Mike1984

Techlology's warnings is Techlology's business, not Mike1984's business. They're also not public record until we move to the official public warning level.

We are not going to discuss individual user punishment with other users. That is an invasion of privacy.

I will say that Beam and Techlology have talked, and the matter has been settled. Past that, I am not going to elaborate further.

Isn't there some kind of limit on how many kinds of these blogs one can make?


Quick answer and dirty answer, how the mods handle other people privately, and there was a private conversation with tech on the matter, isn't any of your business, so butt out, and that's really the extent of the conversation there is going to be on someone elses punishment.

Right, so, in other words, your "crackdown" only applies to me? And, when I complain, you just hide behind "privacy"?

I can understand that (aside from the fact that Beam stated in the thread that no warning was given...), but it doesn't make the outcome any less inconsistent. And, as usual, I just get fobbed off with bullshit, because you can't fucking justify your decision and you know you cannot.

Oh and, to top it off, Tobias is now trying to censor me, because he can't accept that he is wrong, and is just trying to hide behind his "authority".

Mike, I already told you as much as I could say on the matter, which quite frankly I probably shouldn't have done in the first place because what happens with Tech is Tech's business, and what happens with you is your business.

If you truly feel there was some misunderstanding or something overlooked in your case, gather your evidence and present it to the admins. If you feel I made the wrong call, say so and I'll stand before the admins and be evaluated on my performance. That's really all there is to it in this case.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Right, so, in other words, your "crackdown" only applies to me? And, when I complain, you just hide behind "privacy"?

I can understand that (aside from the fact that Beam stated in the thread that no warning was given...), but it doesn't make the outcome any less inconsistent. And, as usual, I just get fobbed off with bullshit, because you can't fucking justify your decision and you know you cannot.

Wrong.

Simply put, Techlology will stop if we tell him "please stop posting like that." You will not. Techlology does not usually use outbursts like that. You will when you get angry enough. Techlology does not have a pattern of being rude or offensive in general; Mike1984 starts calling people assholes, tyrants, or nazis anytime he is angry at someone.

We are not trying to vilify you, but at the same time, you do not do yourself any sorts of favors since your pattern of behavior is considerably aggressive when you feel wronged, to the point that it's borderline hostile.

Therefore, while Techlology's issues will be settled by a simple "knock it off" or "that was uncalled for," those do not work with you, Mike. If we try that, probably among the first two dozen words will be "I will not knock it off," so why bother telling you to cool off when you will make it very clear you will not cool off unless we actually have to go through official warnings?

We are, simply put, trying to make these forums better for everyone. For some people, a simple, informal "chill out" will work. For others, we have to go to warning levels. For some people who just didn't get it (like Frantic Author or Kyte on occasion) we had to take it to tempban levels. For those who really don't get it, the perms are there, though thankfully nobody's gotten to that level... yet.

It's all fine and dandy to question how we handle it, but simply put, informal "cool it" doesn't work with you. You will question why we are telling you to cool it in the first place, you will generally flat-out refuse to cool it, and so our only recourse is to begin with the warnings, which will make you complain about the warning but generally will cause you to stop the aggressive behavior towards the person who you were being insulting towards, which is the ultimate goal. It means you get mad at us, but oh well, that's life. We'll take the heat so that the person on the forums doesn't have to.

Now, how long are you going to make this a point of contention? We do what we do, and hand out the levels of punishment we hand out, for a reason. Simply put, "Cool it" works with Techlology. "Cool it" NEVER works with Mike1984. This is why Techlology got an informal message, and why with you, we pretty much have to start at the private warning level.

I'd love for you to prove me wrong on that point, because really, if all we needed to tell you to do was to knock it off, and you would listen, things would be much, much easier on the forums - and our moderation - as a whole.

Sorry, but that is just plain bollocks.

The warning I got came without me continuing anything. Hymn just immediately handed me a warning without giving me a chance to "stop". Further, the warning was for the "insult", which was exactly what happened there.

Further, you are admitting to a bias against me here. That is just plain not on. You are handing me warnings because you don't think I'll shut up, without even giving me the opportunity. You're basically saying that you're handing out warnings just to draw the flak, without taking any account of the fact that warnings have an actual effect.

Oh, and further, you do not "take the heat". Poor old Altima "takes the heat", because if I try to complain to anyone else, I get punished further, as what happened previously makes abundantly clear. So, even that argument does not hold water any more.

