The 'Gentlemans' Club

Don Kedick

I want to make a complaint about the 'Gentlemans' club and a biased mod of said forum. First of all the biased mod. I was banned from a thread called Sexism you see daily or something like that, here's the story.

I was making my point that it was unfair for the lad to be still holding a grudge against a 13 year old who made a stupid mistake. A 13 year doesn't know the consequences. Now some people disagreed with that and it was fine, I was making my point and they were making theirs.

Then the first bad comment came in: "You're just spouting more of your poison and making pernicious generalisations." This had nothing to do with the thread and was just an attack on me. I ignored this comment and just interacted with those who were disagreed but were posting fairly.

Then "ARE YOU FU*KING SH*TTING US?!!!!!!" was posted, in huge writing. I continued to argue my point, I did so fairly without giving any abuse. Then other comments started coming in like "Climb off your white knight horse. It's embarassing." and "No, I will not "cool the jets". So take your condescending "all men are rapists" attitudes that you h ave espoused on this forums contempary and seriously get a clue on life.

You have repeatedly spouted bile, bullsh*t, and incendiary sh*te whilst claiming to have "proven" points. You've proved nothing other than just how much mysandrist crap that you can write. "White knights" like you infuriate me with the crap you mindlessly pedal whilst being unable to take a look in the mirror."

That's really nasty stuff and at this stage the biased mod in question came in but not to warn these people about their comments, instead he posted lies about what I had been saying. From my experience with boards it was clear what was going to happen from here, I was going to get banned no matter what. That's when I made the post I was banned for which was this: "What's with all the anger? I never said all men are rapists, I said 99% of rapists are men.

Now, with my experience of boards so far I think I know what's coming next. I'm going to get banned. This despite me just sharing my view and everyone else abusing me. I have to say though the anger around here and some of the posts I've seen in other threads it's quite a scary place. There's a real hate for women, well the word feminist is used as a cover word for women. A lot of you have issues that need sorting."

Now, I'll admit it's not a great post but I knew I was going to be banned and I feel I was being picked on, rightly as the posts above prove. Before he read that post, the biased mod was posting a warning, not to the people being abusive but to me! I responded saying "I seen that coming a mile off", I got infracted for this post and told not to post in the thread again by a different mod. A minute later the biased mod banned me for my earlier post.

In this post he gave his only mention of anyone else who were way out of line on the thread with this comment: "Lemming, take a deep breath and back away for a while." Now he said this not for any of the previous abusive posts but for one the mod deleted. Can you see any deleted posts? This was a crazy attack, giving all sorts of abuse to me, it was vicious. Is it normal protocol for mods to delete posts instead of banning the person?

I will get to the complaints about the forum later.

Shield

Mod post:

I have just sent all 5 TGC Mods a PM making them aware of this thread based on the assumption that none of them read the Help Desk.

I have also sent a PM to the OP letting them know that their thread has not been overlooked, and that all TGC Moderators have been sent a PM making them aware of this thread.

Pawwed Rig

As a courtesy to Shield I will respond to this although all the mods were happy enough to ignore this as the OP is a trolling time sink.

Don Kedick wrote: »

I want to make a complaint about the 'Gentlemans' club and a biased mod of said forum. First of all the biased mod. I was banned from a thread called Sexism you see daily or something like that, here's the story.

I was making my point that it was unfair for the lad to be still holding a grudge against a 13 year old who made a stupid mistake. A 13 year doesn't know the consequences. Now some people disagreed with that and it was fine, I was making my point and they were making theirs.

Then the first bad comment came in: "You're just spouting more of your poison and making pernicious generalisations." This had nothing to do with the thread and was just an attack on me. I ignored this comment and just interacted with those who were disagreed but were posting fairly.

Then "ARE YOU FU*KING SH*TTING US?!!!!!!" was posted, in huge writing. I continued to argue my point, I did so fairly without giving any abuse. Then other comments started coming in like "Climb off your white knight horse. It's embarassing." and "No, I will not "cool the jets". So take your condescending "all men are rapists" attitudes that you h ave espoused on this forums contempary and seriously get a clue on life.

