Attn: Thanatos

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Attn: Thanatos

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:39 am

I realize Mr. Oragahn might rather I didn't post about this, but I happen to have been reading on SB.com the last couple days and looking through the ST v SW thread there. If Thanatos did not want to look biased as a moderator, dropping a ban on Mr. Oragahn for calling someone a "wanker" does not help. Especially when others used the same insult:
Leo1 wrote:You are a liar and a wanker both, changing your argument as convenient and making completely unfounded assumptions about the number of droid factories which are objectively wrong.
Lord Vespasian wrote: For someone who wanks as hard to Trek as you do, one would think you wouldn't have to consistently lie your way through every debate.
If I'm not greatly mistaken, there wasn't even as much as a token warning for those two, was there?

And insults of that sort were in almost every post. Not just "wanker" specifically - there were others, like "fuckwit," "idiot," "schmuck," "Trektard," etc, enough to determine that either the entire thread has been completely out of control for well over a month, or that the level of heat in Mr. Oragahn's statement was perfectly normal for SB.com. From observation, I would say the latter.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:48 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:I realize Mr. Oragahn might rather I didn't post about this, but I happen to have been reading on SB.com the last couple days and looking through the ST v SW thread there. If Thanatos did not want to look biased as a moderator, dropping a ban on Mr. Oragahn for calling someone a "wanker" does not help. Especially when others used the same insult:
Leo1 wrote:You are a liar and a wanker both, changing your argument as convenient and making completely unfounded assumptions about the number of droid factories which are objectively wrong.
Lord Vespasian wrote: For someone who wanks as hard to Trek as you do, one would think you wouldn't have to consistently lie your way through every debate.
If I'm not greatly mistaken, there wasn't even as much as a token warning for those two, was there?

And insults of that sort were in almost every post. Not just "wanker" specifically - there were others, like "fuckwit," "idiot," "schmuck," "Trektard," etc, enough to determine that either the entire thread has been completely out of control for well over a month, or that the level of heat in Mr. Oragahn's statement was perfectly normal for SB.com. From observation, I would say the latter.
Not surprising though. Since the thread is made, I suppose ounces of explanations might be required now.

I may add that something really needs to be done about the banning system. It has become so terrible that it is literally quicker for me to learn more about my ban on another website (here), that through the post of someone who is not even affiliated to the mod staff of SBC, than SBC's own board system, or its respective mods.
Let's not stop here. Here's what I was told:
You have been banned for the following reason:
It looks like we forgot to actually give you a final warning
Date the ban will be lifted: Dec 26th 2009, 9:00am
A final warning? I guess someone was just too happy to have an excuse to kick me off once and for all?
I don't even remember getting a single one to boot. Essentially, I got banned because no mod gave me any warning.
I must applaud Thanatos' standards, once more.
Too hard to stomach? It must feel very empowering to have the ability to silence people who get on your nerves just because they happen to break the pseudo consensus on your pet franchise.

It becomes increasingly evident that a new batch of moderators is required, if only to alleviate the work of the "present" staff.

Thanatos exemplifies the problem of a moderation gone wrong. It also evidences the best aspects of a proper moderation, as we have here, or the theoretical advantages of almost zero moderation, as available at ClubASVS, while SBC is about a butt stuck between two chairs, and some people making it sure it stays that way.

The more excessive the lack of fairness, the more encouraged I am to expose it bluntly, and I don't think I'm the only one to follow that sort of pattern.

Now, since the real explanation will appear clearer by dealing with Thanatos' own interventions, let's take a look at his posts, shall we?





Post #785.
Thanatos wrote:Amazing. You were up for a Perma back in October and we decided to give you one more chance. You just blew it.
Goodbye.
This is interesting.
First, apparently I had already been under a permaban before, in October. The fact that it only lasted a couple of days would mean they retracted and narrowed it to a temporary ban.
I didn't even know they had already tried to get me out of SBC once and for all, and that based on totally dishonest and unfair criteria.

Secondly, I don't recall being explicitly given another chance. I actually barely got any notification at all. I had to insist to get some information, notably from Commander_Razor, whom I exchanged a few PMs with.