This is just a fucking joke.

wow DP, great job at communicating. didn't know your real name was peter parker...

Hey guys I just met you and this is crazy but

You all sound really pissed

So watch some magical girl anime and calm down maybe? (Speaking seriously, however; Quite honestly you guys' posts are looking a tad rude, so calm down a bit before continuing with the argument. Making valid points won't matter much if it turns into a shit-flinging contest, hmmm?)

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Sorry, but that is just plain bollocks.

The warning I got came without me continuing anything. Hymn just immediately handed me a warning without giving me a chance to "stop". Further, the warning was for the "insult", which was exactly what happened there.

Further, you are admitting to a bias against me here. That is just plain not on. You are handing me warnings because you don't think I'll shut up, without even giving me the opportunity. You're basically saying that you're handing out warnings just to draw the flak, without taking any account of the fact that warnings have an actual effect.

This is just a fucking joke.

There we go. Seven words in and you're already saying it's bullshit. Thank you for pretty much proving my point. This is exactly what I am talking about.

I'll make it very clear, then, since you seem to be missing it: You have a point of very aggressive, hostile behavior when you are angry. There is a pattern that whenever you are angry, the swearing and flaming begins.

If Hymn told you "Mike, please stop," you would've pretty much told him what you just told me above. It would've started as something like "I absolutely will NOT stop..." and while you would've gone into why you didn't feel you should have to stop, that essentially doesn't matter - you're refusing to obey our request, which would have been a polite and informal one. We both know this, Mike. It's not like any of the admins (or probably any of the mods) are strangers to how you post when you get angry and feel wronged.

Therefore, for people who present a pattern of negative behavior - which is not just you, by the way, Frantic also counts as this - it pretty much does skip the informal levels and goes right into formal warnings. Actually, technically, the "informal" isn't even an official level (you will note that the warning system starts at private warnings) so really, the mods handing out informal "knock it off" means they're actually being much nicer and NOT trying to warn everyone for every little infraction.

Unfortunately, informal will not work with you, Mike. If we even try to give you something informal, you will see it as abuse of authority, denying your voice, mod/admin tyranny, abuse of power, however you want to call it that day. It just won't work, so we just begin at the lowest official step and work up from there as necessary.

On the other hand, you say that "We won't give you the opportunity." Fine. Let's try it, Mike. If you say you can do this, we'll try it. One of these days, when something comes up with you that is debated as to how to handle the situation, I will point out this particular blogpost, and that particular reply, and I will tell them to try an informal warning.

I am admittedly not very convinced it will work, but if it does, great! Then it just means we need to be able to tell you to cool off and you will cool off. I would love it if it was that simple. You think I like writing these long posts? You think I enjoy having to tell other people to knock it off because they're amused every time you put up a blog entry? (They know who they are, by the way, so if you're reading this, don't even think about it!) To me it's about as fun as chewing aluminum foil.

Also, warnings are just that - warnings, a thing to remind you to be mindful of your behavior towards people. You have issues with that, because you seem to think that warnings are SERIOUS BUSINESS. They're not. You also yourself generally admit that, you have issues with your behavior (you've posted more than once that you get angry and fly off the handle) so let's not pretend you're the innocent victim here.

Warnings are an attempt to correct negative behaviors we do not want to see on these boards; when warnings fail, tempbans kick in; when tempbans fail, there's the big P. You may view it how you do, but as I said, I need to keep this forum better for everyone. That means settling disputes when they pop up... and if a simple, polite "settle down" doesn't work, it means drawing out the bigger guns. Just because you admit "I can be aggressive and hostile" doesn't justify or excuse it, Mike. You have to want to change it, and if you cannot change it, we have to try to force you to, because we are not going to tolerate abuse or hostility from anyone - not you, not Tech, not Frantic. Nobody.

Again, if you can prove me wrong, and say that you are receptive to informal warnings, we'll try it. It might be the next time you're considered for it, it might be six months from now. But we'll try it, and we'll see if you will remember that reply in this blog at that time.

We will, Mike. Will you?

It is true that I do have an issue with getting angry, and it is also true that I don't always stop immediately after being told to do so (although I am by no means the only one who does that) . However, Hymn had already posted "stop", and then PM'd me with a warning without even giving me a chance. I had actually had no intention whatsoever to continue with that argument from there (after Hymn had posted), but he gave me a warning for the insult, with no mention of continuation of the argument.