You have repeatedly spouted bile, bullsh*t, and incendiary sh*te whilst claiming to have "proven" points. You've proved nothing other than just how much mysandrist crap that you can write. "White knights" like you infuriate me with the crap you mindlessly pedal whilst being unable to take a look in the mirror."

This is all about other posters for which it is not appropriate to discuss with the OP. Some were actioned, others not for various reasons.

Don Kedick wrote: »

That's really nasty stuff and at this stage the biased mod in question came in but not to warn these people about their comments, instead he posted lies about what I had been saying. From my experience with boards it was clear what was going to happen from here, I was going to get banned no matter what. That's when I made the post I was banned for which was this: "What's with all the anger? I never said all men are rapists, I said 99% of rapists are men.

All of the mods in TGC are biased against trolls.

Don Kedick wrote: »

Now, with my experience of boards so far I think I know what's coming next. I'm going to get banned. This despite me just sharing my view and everyone else abusing me.

That explains the pms you sent me and some of the other mods goading us into banning you. For example after giving you an infraction to warn you that your posting style is unacceptable you sent me the following pm 'Hahhahahahaha so predictable. '
The purpose of infractions is to give you the opportunity to change your behaviour which you failed to do hence your ban.

Don Kedick wrote: »

For example I have to say though the anger around here and some of the posts I've seen in other threads it's quite a scary place. There's a real hate for women, well the word feminist is used as a cover word for women. A lot of you have issues that need sorting."

Now, I'll admit it's not a great post but I knew I was going to be banned and I feel I was being picked on, rightly as the posts above prove. Before he read that post, the biased mod was posting a warning, not to the people being abusive but to me! I responded saying "I seen that coming a mile off", I got infracted for this post and told not to post in the thread again by a different mod. A minute later the biased mod banned me for my earlier post.

Covered in DRP where the ban was upheld

Don Kedick wrote: »

In this post he gave his only mention of anyone else who were way out of line on the thread with this comment: "Lemming, take a deep breath and back away for a while." Now he said this not for any of the previous abusive posts but for one the mod deleted. Can you see any deleted posts? This was a crazy attack, giving all sorts of abuse to me, it was vicious. Is it normal protocol for mods to delete posts instead of banning the person?

Lemming deleted his own post not the mod in question.

Don Kedick wrote: »

I will get to the complaints about the forum later.

We have a feedback thread open for those who want to provide advice to improve the forum. You do not fall into that category though so feel free to post all your gripes here.
We will not be taking the feedback of someone who within a couple of weeks has managed to receive infractions and bans across 4 fora though. Maybe all the mods on boards are biased across all fora but there is only 1 common denominator here.

Don Kedick

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

As a courtesy to Shield I will respond to this although all the mods were happy enough to ignore this as the OP is a trolling time sink.

Shield told me through pm that whoever is reviewing this will be completely impartial. I'll take Shields word for that and I hope it's the case.

First of all I'll have to point out that this wasn't the biased mod who banned me but obviously backs the mod in question. I hope whoever's reviewing this will look at the tone of the post there by Pawwed Rig. It's a nasty post and a bit vicious in places. It doesn't do much to disprove my claim that the gentlemans club is an angry and quite scary place to post in. This is a mod of the place!

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is all about other posters for which it is not appropriate to discuss with the OP. Some were actioned, others not for various reasons.

I'm sure whoever is reviewing this can find out if this is the case? As far as I can tell, one person was told to cool off after I was banned and no-one received even a yellow card.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

All of the mods in TGC are biased against trolls.

I wasn't trolling, I was stating my opinion like you're meant to do on boards. I wasn't abusing anyone, the only abuse was coming towards me, the only time I stepped out of line was when I knew I was going to be banned.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That explains the pms you sent me and some of the other mods goading us into banning you. For example after giving you an infraction to warn you that your posting style is unacceptable you sent me the following pm 'Hahhahahahaha so predictable. '
The purpose of infractions is to give you the opportunity to change your behaviour which you failed to do hence your ban.