Thirdly, once again, I supposedly got permabanned, and again, the sanction was reduced to a temporary ban of ten days. Oh buggers. I really wish them luck next time, in following the protocol down to the letter so they won't have to put some facade of fairness, so they'll be able to get rid of my membership definitely.

Fourth: "We"?
More like "I", and it was nothing short of a total abuse of moderating powers to provide help to the SW party in trouble, no more, no less. The fact that it's all too glaring and easy to prove makes all this truly pathetic. Like the last breaths of a squealing rat in death throes.

But if it is truly "we", then perhaps I was being naïve in thinking that SBC was getting better.

I didn't even get one single PM warning me that I was walking on thin ice.
Or perhaps it has to do with this Yahoo thread* I had posted the 15th of December, but soon disappeared from the "non-scifi whining" board some few hours later... for which I received no notification either.
We're civilized people. If they'd rather have me not start such threads anymore (which of course would be a total WTF?? but never mind), then they could just have sent me a PM and that would have been all.

Maybe that would explain why, despite my reports on higbvuyb's trolling behaviour in two Halo threads, no mod really did anything about it. Since that last long disagreement between me+Mith and higbvuyb over the interpretation of a piece of text from The Fall of Reach -- a thread wherein he was more concerned about attacking me than using his supposedly superior expression skills and logic to assemble some remotely believable and standing argument -- and a damning poll, which pretty much proved that I and most concerned people at SBC actually shared the same interpretation over said text (just as Eric Nylund, the author of the very book, revealed, after being queried by Rama through an email!), Hig seems to have developed some kind of silly obsession about me that drives him to pounce on me about such things as syntax/comprehension/vocabulary, as seen here, in the cheapest possible way, just for the sake of looking for trouble. I suppose he's never heard of such terms as "heat of fusion" for example. That must be too unscientific.
Then, again, despite my report of this, it didn't seem to trigger any moderator intervention whatsoever.
That's pretty much why I usually don't bother with the report function anyway.






Moving on, we get to his reply to Mith, in post #793.
Thanatos wrote:
Mith wrote:A permaban for what amounts to a light flame in the middle of a heated debate that's gone on for pages?
It was a highlight of his behavior and it was relevant to a specific problem we've been having with him.
Again, that "we" thing.
I'd really like to be enlightened about this "we" thing. I'm most curious about the "behind the scene" consensus about me, especially since my series of PMs to Razor.

Thanatos wrote:
Mith wrote:? If I recall, Oraghan was doubting it because Leo1 mentioned it without the information.
He was directly replying to the links of my posts.
Mith wrote:that's like me saying "well, Darkstar said so...", not backing it up and then having me and him being called a Trektard.
If the same situation occurred with you in Leo1s place and another person in mine, I would take the same stance: You don't flame random third parties. You can have issue with an analysis but you don't go full on Ad Hominem.

The problem is that nobody ever contacts me. All it takes is a PM and I will try my best to look into any issue someone is having. I unfortunately cannot look at every post made in every thread right now. I've been extremely busy with both parents undergoing major heart surgery and working mega overtime to replace $4k dollars that a relative stole from me. People who send me a message are going to have the best chance of getting their issue resolved. I mean, I could have directly resolved any questions in regards to my distance calcs if I had known people had questions!

I'm going to try having reports go directly to me again, but all it takes is someone like Point 45 to ruin it again. Combined with me actually starting to get time to check the site in detail, I should be able to resolve any issues people have.

Oh and a general warning: Since I have a stepping off point with this thread, it will remain relatively civil from this post on or else I will close it and hand out punitive bans as required.
Yet, I said "wanker", in a thread flooded by an ocean of expletives and shrapnel of flowery language, and I'm permanently banned?
At this point, I'd say that's just someone looking for any excuse, even the most stupid one, as long as it seems to be relevant to the rules. This has more to do with fascism than anything else.
Still, I don't care about the anathema, it's not my goal to stand by the party line if only to avoid the petulant bursts of a mod who can't find any other alternative to his lack of bravery than abusing a button at folly, for as long as he still has the ability to do so, anytime he returns to the sole board that makes him feels the futile luxury of an enhanced pipe.