And, yes, I am aware that the informal warnings are "being nicer", but that's the issue. You let other people off, but hit me at the first opportunity, which is just plain unfair and benefits the people who are trolling me. Further, in the process, you annoy me further, and make me more inclined to continue. Punishing me does not work, because it makes me feel more wronged, and makes me lash out further. Talking to me sensibly and giving me a reason why I should stop works far better.

Further, it is not at all true that I see an "informal warning" as "abuse of power", unless it's done in a way that quite patently is an abuse of power (like someone saying "we should stop this here" in an argument they are part of, and expecting to get the last word as a result). Informal warnings are, IMO, pretty much what the mods are there for (although other people can also say "calm down"). And, Altima has said that to me plenty of times, and it usually does work. Perhaps not instantly, but such a warning does curtail the argument.

I won't say that an informal warning will always work, but it does work. There are plenty of situations where such a thing has stopped me, even if that is occasionally only because the other side heeds it....

You are just making the assumption that I am not responsive to them, when in reality it does stop the argument, even if not instantly (which, BTW, it didn't do in that thread either). You refuse to even give me a chance as a result, even when I've gotten angry and may have calmed down by the time the mods show up.

Further, how the hell has this strategy improved things? Instead of a couple of extra posts on the thread, you've had three days of me shouting angrily at everyone and making angry threads.

Finally, you say "warnings are just warnings", but they do have an effect. If I get enough, I get banned and, further, you don't even tell me when they've gone. They are a punishment and, consequentially, far more likely to piss me off than just politely asking me to knock it off is.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

It is true that I do have an issue with getting angry, and it is also true that I don't always stop immediately after being told to do so (although I am by no means the only one who does that) . However, Hymn had already posted "stop", and then PM'd me with a warning without even giving me a chance. I had actually had no intention whatsoever to continue with that argument from there (after Hymn had posted), but he gave me a warning for the insult, with no mention of continuation of the argument.

Then you should've simply told him "I am going to stop, this won't be a further issue." Bam, done. Instead, you got accusatory and suspicious - which is precisely the wrong way to reply to that.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And, yes, I am aware that the informal warnings are "being nicer", but that's the issue. You let other people off, but hit me at the first opportunity, which is just plain unfair and benefits the people who are trolling me. Further, in the process, you annoy me further, and make me more inclined to continue. Punishing me does not work, because it makes me feel more wronged, and makes me lash out further. Talking to me sensibly and giving me a reason why I should stop works far better.

Again, you do have a bit of a pattern, so that does naturally mean we are a bit less likely to be loose with you. Again, I'd love to have my perception changed, but in my personal experience, the gentle way tends not to work with you. As you just said above, you were intending to stop it, and then Hymn PMed you, saying that if it didn't stop, you were going to get a warning. Instead of totally defusing the situation by saying "I planned to stop," you began getting hostile and suspicious of him - and you got warned for it. This is the other point I'm trying to make; when the authority comes in, you kind of wind up working against them. Perhaps you don't mean to, but really, we can't control how you act - we can only put up sanctions against behavior we don't want to see. You're the one who's ultimately responsible for how you react to anything.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Further, it is not at all true that I see an "informal warning" as "abuse of power", unless it's done in a way that quite patently is an abuse of power (like someone saying "we should stop this here" in an argument they are part of, and expecting to get the last word as a result). Informal warnings are, IMO, pretty much what the mods are there for (although other people can also say "calm down"). And, Altima has said that to me plenty of times, and it usually does work. Perhaps not instantly, but such a warning does curtail the argument.

Why do you care so much about "who gets the last word?" This is also part of the problem. Stop means stop - for everyone. Drop the damn argument, period. The last person who posts their thought before a mod comes in doesn't "automatically win" - the fact that a mod had to come in at all means everyone lost. If there's one thing you can do that will help you in the long run, it's "Stop trying to get the last word." That is part of what gives you the impression that you can be very pushy and forceful.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I won't say that an informal warning will always work, but it does work. There are plenty of situations where such a thing has stopped me, even if that is occasionally only because the other side heeds it....

And sometimes, it is you who has to heed it. Again, you seem to like to get the last word, perhaps so you can feel "victorious" somehow, but really, stop means stop. It doesn't mean "put in your last points of argument," it doesn't mean "summarize all your points above" - it means stop friggin' arguing whatever it is that's being argued, because it's getting out of hand.