I admit I was silly to rise to all the abuse I was receiving, I should have just let it go but the mods weren't giving any warnings and when the biased mod disagreed with me on thread and lied about what I was posting I knew a ban was on the way.
I predicted the ban was coming so then when this infraction arrived I reacted in a bad way. At the same time as been given this infraction the biased mod was giving me a ban so this private message had nothing to do with my ban. So this mod is lying in this case, possibly the second lie in his post.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Covered in DRP where the ban was upheld

I accepted my ban, the comment was out of line, I shouldn't have risen to the abuse I was receiving. It's one of the main reasons for this thread though. I wouldn't have reacted if the mods were doing their job.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Lemming deleted his own post not the mod in question.

Ok, well the mod let him delete it instead of banning him like he should have.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

We have a feedback thread open for those who want to provide advice to improve the forum. You do not fall into that category though so feel free to post all your gripes here.
We will not be taking the feedback of someone who within a couple of weeks has managed to receive infractions and bans across 4 fora though. Maybe all the mods on boards are biased across all fora but there is only 1 common denominator here.

To be honest I wouldn't really like to give feedback on the gentlemans forum as all I'll get in return is an aggresive reply. I'm basing this on the replies I've received from that forum so far. Here's some of them: "You're just spouting more of your poison and making pernicious generalisations.".

"ARE YOU FU*KING SH*TTING US?!!!!!!"

"Climb off your white knight horse. It's embarassing."

"No, I will not "cool the jets". So take your condescending "all men are rapists" attitudes that you h ave espoused on this forums contempary and seriously get a clue on life. You have repeatedly spouted bile, bullsh*t, and incendiary sh*te whilst claiming to have "proven" points. You've proved nothing other than just how much mysandrist crap that you can write. "White knights" like you infuriate me with the crap you mindlessly pedal whilst being unable to take a look in the mirror."

"the OP is a trolling time sink."

Other forums don't come into this.

Like I said at the start, I really hope this is reviewed by someone who's unbiased. You can see from the comments I received from forum users and mods that something has to be done about the gentlemans club. Whatever you think about my views I'm allowed to share them. Being called a troll and given all sorts of abuse isn't on.
Thanks.

Shield

Mod post:

Having read the last post in this thread so far, it is clear to me that the OP is not satisfied with the reply, so in line with Help Desk procedure, I will now inform the CMods of the Soc Category of this thread, and that a CMod is required to investigate the OPs grievance.

Because a CMod will dig into this from the very beginning, please allow a few days before they post their findings.

Thank you.

Scofflaw

Taltos has already been involved in this through the DRP, so I'll be taking a look into this. I'd like to ask a few mods a few questions, so this might take a little time.

I'm also not sure what "legal" or administrative outcome can be expected here, it not being DRP, and the various bans having expired already. So I'll be aiming first and foremost simply to see whether Don Kedick's complaints are justified, and if they are,where we go from there is probably a separate discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Hmm. I'd be happier if this were somewhere a little more free-flowing as regards posting, because this is maybe complicated, maybe very simple, and there are two distinct interpretations of what I'm seeing.

So...review of the evidence.

First up, there's a very clear consensus across the mods of several forums that Don Kedick is a troll. There's a string of warnings, infractions, and bans all basically saying the same thing - stop trolling. A couple of them are for backseat moderation, but those are germane to the issue at hand.

And that string of penalties is certainly based on something. Badgering other posters well past the reasonable, inane commentary, what appears to be a "me and my delusions of grandeur" 3rd-person comic standup routine in Politics Café, de yada de yada. All fine comical lowbrow stuff, inane maggot-acting, low-grade trolling, no real question marks.

So, that's an unenviable track record, and built up pretty rapidly. Before I turn to the points Don Kedick raised in his OP, I'd like to ask the Don what his explanation of all that is. It's not really defensible on the basis that you're "offering your opinion", because most of it is just idiotic.