Once again, we'll muse about the tendency to let people such as Point45 or Kyosanim pollute threads, ignore glaring flame baiting, and suddenly decide that they have to enforce the rules they seem not to care about much most of the time.

Thanatos, in particular, likes to pretend he would apply the same rules to anyone, without any bias. But every time he intervenes in threads which are related to Star Wars in some fashion, he always targets the same group of people.
I suppose he mentioned Point45 just to appear partial, but this is certainly a virtue he doesn't possess.

As for his magic rule he pulled out of nowhere -- "You don't flame random third parties" -- it wouldn't be hard to believe if he had recently registered at SBC.

The point is that I have no patience for Thanatos anymore, and yes, I think he's a wanker. His words outside of SBC have been all I need for this, his presence at SDN rather indicative as well, and the standards of who gets a ban in a SW thread the final nail in the coffin.
Also, I certainly got tired of chasing Leo1 (SDN's Vympel) through the several hundreds posts long thread (!) to have him spill the beans he so badly needed, in order to back up the claimed ranges of SW infantry weapons he picked from several battles he cited as proofs. A behaviour which has been against Rule 7**, which has been source of sanctions against other members in the past, but for some reason, despite me and l33telboi requesting the evidence, he seemed not bound to those same rules. Of course, he was also allowed to flame at will.
Thus far, despite being established as a fact that Leo1 had no evidence of any kind, and certainly didn't have the slightest understanding of the only source of information he deemed necessary to support his claims (Thanatos' posts which I harshly attacked), he got away with that, and is yet to comply.
I'm rather sick of seeing Leo1 keeping asking for evidence up to the 8xx post. The hypocrisy flies really high over there.




Post #795.
Thanatos wrote: Minor correction: We seem to have (embarrassingly) forgotten to actually deliver his final warning.

Ban reduced to ten days.
Yes, let's pretend that "we" want to do it by the book and be totally fair. :|
That's just horse crap.



  • * You may want to look at this PDF document to know what it's all about. Page 12 is of interest.
  • **
    7) Burden of Proof.
    An extension of rule #6.
    If you make the claim, you must provide the evidence. This includes (but is not limited to) extracts from sources, screenshots, short clips or others as appropriate. In addition to this, the FULL evidence must be presented. Failure to provide the evidence to back up a claim in a reasonable timeframe will result in a the claim being declared as false.

    Continual failure to back up claims will be ground for penalties as decided by the moderator staff.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:17 am

And this is why things will not improve the way that they should at SB.com with mods like Thanatos who will permaban someone who breaks with the pro-Wars camp's vision on SW. I suspect, though there is no direct proof, that someone, somewhere on the Admin staff and or other mods might have pressured Thanatos into reversing his ban, at least reducing it.

But it is clear here that there can be no progress on the SW versus Trek or other franchises as long as mods like Thanatos are allowed to enforce a false concensus this way. It is clear from having followed a number of threads the last few years that more and more of the membership are no longer sharing the ICS/Saxtonite vision of SW technology, especially in light the last year or so of the debut of the CGI Clone Wars TV series.
-Mike

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mith » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:28 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:I realize Mr. Oragahn might rather I didn't post about this, but I happen to have been reading on SB.com the last couple days and looking through the ST v SW thread there. If Thanatos did not want to look biased as a moderator, dropping a ban on Mr. Oragahn for calling someone a "wanker" does not help. Especially when others used the same insult:
Leo1 wrote:You are a liar and a wanker both, changing your argument as convenient and making completely unfounded assumptions about the number of droid factories which are objectively wrong.
Lord Vespasian wrote: For someone who wanks as hard to Trek as you do, one would think you wouldn't have to consistently lie your way through every debate.
If I'm not greatly mistaken, there wasn't even as much as a token warning for those two, was there?