It's not fair that we can stop other people, and they will stop, but if we ask you to stop, you will fight it tooth and claw until we have to dig into the warning bin, and then you will stop because you have been warned, and will then stew due to it for a few weeks. It would be much easier - on both us and on you as well - if you would just heed our requests, and perhaps when you've calmed down a little, then try to restructure your argument into something that is not quite as "aggressive" for lack of a better word. Arguments quickly degenerate when they become heated; calm, controlled arguments, on the other hand, tend to work far better at swaying people than just instantly going "No, you're wrong, here's why" and gainsaying everything the other person says.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

You are just making the assumption that I am not responsive to them, when in reality it does stop the argument, even if not instantly (which, BTW, it didn't do in that thread either). You refuse to even give me a chance as a result, even when I've gotten angry and may have calmed down by the time the mods show up.

Then that is the disconnect. When we say stop, we mean stop - now. It doesn't mean "stop it in a few posts," it doesn't mean "stop it after your next post," it means drop the damn thing because it's getting out of control, and it does mean to do it immediately. This doesn't help you, because it gives the perception that you are not stopping or listening and are instead continuing to argue, and thus not listening to what we are asking you to do.

If you can stop when we ask you to stop, then this will probably also help you in the long run. This goes hand-in-hand with what I said above, about not always trying to get the last word in. You have a very, very bad habit of this, and in situations when a mod has stepped in, this is going to shoot you in the foot more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Further, how the hell has this strategy improved things? Instead of a couple of extra posts on the thread, you've had three days of me shouting angrily at everyone and making angry threads.

It has improved the forum as a whole. It hasn't resolved every issue, but in general, the amount of hostility and anger on the forums has sharply reduced. To me, this means it is overall successful. Furthermore, you are (and generally always have been) the only one to make such a big stink over the mod choices - let's not forget, even before they started moderating, you called them the "Anti-Mike Clique." I think virtually everyone else is just fine with the job they're doing.

Furthermore, again, I can't control how you respond to what we do - only you can. And so since I can't control how calm or angry you are, I do the next-best thing: I try to discuss why we do what we do, how we do it, why we warned you while we didn't warn another guy. Even if it seems unfair and biased to you, there are some things that I know will work with you, and some that I know will not work with you. Let's continue using the example in your above comment: You said "informal warnings do work, just not immediately." The problem is when we tell you "stop," we're expecting you to stop - immediately, not in one post or in five posts. You continue, therefore to us, the informal warnings don't work, so we will go to one that does work - the formal warning. This stops you, and it makes you shift your anger to us instead, but well, we'll swallow the poison.

Our goal is to stop the argument. If that's what it takes, c'est la vie. If you can stop it without us having to go to that level and have you angry for days on end, we'd absolutely love it. If you can meet us halfway on this, it'll be better for everyone - you won't have to be angry at us, and we won't have to hand out warnings to you as a matter of due course because you're not as receptive to our attempts to stop or correct something without going to actual levels of punishment.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Finally, you say "warnings are just warnings", but they do have an effect. If I get enough, I get banned and, further, you don't even tell me when they've gone. They are a punishment and, consequentially, far more likely to piss me off than just politely asking me to knock it off is.

But they also correct and make you more mindful of your behavior, which is the goal. What you view as "being on tiptoe" is really kind of the point - it's to make you more aware you may be doing things not exactly A-OK with the general ruleset of the forums, and ultimately, that stops the behavior that we do not want to see continued.

That said, again, if you're a bit more mindful of our requests, we might not have to warn you as much. Ideally, we don't have to warn you at all - All we have to say is "come on guys, knock it off," and then both parties drop the argument, and then everything is settled, done, over with, and no longer a problem.

Unfortunately, right now, you've admitted yourself that you feel the need to get in "the last word" on any sort of argument, even in the face of a mod telling you to stop. This is something that isn't going to fly with us; when we say stop, we do mean stop. It means the argument has gone too far and it needs to end, now. I know you don't like authority and all in general, but if a police officer tells you "Get on your stomach and spread your hands," are you going to tell them you won't do that? Granted, they will only do that if they see you as some kind of threat - if something's just strange, but not dangerous or hostile, they may want to talk to you, but they won't make you assume the position on the spot.