I'd like a genuine answer there, and if what I get isn't one, then the whole process here will be pretty short.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Don Kedick

I post in a less than serious manner in forums that are less than serious. The main point of my posts I believe in but in line with the replies that I get, I reply in a similar fashion. Those forums are after hours and the politics café. They're not meant to be taken 100% as serious discussion forums I believe? The reason I get pulled up on it is because there's not many socialist posters around so I get reported regularly, for example this post "Slaves were given no wages but were provided food , shelter and work by their masters , so if 100% of your income being taken to provide you services is slavery , at what % does it stop being slavery and start being "fair"

for reference, the US had no income tax till 1913 , they seemed to do just fine up until then somehow.

And as for the "but where will we fund the tax cuts from" , the answer is clearly the 24% of every tax euro taken that goes to fund our bloated welfare state. Whatever about burning bondholders or banks , if we burned anto the heroin addict and deco the serial shoplifter in their council houses we'd be far better off and could save us up to 21 billion a year." that has been up for two days, I got banned for far, far less but obviously there's not many reporting his post.

If you've looked at my history you'll see that I reply seriously to serious topics. Any posts in personal issues or the ladies lounge or yes, the gentlemans club. I got banned from the ladies lounge for a week because the mod thought I was making up statistics on the percentage of rapes committed by males. I was not, I got the stats from here: http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196 I thought it was a very unfair banning but I didn't object because it was a very serious topic and I believed the mod was just acting on what they truly believed.

As you've pointed out I'm new to boards.ie although I've read it for a good while before I started posting. Obviously I got a few bans quite early but I've taken on board what I've been told even if I thought the bans were unfair, I haven't received infractions or bans since. I just didn't think it was so strict.

Now, having had to defend all my history here are you going to take the gentlemans history into account? Are you going to look at posts that were not in the thread I was talking about? Posts saying they don't mind if victims of rape are deterred from reporting as it helps men or posts defending rapists and people who agree that some women are just asking to get raped.

I'll add that these are only posts I've seen in the last few weeks, I never read the forum before that so there's probably far more examples. Are you going to take into account the pure anger and rage that emanates off many threads in the gentlemans club? The anger is usually directed at the word feminist which is a nice cover word for an attack on women.

As you can see from the reply of the mod in this thread, the anger is not just confined to the posters. Is this acceptable to the owners of boards.ie? To have a forum that is unwelcome to 50% of the population or to those who don't agree that men are the victims in all aspects of society? It's a scary place, posters there seem to have a free reign to post hate messages. I don't care if you think I'm just an idiot troll, do something about the gentlemans club, we don't need the nastiness getting any oxygen and transferring to real life.

Scofflaw

Actually, the reason I left out the tGC and tLL posts when I was talking about your trolling was because the tone is entirely and visibly different.

In a rather good show of irony, the post by you that could be said to have started all this, about the 13 year old and the 15 year old, could also be said to have foreshadowed what's happened here. Bluntly, you've been stupid, and other people have been stupider, including mods, and what I get to write here is going to be popular with nobody.

Where you've been stupid is to assume that you can behave in a completely flippant and frankly sub-trolling manner in some forums, and then get taken seriously in other forums when putting forward unpopular and counter-consensus opinions.

It's obviously anyone's right to be serious some times and flippant other times, but unfortunately it's the reality that other people are free to make of that what they will, and generally it's better to establish your credentials as serious before being flippant, rather than the other way round, which is the way you've chosen to do it on Boards.

As a result, you've run into something which shouldn't happen, but does - you've been labelled a troll, and everything you do has been taken as trolling, full stop.

Now, because of how I've come to be involved in this, I started by reading your posts on tGC and tLL, and those are reasonable posts. People may not like what you're saying (indeed, clearly don't), but the posts you've made there are a reasonable defence of a particular point of view, and the only point at which you say something actionable in itself are after the actions you've highlighted in your OP here, and which even as a response to that are very mild.