And insults of that sort were in almost every post. Not just "wanker" specifically - there were others, like "fuckwit," "idiot," "schmuck," "Trektard," etc, enough to determine that either the entire thread has been completely out of control for well over a month, or that the level of heat in Mr. Oragahn's statement was perfectly normal for SB.com. From observation, I would say the latter.
You forgot douchebag and asshole.=p

Yeah, it's slowly becoming clear that any sort of fair debating including Star Wars is pretty much not going to happen at SB, which is a pity.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mith » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:46 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Also, I certainly got tired of chasing Leo1 (SDN's Vympel) through the several hundreds posts long thread (!) to have him spill the beans he so badly needed, in order to back up the claimed ranges of SW infantry weapons he picked from several battles he cited as proofs. A behaviour which has been against Rule 7**, which has been source of sanctions against other members in the past, but for some reason, despite me and l33telboi requesting the evidence, he seemed not bound to those same rules. Of course, he was also allowed to flame at will.
I don't ever recall Leo1 actually ever being held accountable for his actions. The only ban he's ever gotten is voluntary (which is just stupid). And this debate is just an example of how fucking poor standards are. You can't ban someone for flamming (even a random member with nothing to do with the debate) when everyone else is flamming as well. Either everyone needs to get a ban or no one does.

Enosh
Padawan
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Enosh » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:35 pm

Yeah, it's slowly becoming clear that any sort of fair debating including Star Wars is pretty much not going to happen at SB, which is a pity.
40k vs SW debates are usualy o.k. :P

then again 40k has just (if not more) popularity on sb as SW has

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mith » Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:05 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:And this is why things will not improve the way that they should at SB.com with mods like Thanatos who will permaban someone who breaks with the pro-Wars camp's vision on SW.
I'm actually wondering why they haven't tried to ban other Trek debators. It's not like I've been pulling many of my punches and L33t even went full auto. Then again, it might have to do with the fact that it's an 'everyone's guilty' sort of thing. If they banned us and not Leo1 and his buddies, it would become very telling.
I suspect, though there is no direct proof, that someone, somewhere on the Admin staff and or other mods might have pressured Thanatos into reversing his ban, at least reducing it.
If anyone, that would probably be Razor, although maybe Skyzeta might have had something to do with it. Even though he's pro-wars, he isn't really involved with VS.debates as he used to and even then I personally don't remember any massive bias for Trek.
But it is clear here that there can be no progress on the SW versus Trek or other franchises as long as mods like Thanatos are allowed to enforce a false concensus this way. It is clear from having followed a number of threads the last few years that more and more of the membership are no longer sharing the ICS/Saxtonite vision of SW technology, especially in light the last year or so of the debut of the CGI Clone Wars TV series.
-Mike
I will tell you, SB.com has improved. Two years ago if you even dared went against Saxton there'd be a monkey pile of a dozen or so Warsies screaming 'Trektard' and 'Darkstar' (no really--I was accused of being Darkstar's puppet account when I first joined because I agreed with him that Wong was a) being dishonest and b) that Trek was better). And then of course, if you have the audacity to keep arguing, you can expect them to start supplementing their arguments with flames. They in fact, tend to favor flames that make you feel inferior; any and all sorts of put downs are put forward and you're pretty much expected to take it.


Actually, I think it might be interesting to go through the archives and see just what sort of things they actually got away with when I was a novice.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mike DiCenso » Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:06 am

Mith wrote: I'm actually wondering why they haven't tried to ban other Trek debators. It's not like I've been pulling many of my punches and L33t even went full auto. Then again, it might have to do with the fact that it's an 'everyone's guilty' sort of thing. If they banned us and not Leo1 and his buddies, it would become very telling.
I suspect you're right there. It's too obvious a thing, though he may specifically gone after Mr. O as a result of someone else's insistance, probably Leo1 on the side.
Mike DiCenso wrote: I suspect, though there is no direct proof, that someone, somewhere on the Admin staff and or other mods might have pressured Thanatos into reversing his ban, at least reducing it.
Mith wrote:If anyone, that would probably be Razor, although maybe Skyzeta might have had something to do with it. Even though he's pro-wars, he isn't really involved with VS.debates as he used to and even then I personally don't remember any massive bias for Trek.
Isn't Skyzeta the one that tried to get the TCW CGI series declared non-canon for the debates, or was it he that tried to ban No-ICS debates?
Mith wrote:I will tell you, SB.com has improved. Two years ago if you even dared went against Saxton there'd be a monkey pile of a dozen or so Warsies screaming 'Trektard' and 'Darkstar' (no really--I was accused of being Darkstar's puppet account when I first joined because I agreed with him that Wong was a) being dishonest and b) that Trek was better). And then of course, if you have the audacity to keep arguing, you can expect them to start supplementing their arguments with flames. They in fact, tend to favor flames that make you feel inferior; any and all sorts of put downs are put forward and you're pretty much expected to take it.