So it goes with this. You say you are capable of this, and I'd like to believe you. I'm more than willing to meet people halfway on lots of things, but at the same time, if they want me to fulfill my end of the bargain, I am going to expect them to meet theirs. In your case, then, it sounds like when can boil it down to three things:

• If a mod is saying "stop doing this," just stop. Ask them why privately (and politely) if you'd like, but don't take it like them trying to muscle their way in, and definitely don't assume they're out to get you, or to deny you your right to argue a view. If they're telling you to stop, it means the argument, for some reason or another, is no longer an argument but a shouting match. At best, it needs to be restructured; at worst, it just plain needs to stop completely and totally.
• Don't feel the need to "win the argument." Again, if a mod has requested an argument end or a behavior stop, that means stop it, and stop it then and there. If you really feel the need to continue the argument, ask the mod why they wanted it stopped, use what they say as feedback, restructure and then reintroduce the argument in a different way, one not so "against the rules."
• Don't automatically assume "if a mod is here, they're out to get me." Mods care about the actual things going on, not the users, but admittedly the users can affect how severe a punishment is handed out. Anything up to and including a public warning is in the mods' power, at their discretion, but generally speaking unless it's an absolutely, flagrant violation, they tend to talk with their other mods (and often with the admins) as well. The main goal of the mod, however, is to end whatever is the problem - so if it's an argument, and one person will back down to an informal message, but the other feels the need to continue because he wants to get the last word in... well, do you see where this is going?

Hopefully this helps you. It gives you a better image of what we expect, and since you say you are capable of cooling your jets, you now know what sort of criteria we consider whenever mods step in. Armed with this knowledge, you now know why Techlology got only an informal warning - because he has no consistent record of that sort of behavior, and because he will stop when we ask him to - versus you, who might stop, but only after he gets the last word in, and if anyone comes to him asking him to stop, he will immediately suspect their motives and aggravate further.

If, on the other hand, you're more than willing to meet us halfway, we don't have to warn you at all - a simple "Settle down, Mike" will be met with an "alright, sorry," and that's the end of it. No warnings, no punishments, everyone's happy, and if you really feel the need to continue the argument, you can do so in a matter that's calm, collected, not tainted by anger or extreme feelings - and overall that will make your arguments stronger, more persuasive, and not looking like you're just trying to force your view on someone.

Really, you gain far more than you lose, if you just heed what we say and reel yourself in a bit. If you're willing to try to do so (and we understand you will slip up from time to time - we will work with you on this, if we see you're seriously trying to change), we're more than willing to do "as little punishing as possible" because we hate looking like the bad guys, too.

I really don't see an argument here. All I see is someone still complaining about a rash that just won't go away no matter what.

Mike, get on with your life. Your acting like its the fucking end of the world for Christ's sake.

Did you ever consider that your having a pissing contest with people who have gotten their problems resolved without them getting a warning? And here you are getting mad about it.

God, you're like a poodle. Completely non-threatening and easy to provoke.

You know what? If your going to continue this griping, fine. There is never going to be a place in the sun nice and warm for you ever again around here.

Go revel in your complacency elsewhere.

I got two warnings yesteday. should i write a blog about them?

Everyone should write about their warnings. We can form a support group.

I just wrote a blog entry to address the problems i'm seeing on this forum.

You know, by Occam's Razor, Tech probably did get a warning. He just didn't publicize it.

Vel: But I don't have warnings, only tempbans! I feel discriminated ;_;

Btw, DP: Should you, y'know, not modify the process depending on the person? If an informal "cool off" doesn't work, it'll reach the level where it needs a formal warning quickly enough. No need to skip steps, and makes the process more transparent

Originally Posted by Dark Pulse

Then you should've simply told him "I am going to stop, this won't be a further issue." Bam, done. Instead, you got accusatory and suspicious - which is precisely the wrong way to reply to that.

Except that he didn't come in and say I was being given a warning for continuing the argument, he said I was being given a warning for insulting Trevelyan....

Sure I responded poorly, but even if I had not he had still intended to give me a warning, without any continuation.

Again, you do have a bit of a pattern, so that does naturally mean we are a bit less likely to be loose with you. Again, I'd love to have my perception changed, but in my personal experience, the gentle way tends not to work with you. As you just said above, you were intending to stop it, and then Hymn PMed you, saying that if it didn't stop, you were going to get a warning. Instead of totally defusing the situation by saying "I planned to stop," you began getting hostile and suspicious of him - and you got warned for it.

Erm, what?

