point that I'd have probably got banned.

It shows you have some self-restraint and are able to "self-censor" a bit, and that's why I think we can improve our communication. We're willing to do our best in that regard, as long as you're also willing to make a committed effort. We may not agree on everything - indeed, it'd be strange if we did - but at least this way, issues don't become major problems.

I do have self-restraint, but when I'm angry enough, it tends to go away somewhat. Giving me a formal warning is likely to reduce it, not improve it, in general.

Well yes, but admittedly, when you put a post after a mod says "knock it off" (because you didn't know they were posting), look at it from our point of view - it looks like you're completely and totally ignoring our request. That's why I said at least editing it to say "Sorry, I didn't see Beam's request until after I posted, I'll stop now" will make things much clearer and easier on us.

Well, yeah, true, I guess.

Granted, please don't use this an excuse to get the "last shot in." We expect you to be somewhat reasonable. Something that happens within ten or twenty minutes, depending on the length of the post, is understandable. If it's an hour later, it'd better be a damn long post, or you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Well, yeah, I guess....

I don't dislike your person... more like I dislike your attitude and having to deal with it. But I do so because that's my job, and because it's not fair to you if I just blow you off.

Well, I have to admit that I don't like you at all, but you are still around, so I don't have much choice but to work with you.

Regardless, we both have to work together if we want to solve our problems, so that's what I strive to do. Either way, if we can't talk to the other, this situation isn't going to improve at all, and I think we both can agree on that.

Yeah, true....

We don't expect you to click your heels and yes-sir up immediately, which is why I said there's bound to be some bumps, but as long as we can keep communication open, I think we will manage to smooth over most of them. We need to eliminate both stigmas - that talking to you isn't very effective (from our end) and that we're out to get you (from yours). If we can't do this, we're just going to keep repeating these sorts of things over and over, and I'm pretty sure we're both sick of them.

Fair enough. As long as you're willing to be fair, I'm sure we can work together.

Perhaps not, but at least now you know our thinking - part "repeat offender," part "probably won't listen." To me, that's more of the issue than the warning, because now we're generally coming to a conclusion that there is a communicatory disconnect. To me, that's the most important thing to fix, because if we can't, we're just going to be back here within three months, yet again, wasting both our times.

Yeah, pretty much. As long as the underlying problem is resolved, I can live with the warning not being revoked.

But that would also get you a stiffer punishment, which is a bit harder to deny. It also causes more headaches for you (and for us) and ultimately neither of us wants that.

Of course, but it's more likely if you punish me in a manner which I consider unjust.

Well, it's a more careful line we have to toe. After all, should we apply this to everyone? How much leeway/insulting should we "allow" before we step in? Furthermore, what about new posters who are coming in, and they post a fanfic that's very amateur? Should we allow someone to come in and tell them their work sucks a donkey dick?

The better solution, even if a bit more stifling, is to not allow that sort of thing to go on. I'm pretty damn liberal too - but as I said, there are some things where it is better to be a little more locked down than others. How you treat your fellow forumites, to me, is a big one, because the last thing we need to do is scare new people away just because there's rules that say you can be a little insulting until a mod says "that's enough."

The problem is that sometimes you need to tell them that their work "sucks a donkey dick", or they just don't get the message....

If they're a repeat offender, they definitely don't get slaps on the wrist. Again, there has to be a little wiggle room, and "frequency of this type of infraction" is one of the factors in that. Tech doesn't tend to do that, so he just got told "Don't do it again."

That's absurd, though, for the sort of infringement you're considering here. People getting angry just happens, and the fact that someone gets angry more often does not justify punishing them more harshly when they do.

Make no mistake, we do keep track of stuff. We know who are generally more problematic in what situations. Was it bad we didn't talk to you about it? Sure, but it's probably just as bad that we feel we can't talk to you.

When the mods can't talk to you because you accused them all of being in a clique who's out to get you in trouble, we're all in seriously hot water - we can't have that anymore. We need to be able to talk to you, and you need to be able to talk to us. If we can't do this, then we're going to get absolutely nowhere.

Well, yeah, I guess. However, you've hardly made life easier by not even trying to talk to me....

Part of it was admittedly how you reacted to the new mods. Accusing them of all being out to get you, and that I picked them just to get you banned? Come on, man. Give me a break.

Well, to be fair, they did seem like a group which wasn't exactly "pro-Mike". Further, if they felt that I didn't trust them, the last thing they should do is give me reason not to do so....

The other part of it is because most of them feared if they tried to talk to you, they'd just get some angry message back - which would just cause them to enact the private anyway, so the general consensus was "just do it." We see now it should have been done differently, but before we can change how we act towards you, you also have to be willing to give us a little more comfort and openness in trying to talk with you.

Well, I can understand that, but they were going to get an angry message back either way, so why not give me a chance first?

That's why I'm making it clear, if you're willing to be more open to talking with us when issues arise, we will also be more open when situations arise with you. That's the only way we're ever going to prevent situations like this from continuing cyclically, and it's going to require cooperation from both sides.

And I will at least try to respond reasonably.

Ultimately, in time, I think you can get to "where we want you to be," but with it feeling natural for you. Is it always going to be smooth? No, especially since you're clashing against long-term beliefs and stances you hold, but if we can communicate the differences, at least then we can get it to a gentleman's agreement and make all our lives easier. This, in turn, will help your own reputation immensely.

Yeah, perhaps, and shouting abuse at people and getting angry at everything isn't generally a good way to react anyway, so....

What ended up getting you moved was our own gun-shyness in trying to talk it over with you. We can't have that anymore.

Yep, exactly.

Which is why if we can talk to you, this will pretty much resolve itself; at the same time, whether or not we punish other people for an offense is admittedly none of your business.

Whether other people get punished is indeed none of my business, but whether or not you are being fair and even-handed is.

We knew Tech would be receptive to knock it off; we hedged a bet on that you generally aren't and in this case we bet wrong. If we can talk to you, we have a much higher chance of getting it right and clearing up any misconceptions on either side.

OK, fair enough, I just wish you'd been more willing to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Admittedly not, no. But if you're willing to talk with us over stuff, and we don't have to worry about you biting our heads off whenever we have a problem with you, it will benefit both of us in the long run.

Yeah, definitely.

...Four times now. Can we drop some of these points already?

Well, I tried to drop some of the repetition....

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The problem is that sometimes you need to tell them that their work "sucks a donkey dick", or they just don't get the message....

Now hey, that's harsh.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

will try to do so, and

Yeah, but on the other hand, it cant be expected to always fall into the same process of action.

Whoa.

Eh, what?

Not really anything, just a lot of typing.

Oh, and another thing, too.

You seem not to have distinguished between me refusing to take notice of mods arbitrarily acting to stop perfectly civil conversations just because they thing they might lead to an argument and me shouting abuse at a mod for attempting to stop a flame war. I most certainly do do the first, but I don't see why I shouldn't do that when they have no justification for stopping the conversation in the first place. On the other hand, the second is far more reasonable, and I do take account of mods when they do that.