Actually, I think it might be interesting to go through the archives and see just what sort of things they actually got away with when I was a novice.

They still get away with quite a bit, though not as much as they used to. I started noticing the shift as far back as 2005 with members who noticed clearly in RoTS how the Invisible Hand in both the novelization and movie broke up easily and burned in Coruscant's atmosphere, and it's underside collapsed as it crash-landed. People began to express doubts more and more. The TCW CGI series has only made it more glaringly obvious that SW technology is not as powerful as the Saxtonites and pro-Wars camp wanked it up to be.
-Mike

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mith » Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:02 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:I suspect you're right there. It's too obvious a thing, though he may specifically gone after Mr. O as a result of someone else's insistance, probably Leo1 on the side.
You should check out the thread he got banned in now. Leo1 and JC are literally clinging to one source and trying to ignore two others that the Empire couldn't spare their 'reserve' fleet to crush the Mon Calamari, but somehow they'll have it for the Federation.
Isn't Skyzeta the one that tried to get the TCW CGI series declared non-canon for the debates, or was it he that tried to ban No-ICS debates?
It was Face who tried to declare that you can't argue against ICS. I don't think you were even allowed to make threads about it.
They still get away with quite a bit, though not as much as they used to. I started noticing the shift as far back as 2005 with members who noticed clearly in RoTS how the Invisible Hand in both the novelization and movie broke up easily and burned in Coruscant's atmosphere, and it's underside collapsed as it crash-landed. People began to express doubts more and more. The TCW CGI series has only made it more glaringly obvious that SW technology is not as powerful as the Saxtonites and pro-Wars camp wanked it up to be.
-Mike
Well, hopefully the end is very, very soon.

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mith » Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:53 am

Got an infraction, Leo1 got a warning.

And I have to say, it's rather stupid how he got his via Face's reasoning. He's been calling me a retard for some time now. I don't see why he'd give him a warning for doing it once when he's been doing it for some time.

Perhaps if the moderators actually moderated actual debates we might actually get somewhere.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Nonamer » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:38 pm

Hi guys! Long time no see.

That's no surprise from me. SB.com versus board is pretty much run by Warsies, or at least warsie sympathizers, and has been for a long time. There's really no point in going there.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:41 pm

Time to update this.
My time over SBC is done. The final ban, the permaban, has fallen.
It has been enforced by Thanatos, but it's clear that from the behaviour of ALL the members of the staff I contacted, it was an action well supported.
Could it be due to distorted presentations of the facts by Cpl_Facehugger and Thanatos, I can't really know.
Remains the possibility that some other moderators, like Razor for example, didn't care or didn't want to engage a dispute about my case, especially if it would mean holding a rather exclusive position against the rest of the moderation team.
I'm providing this story just for you guys to understand what goes on at SBC and to avoid any problem. You'll have to be careful in how you toe the line, to say the least.

So, how did it get to that?
Following the ban from 2009 which warranted the existence of this thread, a ban which was not explained and for which I had received no related information whatsoever, things settled down a bit until I started to have my first take at Warhammer 40000 and its silly W4NK.
Obviously, this would hardly go unnoticed, and considering the nature of the pseudo "TERATONZ!!1!" consensus on this franchise - a consensus largely fabricated at SDN, no surprise again here - it would mean the house would be rocked.
Hard.
A certain amount of flaming was expected, but that I considered I could deal with, as long as the arguments were good. It also helped identify the usual W4NKers who I'll have to deal with in future vs threads involving their pet franchise.
So, bumping on the small revolution which began in the technical forum (when a couple people including me, l33telboi and Mith and a couple others I can't remember, we smelled something fishy about the infamous distortion of the quote relative to the petals of flame the size of a continent), I opened one of the major volleys against the bullshit in a versus thread titled:

The Imperium of Man vs. The Ori
It had to start somewhere.
A most entertaining thread.
Things were going more or less as expected, my claims were attacked in the cheapest way without actually being addressed or even understood.
If an example would be required, I'd certainly pick Captain Hat's replies.
His first post in the thread (262) would perfectly illustrate the point, if only for the fact that he opened hostilities with ad hominem material.
Isn't it curious that a debater sporting the title of "engineer" would not understand the problems about the Nova Cannons relating to material stress under severe accelerations and momentum related issues?
He also completely lost himself in some irrelevant and pointless argument about power surplus and could never make his point clear. It remained nothing more than sheer bluff, a vague red herring, and it failed. Nonetheless, despite being incapable of making himself clear, and actually refusing to reformulate his point as to make it intelligible, I was being the black sheep not playing by the rules.
He would also claim my calculations were bogus, but he never proved anything, and pretty much repeated the same empty claim other people formulated before him, while the few he was parroting had all failed to address my arguments, notably on why I got such different results for Caves of Ice than Connor's (who has decided to return to SBC since my ban).
CH got a free pass.

I still don't see what reason Aratech had to say anything about the debate (like if he was a saint y'know), his name rarely appeared on the list of those who read it -actually I kept an eye on said list and he certainly wasn't a recurrent reader at all- and frankly I really don't see how he could think there was anything worth to report about my behaviour by the time he jumped in and started acting like Captain Justice. I had provided extremely detailed arguments, with all evidence and quotes, and was facing walls of insults and a gazillion other fallacies straight out of Trolling 101.

Here's another example of how I proceeded through the thread, notably against Ryan's claims that I made up a lot of stuff:

For WH40K, here are the first calcs I presented:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=137
Unfounded assumptions and non-existent tech?
Hardly.

Ryan's BS started here
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=144
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=147

Then he presented us his Lord's sanctified words
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=152

Then my calcs, from Caves of Ice, against his Lord's calcs
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=163

So, again, were those calcs based on some unfounded assumptions and non-existent tech?
No, I calculated the power of shields in the first one, and the power of Lances in the second. Where is the made up tech here?
Nowhere.
Ryan was whining about my theory about the Nova shells, but what this bloke missed is that I never presented a single calculation about the Nova Cannon. It wasn't necessary.
He spent more time finding excuses to diss the calcs I had done (to gauge something entirely different) than reading and comprehending them, and that applies to Hat and the others who did the same.

It also was funny to see how people like White Rabbit was also granted free reign in his poor habits as well. I wonder if his rather interesting friends list is relevant to his faculty to avoid strikes.

So yes, the debate heated up a bit, nothing harsh though and certainly tame by SBC's standards, notably if you compare to other subforums, but it cooled down for the last two pages (I display 40 posts /page so it's probably between twice or thrice that amount by default).
Nonetheless, Thanatos had to act, for some reason.
I say for some reason because it's necessary to understand that I tried to contact him in order to understand what the problem was.
When you give a member a two weeks ban, the least you can do is actually explain why.
To this day I'm still totally unable to get an explanation.

Here's the PM I sent to Thanatos. Almost informal:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Hi!

A sanction is only efficient if you know why it came down. Therefore, I think it would be better to know exactly what was meant by "Continued poor behavior" in the message I received, when you banned several people after the following post, before you locked the thread.
It remains extremely vague. I can't figure out why my ban was twice as long as Mith or Ryan's bans by the way, and I'm also very puzzled as to why there has been no warning whatsoever.

It would be greatly appreciated to obtain this information. If I don't get any reply from you, I'll contact other members of the staff to clear this out.
And the message I sent to Sky:

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Hi!

I sent the following message to Thanatos but he didn't reply, while he's been posting on SBC since then.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Hi!