You have read the PMs Hymn sent, right? I promised I wouldn't criticise him based on them, since I didn't want them to be published, but even he would surely admit that at no point did he say "if you don't stop right now, you'll get a warning". He said "I'm giving you a warning for the insult unless you can give a damn good reason why not to".

This is the other point I'm trying to make; when the authority comes in, you kind of wind up working against them. Perhaps you don't mean to, but really, we can't control how you act - we can only put up sanctions against behavior we don't want to see. You're the one who's ultimately responsible for how you react to anything.

I do sometimes, yes, but only when they're being unfair. If they're being reasonable, then I do not complain at them.

Why do you care so much about "who gets the last word?" This is also part of the problem. Stop means stop - for everyone. Drop the damn argument, period. The last person who posts their thought before a mod comes in doesn't "automatically win" - the fact that a mod had to come in at all means everyone lost. If there's one thing you can do that will help you in the long run, it's "Stop trying to get the last word." That is part of what gives you the impression that you can be very pushy and forceful.

Of course, but it is quite simply not reasonable for a mod to make an argument and then tell everyone else to stop. If they think the argument should stop, then they should certainly not be continuing it.

And sometimes, it is you who has to heed it. Again, you seem to like to get the last word, perhaps so you can feel "victorious" somehow, but really, stop means stop. It doesn't mean "put in your last points of argument," it doesn't mean "summarize all your points above" - it means stop friggin' arguing whatever it is that's being argued, because it's getting out of hand.

Most of the time, I continue the argument because I had not noticed the post the mod made before I posted, or because there was something totally untrue that someone was saying about me. And, usually, it's rather calmer than before, too.

It's not fair that we can stop other people, and they will stop, but if we ask you to stop, you will fight it tooth and claw until we have to dig into the warning bin, and then you will stop because you have been warned, and will then stew due to it for a few weeks.

That's not true, though. For one thing, I do not "stop" when I've been warned. I've gotten myself nearly banned from several forums for just continuing to argue with the mods after they handed out an unjust warning.

Official warnings are no more likely to stop me when I'm angry than unofficial ones are. Hell, a lot of the time it's less likely, because I'm angry enough to continue anyway (I originally posted another post in the thread Hymn had warned me for solely because I wanted to stick two fingers up at him, until I calmed down a bit and deleted the post).

It would be much easier - on both us and on you as well - if you would just heed our requests, and perhaps when you've calmed down a little, then try to restructure your argument into something that is not quite as "aggressive" for lack of a better word. Arguments quickly degenerate when they become heated; calm, controlled arguments, on the other hand, tend to work far better at swaying people than just instantly going "No, you're wrong, here's why" and gainsaying everything the other person says.

You're right that those sort of arguments are not productive. But, your attitude to stopping them is also not productive. It just causes more anger and bitterness, and ends up getting people banned for nothing much.

Then that is the disconnect. When we say stop, we mean stop - now. It doesn't mean "stop it in a few posts," it doesn't mean "stop it after your next post," it means drop the damn thing because it's getting out of control, and it does mean to do it immediately.

But everyone does that, to some extent.

This doesn't help you, because it gives the perception that you are not stopping or listening and are instead continuing to argue, and thus not listening to what we are asking you to do.

And this is another problem. You expect to be able to say "jump" and be asked "how high?" in return. I do not work that way, and no amount of official or unofficial warnings will change that. If you want me to stop, then explain why I should stop, without threatening me. That works far better (usually, at least) than just slapping warnings on me does.

If you can stop when we ask you to stop, then this will probably also help you in the long run. This goes hand-in-hand with what I said above, about not always trying to get the last word in. You have a very, very bad habit of this, and in situations when a mod has stepped in, this is going to shoot you in the foot more than anything else.

Again, this is the problem. You can't accept the concept of someone actually questioning you, and asking why.

It has improved the forum as a whole. It hasn't resolved every issue, but in general, the amount of hostility and anger on the forums has sharply reduced. To me, this means it is overall successful.

I don't see how it has, though. People are still just as hostile as before, even if they keep it a bit more well-hidden some of the time. Or, are you talking about the fact that I exploded less, which had absolutely nothing to do with the new mods....

Furthermore, you are (and generally always have been) the only one to make such a big stink over the mod choices - let's not forget, even before they started moderating, you called them the "Anti-Mike Clique." I think virtually everyone else is just fine with the job they're doing.

Well, they've hardly proven otherwise so far, have they...?