And, yes, personally, looking at your behaviour in the less serious forums, I don't see what I would consider to be a troll - that is, someone who intends to cause aggravation, someone who intends to waste the time of other participants and the mods, and whose pleasure lies in doing so. I see someone who amuses themselves with flippancy, but intends no harm by it, and sees it as upping the humour value of forum discussions and having a bit of fun. You're not actually quite as good at that as you think you are, and it doesn't come across as well as I think you intend it, but that isn't a hanging crime.

The behaviour of several of the other posters on the tGC and tLL threads is, on the other hand, frankly awful. The behaviour of the mods in allowing it, and particularly in one case in encouraging it and cheering on the lynch mob is appalling and indefensible. You may have helped get yourself pigeonholed as a pest and a troll beforehand, but even if you were, the latter part of that tGC thread, and Wibbs' actions, are not thereby excused. A mod is a sheriff, and the sheriff doesn't get to cheer on the lynch mob.

Looking at your DRPs, I see the same pattern - your complaints are dismissed outright, because you're seen as a troll who is just there to waste mod time.

Now, I could be wrong here, of course - it's certainly conceivable that one could set this whole situation up as a reasonably sophisticated meta-trolling exercise. All I have to go on is what everyone else has to go on - your posts, and the posts of those around you, and the actions of the mods.

But even on that basis, the response by posters and mods has been unacceptable, because nobody is working off more information than I am (or if they have been, they haven't shown it). You've been judged a troll, and the system has shut down against you. You've been denied fair hearing by posters, mods, and admins because the judgment against you is already fixed. Your right - the right of any poster - not to be harassed and vituperated in the forums has been entirely ignored, your public vilification tolerated or actually encouraged by mods.

I can see why this happened, certainly, and to a pretty large extent it was indeed predictable. It's also not something that's easy to avoid when someone has made the (unconscious) effort you made to establish yourself as a troll beforehand - mods are busy, and you appeared to fit a particular profile, one which we've all seen pretty frequently. But the snap judgement hardened into a fixed label, and was then in turn used as a permit for impermissible behaviour towards you.

And that, I guess, is why we have threads like these. As I said, I don't know what actually happens in terms of a "legal" outcome here, but my view here is that even were this an extended exercise in meta-trollery, your complaints in the OP would still be fully justified.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Don Kedick

I have to say I'm really surprised by your response, I didn't want to say it but I was expecting exactly the same outcome as the dispute forum. That being, I'd be told to change my behavior and nothing said about the mods or other posters behavior. So thanks for that and sorry to Shield for doubting his word.

I wanted to change that 3rd person thing and I made a thread that got closed in after hours about a new rising 100 years after 1916. I was serious in my post and hoped it would be taken seriously but it wasn't, a good few brought up my previous contributions and I got dragged down with it. I suppose that backs up your verdict that previous behaviour gets remembered. Maybe I got labelled a troll from the moment people seen my name.

Anyway, that's separate from the discussion about tgc. I'm genuine in my complaints about the place, I've seen some men get very angry about discussions on womens rights in real life. You see their fists clenching and obvious rage but I haven't seen the rage burst out, they usually hold it in. The gc seems like a place where nothing is held in, they are free there to let their anger out and it's backed up by the mods. Have you seen the post that was deleted by Leming? It was vicious.

If you don't know what happens from here then I certainly don't. I hope the behavior of the mods is improved, some things that I've read in the last few weeks shouldn't be let go. I'm not just talking about the thread I was in. If they can't do that then surely there should be different mods put in place? All that is up to the boards.ie people anyway but I hope some things change.

Don Kedick = Says thanks.

Only messing.

Thanks,
Don Kedick.

Scofflaw

I'd say that what happens next depends very heavily on whether people agree that mine is a reasonable and fair summary of the situation.

I don't have an axe to grind here. I'm generally willing to defend the right of forums to maintain a unique ethos, and I've permabanned posters who doggedly and continually cause ructions by inflexibly pursuing an anti-consensus line in forums which is genuinely meant but consistently disruptive. I have no issues with an abrupt mod style, and I've little sympathy generally for people who run their heads into nooses and then complain they're finding it hard to breathe.