A sanction is only efficient if you know why it came down. Therefore, I think it would be better to know exactly what was meant by "Continued poor behavior" in the message I received, when you banned several people after the following post, before you locked the thread.
It remains extremely vague. I can't figure out why my ban was twice as long as Mith or Ryan's bans by the way, and I'm also very puzzled as to why there has been no warning whatsoever.

It would be greatly appreciated to obtain this information. If I don't get any reply from you, I'll contact other members of the staff to clear this out.
So it seems the proper way of getting the right thing done is to go up the ladder or something.
It appears you are the person to go to next.

In all honesty, I wouldn't want this kind of moderation to recur.
It seems that versus debates are becoming more a question of just spitting numbers picked from other websites or books and not discussing them objectively, and even less talking about everything else that matters in a debate, like strategy, cultural interactions and so on.

I question Than's objectivity in his decision. It's also the kind of hasty decisions without warning which kill the spirit of versus debating.
Since he ignored my PM and refused to explain his decision, I'm hoping you may be able to sort this out and see what really went on.

Ciao


I wrote a short summary of the thread in a discussion here.
I should quote it here:
Imperator Pax, May 12th 2010 5:00am wrote: Hey man what'd you get banned for?
Mr. Oragahn, May 15th 2010 6:59pm wrote: Sorry for the late reply.

So... why did I get banned? Too good arguments, perhaps? Image

Here's the moderation post:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showp...&postcount=350
"Mr Oragahn given two weeks for continued poor behavior. I must warn you that you need to improve dramatically if you wish to continue to debate here."

Officially: "Continued poor behavior".
I wondered why I got a banned twice as long as the others', and why there had been no warning at all, so I contacted Thanatos to know what he meant. I got no reply.
Then I went to Skyzeta to know more about it then, hoping it would make things move. Again, no reply.

The real story? Thanatos couldn't stand good arguments. Image
That's what it is. If you read the thread, you'll see that I have been forwarding evidence, lots of it, and I have addressed all arguments.
I even disagreed with some people on certain claims about Stargate, which appeared erroneous and exaggerated.
Mr. Oragahn, May 15th 2010 7:05pm wrote: We can look at a couple of posts if you want. I can forward you the complete list of my posts in that thread if you want to btw.

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=137 WH40K warship toughness calc based on BFG data
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=148 A post about the Nova Cannon
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=163 Links to Connor's and my Caves of Ice calcs
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=204 Stargate firepower calcs and thoughts
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=294 The old Space Hulk "610 GT" figure retconned

So that's what constitutes "continued poor behavior".
Continued from what? Dunno. Ask Than, if he cares replying.
Mr. Oragahn, May 15th 2010 7:06pm wrote: Now, it doesn't really matter if you're fan of WH40K or not. It's about debating properly and not behaving like a raging simpleton at the first occasion.
Thanatos' moderation was grotesque, and I'd be lying if I'd say I was surprised of not getting any reply to my polite PM (I know both him and Skyzeta were posting then).
It just tells you all you need to know abou the bloke, really. I know for a fact that he ignored Mith's PM as well.

It's about time SBC gets a new batch of mods who have much less interests in teraton Star Wars and teraton Warhammer 40000, if we don't want to see the versus forum die of arbitrary bans every single time members of the Cult of Saxton or the Cult of Connor get butt-hurt because their visions of their pet franchises get kicked in the crotch. Image
So basically, both Skyzeta and Thanatos didn't reply.
I never had any problem with Sky; I pretty much always appreciated his concise posts and he seemed a relatively reasonable guy, despite being considered a Warsie.
I know it has nothing to do with the ban status, since I had conversed with people and even mods while under the sanction of a ban.
Thanatos never stepped into the thread to warn anyone either.
Thus far, the "continued poor behavior" excuse remains unexplained, and the refusal by two mods to reply to my PMs surprised me. From Thanatos, eventually I could get it, at this point it wouldn't surprise me. But Skyzeta?
I suppose it's good to point out that they both were posting several posts a day then.
This started to get me a little suspicious about why they wouldn't reply. I was under the impression that they were obligated to provide at least a proper explanation.

EDIT: sorry, I just noticed the links to the SBC posts in the quoted section didn't work. That's hopefully corrected now.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:42 pm

So now we're getting to the thread wherein Thanatos banned me once and for all.