Furthermore, again, I can't control how you respond to what we do - only you can. And so since I can't control how calm or angry you are, I do the next-best thing: I try to discuss why we do what we do, how we do it, why we warned you while we didn't warn another guy. Even if it seems unfair and biased to you, there are some things that I know will work with you, and some that I know will not work with you. Let's continue using the example in your above comment: You said "informal warnings do work, just not immediately." The problem is when we tell you "stop," we're expecting you to stop - immediately, not in one post or in five posts. You continue, therefore to us, the informal warnings don't work, so we will go to one that does work - the formal warning. This stops you, and it makes you shift your anger to us instead, but well, we'll swallow the poison.

Again, the formal warning does not work on me. It makes me even angrier, and causes more problems. Conversely, asking me to stop does stop the argument. Sometimes not immediately, but it does stop it.

The problem is that you are incapable of comprehending someone actually thinking for themselves and not just doing what you say without question. So, you feel that just punishing me arbitrarily will make things easier for you (probably because it gives you an excuse to ban me, which I know damn well you would like to see happen), and you seem to have convinced the mods of this.

Our goal is to stop the argument. If that's what it takes, c'est la vie. If you can stop it without us having to go to that level and have you angry for days on end, we'd absolutely love it. If you can meet us halfway on this, it'll be better for everyone - you won't have to be angry at us, and we won't have to hand out warnings to you as a matter of due course because you're not as receptive to our attempts to stop or correct something without going to actual levels of punishment.

I'm happy to "meet you halfway", but I don't see any attempt from you to move at all. If I keep on going on and on, sure, you have to stop me, but one post is not going to kill anyone. You're just more interested in not having your authority undermined than you are in actually resolving the problems. If you weren't, then you wouldn't be so determined to stop an argument the instant a mod decides it should be stopped, without any questions asked.

But they also correct and make you more mindful of your behavior, which is the goal. What you view as "being on tiptoe" is really kind of the point - it's to make you more aware you may be doing things not exactly A-OK with the general ruleset of the forums, and ultimately, that stops the behavior that we do not want to see continued.

In other words, you're trying to make me uncomfortable because it makes your life easier....

You know, people are supposed to enjoy posting on forums, not be worried about the mods.

That said, again, if you're a bit more mindful of our requests, we might not have to warn you as much. Ideally, we don't have to warn you at all - All we have to say is "come on guys, knock it off," and then both parties drop the argument, and then everything is settled, done, over with, and no longer a problem.

Well, of course. Mostly, that does work, though. Even if it doesn't stop it instantly, it almost always stops in a post or two. Further, it hasn't always worked with other people either (it didn't in the very thread I'm talking about) and, yet, you seem to be quite OK with that.

You're just making an example of me because you know I'm anti-authoritarian and I directly challenge your authority rather than meekly bowing down to you. That's all this is. A nice little power-trip so you can attempt to force me into just following your dictats no matter how stupid they might be.

Unfortunately, right now, you've admitted yourself that you feel the need to get in "the last word" on any sort of argument, even in the face of a mod telling you to stop. This is something that isn't going to fly with us; when we say stop, we do mean stop. It means the argument has gone too far and it needs to end, now.

Again, back to the authoritarianism. Just do what you're told without question and we'll let you get away with virtually anything....

I know you don't like authority and all in general, but if a police officer tells you "Get on your stomach and spread your hands," are you going to tell them you won't do that? Granted, they will only do that if they see you as some kind of threat - if something's just strange, but not dangerous or hostile, they may want to talk to you, but they won't make you assume the position on the spot.

Honestly, I quite possibly would. I would certainly be very angry about it. unless they have a damn good reason.

So it goes with this. You say you are capable of this, and I'd like to believe you. I'm more than willing to meet people halfway on lots of things, but at the same time, if they want me to fulfill my end of the bargain, I am going to expect them to meet theirs. In your case, then, it sounds like when can boil it down to three things:

I'm not sure what you're really "fulfilling" here, other than treating me the same as everyone else, which is something you should be doing anyway.