So I'm pretty sure that while there probably will be some dismissal of my views as maybe trying too hard to be seen to be fair, or on the basis that I have some agenda of my own, I think it should be very hard to make such a dismissal stick on any objective basis. And it's not as if being a CMod is a popularity contest.

This isn't the first time I've seen something like this happen on boards, and I don't think it's something that's "fixable" without changing human nature, except through exactly such oversight as is provided by roles such as the CMod one. And as I said, I don't think everyone will necessarily agree with my analysis either - in fact, I don't think there's the remotest chance that everyone will.

Anyways, we'll see where it goes from here. As I said, though, to some extent there's a huge irony here, in that you're now in a very similar position (within the scope of Boards, obviously) to the 15-year old you had limited sympathy for, and similarly through careless actions on your part which have resulted in an entirely disproportionate but to some extent predictable response.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

OK, judging by the reactions I've got about this, a follow-up comment is apparently required.

I have dealt here solely with Don Kedick's claims to have been treated in a particular way by the moderation system on boards. I have not addressed, let alone upheld, the more general comments Don has made about posters on the tGC forum. I have dealt only with the issues arising specifically in the case at hand. Don said in his opening posts that he wasn't dealing here with his criticisms of the forum generally, and I therefore haven't considered them here. I don't think I would be an appropriate person to consider them, and I wouldn't willingly take on such a role.

What has been upheld here is purely the claim that Don acquired a bad name, and was then treated badly as a result in a situation where it was wrong to do so.

What happened in this case is very simple, very predictable, and very understandable. I have singled out specific actions by a tGC mod for particular criticism, and those actions took place, naturally enough, in tGC, but neither that mod nor tGC are the point here. What happened here is a systemic fault in the way moderation by busy volunteers happens. I'm not looking to have process or rule changes coming out of it, either in the modding system generally, in any forum in particular, or in any one mod's behaviour either, because there are no meaningful process changes that can be made. If people want to introspect, great. If not, not.

Don was treated badly here, in a way that can happen quite easily to any poster through a similar series of events. It would be unjust and dishonest to claim that he wasn't. If people feel that that's not supportive of them, that's regrettable - I can only make the point that it could equally well have been me in the position of any of the mods involved here, and may in fact have been in other cases.

It is regrettably easy for a mod - and, again, I include myself in this - to look at a poster in the middle of a ****storm, look back over their record, see other mod judgements that the poster has been trolling, look at their previous comments, and come to a snap judgement that they're probably a troll and timesink. Usually, we're correct to do so. Sometimes, we're not. No good purpose is served by refusing to accept that the mistakes do happen.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Don Kedick

Yeah, you were only making a judgment on this case. I can't be certain of this but going by your post I'm pretty sure it's not just mods who've been in contact with you. I'd go as far as saying that you now know what I meant by the anger emanating from posters of tgc. As you say, you can't and don't want to deal with the issues of the forum as a whole, so it's up to those who moderate and post there to look at their behaviour.

The aggressiveness and rage that's apparent across the forum needs to be toned down. Especially when serious topics come up, this is not to say that there isn't some areas of society that needs improving when it comes to mens rights but these points can be raised without attacking women or feminists as they're referred to.

I see no good reason why I'd post on that forum again and Scofflaw has made an independent decision on this case at hand. So now you can either dismiss my points and Scofflaws view or you can have look at the forum honestly and see if it needs improving. As Scofflaw said, a bit of introspection might be good. It can't be great to have a forum where a high percentage of the population wouldn't feel comfortable posting in.

I hope it also transfers to real life because having that much anger over issues will eventually build up and explode somewhere. This obviously isn't good for anybody. This is just my view on the matter, not Scofflaws. It's a general point about things, not this case specifically. You mightn't agree with it but think about it atleast.

Thanks,
Don Kedick.

Don Kedick

So where does this go from here? I posted this thread in the feedback forum of tgc just so the mods would be aware of it but it got deleted and I received an infraction.
What's the next step in all of this? When after a review it's decided that a mod behaved inappropriately what happens?

Dav

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to work on that. You're the boy who cried wolf. When you have a major history of being, quite frankly, an unfunny pain in the arse across other parts of the site, well then you can't be surprised when you're called on it and are treated as though that's what you're doing. Add to that your contrary and unpopular opinions that you seem to want to talk about seriously then we find ourselves with a team of mods who are already dealing with a troublesome topic who simply don't have the time or inclination to have to be dealing with a proven nuisance like you.

So like it or not, this is a situation entirely of your creation.

So where do "we" go? That's entirely up to you. Do you want to be taken seriously? Change how you interact with people. Cut out the really stupid behaviour, it ads nothing to our site and quite obviously has a very significant impact on your membership here. You thought you were being funny, we're telling you you're not. As of right now, you're a significantly negative presence on this site. You don't want people to assume the worst, it's entirely up to you to fix that.

Don Kedick

Have you read this thread? Under an independent review it was decided that I was treated unfairly. Read this paragraph:

"The behaviour of several of the other posters on the tGC and tLL threads is, on the other hand, frankly awful. The behaviour of the mods in allowing it, and particularly in one case in encouraging it and cheering on the lynch mob is appalling and indefensible. You may have helped get yourself pigeonholed as a pest and a troll beforehand, but even if you were, the latter part of that tGC thread, and Wibbs' actions, are not thereby excused. A mod is a sheriff, and the sheriff doesn't get to cheer on the lynch mob."

I've already had warnings about my behaviour and I've corrected it. Why are you repeating those? Have you given a warning to the mod that was way out of line? Or to the posters who were way out of line? Why am I been attacked again when under a review it was decided that I was wronged? What was the point of this review if it's just going to be ignored and the finger of blame still pointed at me?

Dav

I have read the thread. I have not disagreed with it. I'm talking to all the mods involved at the moment. I am however telling you why it happened and why you have, through your own actions, clearly and demonstrably been the cause of it.

You have had many warnings, yet despite what you think, you have done nothing to correct your behaviour. I've read some of what you've written, you seem to be under the increasingly common and frankly bizarre illusion that repeatedly stating something that is only your opinion will somehow make it a fact and you don't seem to spend any time engaging on the "whys" of a statement. You are a *really* poor communicator and debater. These are skills you will need if you want to have some sort of meaningful discussion on the sorts of issues at play here and because you are lacking in these skills, your posts simply look like you're trolling. That's just how it is.

Don Kedick

Scofflaw has said all this, why are you repeating it? His decision was the mod was in the wrong and the behaviour of other posters was awful. Shouldn't you be telling them about correcting their posting style and so on? So far you've only directed your comments at me.

Dav

Yes, that's because you're the person who started this thread and who's involved in it. I'm talking to the mods too. There are parts of this site specifically set aside for these sorts of conversations and I'm making use of them.

Don Kedick

And these conversations you're having will remain secret I suppose. Shut up shop, pretend to be talking to the mods in question, make sure scofflaw never does a review again, close this thread, never mention a word about it again.

Dav

Those are some very serious claims. You're basing them on what exactly? What in the 6ish weeks since you've joined our site has suggested to you that this is how we go about things? If you have an issue with someone working (not that our mods "work" here, but the analogy makes sense) somewhere, if you've flagged it with a supervisor, you do not get to see nor have any input on the discussions said supervisor and employee have. It's none of your business what goes on in that discussion and where it happens.

How is your claim consistent with not only the CMod but the site's Community Manager agreeing that you do indeed have a genuine grievance here? See my previous point about your lack of communication skills. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you accuse me of corruption and lies, I'm not finding many reasons to bother. So I'm done talking to you on this thread, in fact, I'm closing this thread because if in the face of being told "we agree with you" your answer is to accuse us of lies then we're wasting our time.