• If a mod is saying "stop doing this," just stop. Ask them why privately (and politely) if you'd like, but don't take it like them trying to muscle their way in, and definitely don't assume they're out to get you, or to deny you your right to argue a view. If they're telling you to stop, it means the argument, for some reason or another, is no longer an argument but a shouting match. At best, it needs to be restructured; at worst, it just plain needs to stop completely and totally.
• Don't feel the need to "win the argument." Again, if a mod has requested an argument end or a behavior stop, that means stop it, and stop it then and there. If you really feel the need to continue the argument, ask the mod why they wanted it stopped, use what they say as feedback, restructure and then reintroduce the argument in a different way, one not so "against the rules."
• Don't automatically assume "if a mod is here, they're out to get me." Mods care about the actual things going on, not the users, but admittedly the users can affect how severe a punishment is handed out. Anything up to and including a public warning is in the mods' power, at their discretion, but generally speaking unless it's an absolutely, flagrant violation, they tend to talk with their other mods (and often with the admins) as well. The main goal of the mod, however, is to end whatever is the problem - so if it's an argument, and one person will back down to an informal message, but the other feels the need to continue because he wants to get the last word in... well, do you see where this is going?

The problem here, again, is that it boils down to "lick our boots clean when we tell you to, or else we'll give you unfair and arbitrary treatment. Not that it shocks me that you would say such a thing, because you've always opposed any concept of "freedom" that doesn't involve 50% of the forum voting for it, but it's still annoying nevertheless.

Hopefully this helps you. It gives you a better image of what we expect, and since you say you are capable of cooling your jets, you no know what sort of criteria we consider whenever mods step in. Armed with this knowledge, you now know why Techlology got only an informal warning - because he has no consistent record of that sort of behavior, and because he will stop when we ask him to - versus you, who might stop, but only after he gets the last word in, and if anyone comes to him asking him to stop, he will immediately suspect their motives and aggravate further.

The problem is that he did not instantly stop, and I do not continue arguments for a long time after people ask me to stop. I might sometimes challenge the mod or post one more time (usually because the previous post is just an attack on me, or because I was writing my post before I saw the mod's post), but I do not cause serious disruption, except to the feeling of power you seem to require....

If, on the other hand, you're more than willing to meet us halfway, we don't have to warn you at all - a simple "Settle down, Mike" will be met with an "alright, sorry," and that's the end of it. No warnings, no punishments, everyone's happy, and if you really feel the need to continue the argument, you can do so in a matter that's calm, collected, not tainted by anger or extreme feelings - and overall that will make your arguments stronger, more persuasive, and not looking like you're just trying to force your view on someone.

Well, that is of course true, and I accept that continuing arguments which are just shouting matches is pointless.

The issue is that you were not willing to even give me a chance here. Sure, sometimes I might argue back, but I do not do it every time, and you did not give me a shot here.

Really, you gain far more than you lose, if you just heed what we say and reel yourself in a bit. If you're willing to try to do so (and we understand you will slip up from time to time - we will work with you on this, if we see you're seriously trying to change), we're more than willing to do "as little punishing as possible" because we hate looking like the bad guys, too.

I'm trying to change my anger, certainly. It is indeed pointless to explode at people for no reason. However, my attitude to authority is not going to change, because I believe it to be an extremely sensible attitude.

Originally Posted by Hazama

Did you ever consider that your having a pissing contest with people who have gotten their problems resolved without them getting a warning? And here you are getting mad about it.

Erm, what?

I'm not complaining about them not getting a warning, I'm complaining about me getting one. It's just that they're clearly not being consistent here.

You know what? If your going to continue this griping, fine. There is never going to be a place in the sun nice and warm for you ever again around here.

Oh, wow, you're going for the insults and attacks now...?

Originally Posted by Kyte

Btw, DP: Should you, y'know, not modify the process depending on the person? If an informal "cool off" doesn't work, it'll reach the level where it needs a formal warning quickly enough. No need to skip steps, and makes the process more transparent

Yeah, this.

If me continuing after being asked to stop warrants a warning, then why not give me one then, rather than immediately, as Hymn did...?

Originally Posted by Hazama

God, you're like a poodle. Completely non-threatening and easy to provoke.

You know what? If your going to continue this griping, fine. There is never going to be a place in the sun nice and warm for you ever again around here.

Go revel in your complacency elsewhere.

Come on, no need to take it this far. In some ways this blog entry at least revealed a bad habit that the mods had been almost committing themselves to. The fact that hopefully this means they won't be skipping their processes from now on means that we shouldn't be insulting Mike for bringing it to our attention.

Originally Posted by VelspertheCat

Come on, no need to take it this far. In some ways this blog entry at least revealed a bad habit that the mods had been almost committing themselves to. The fact that hopefully this means they won't be skipping their processes from now on means that we shouldn't be insulting Mike for bringing it to our attention.

What do you mean?