First, the thread: How many Borg Cubes to take down a Retribution-class battleship? - which is an interesting read btw.

Now quoting the relevant part of each post, starting with White Rabbit firing the first salvo. In retrospect, it seems I did take the bait from the obvious troll.

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=152
Mith wrote: Again, your information is outdated. That weapon has been disproven. Not only that, but the later editions of the book also show a considerable lack of them. It's like arguing that Han shot first is still canon, despite the fact that later editions of the same movie show that's not the case.
White Rabbit wrote: Sorry, but you can keep insisting it's been disproven, but all that really happens is that in each thread, you sally forth from your little clubhouse, demand we accept your logic, usually get banned for blatent falsehoods, ignoring rules, then go and make some thread about moderator abuse.
Then, my reply to his silly reboot:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=249
White Rabbit wrote: Sorry, but you can keep insisting it's been disproven, but all that really happens is that in each thread, you sally forth from your little clubhouse, demand we accept your logic, usually get banned for blatent falsehoods, ignoring rules, then go and make some thread about moderator abuse.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: A fancy way of reimagining reality. Unfortunately for you, you're nowhere a "victor" yet to get that kind of privilege.
It doesn't need to be pointed out that I was totally right here: WR, pretty much like Orsai, Ryan and some others, kept making the same claims without actually addressing the arguments I made, and went on to pretend that Thanatos' ban was fair and due to me refusing to shut up when my arguments were supposedly debunked.
Class, eh? Not surprising. It's White Rabbit. That, pretty much defines the guy. Comes in a thread, pulls his pants down, tries to impress people with his most modest attributes, struggles to retain his incontinence and pretends he "pwns joo", and then runs away when you've made fun of his... claims.
Only for him to do it again somewhere else.
In other words, a patented troll.
And this charming individual would obviously not leave it at that.
Truth said, he must miss me. :]
A short series of PMs between me and him, after my ban, has demonstrated that beyond a fair dose of lunacy, he did develop an obsession.

Then, in the same thread, came Mjolnar, who believed he had to add his 2c here:

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=254
Mr. Oragahn wrote: A fancy way of reimagining reality. Unfortunately for you, you're nowhere a "victor" yet to get that kind of privilege.
Mjolnar wrote: Image No, its truth. Mith has been banned at least once to my recollection, if not more times about this very subject. On top of that, a mod described you and mith as the short bus squadron IIRC as he locked a thread about this very subject.
As usual, empty claims which they could simply never back up. It's just easier to lie and claim victory over debates that way.

My reply:

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=258
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And? Do I even care about how a mod who was trigger happy with the ban button called me or Mith?
And as you can always count on some brave and concerned member of the community to do his job and get you shoved into the wagon...

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=259
Mr. Oragahn wrote:And? Do I even care about how a mod who was trigger happy with the ban button called me or Mith?
Inquisitor Ryan wrote: Reported for attacking the Mods. You really are a dumb fuck.
I guess he took the Inquisitor part too seriously.

Post 332.
Thanatos, Old Jun 18th 2010, 11:43pm wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: A fancy way of reimagining reality.
So it sadly appears that you continue to refuse to learn anything from bans and instead chalk them up to your continued paranoid delusions that people are out to get you. After all the opportunity to improve you have been given, you still continue to maintain the same poor behavior. You clearly refuse to change and therefore you have barred yourself from membership here.

Also: Mith and Inquisitor Ryan, I will be watching the two of you.
Paranoid?
Mmm... most curious. Like there's ever been a need to be paranoid at all. Not to say that I don't really know where he picked that from.
Hell, he didn't even ban me on the "trigger happy" part. :)
The part that really made him snap was the "reimagined reality" bit, in response to WR's claims (should call them lies if we wanted to call a cat a cat).

However, what was wrong in what I said to WR?
Let's see, again, WR's post as he replied to Mith (not even me):

"Sorry, but you can keep insisting it's been disproven, but all that really happens is that in each thread, you sally forth from your little clubhouse, demand we accept your logic,..."

Logical, since the arguments were sound, and were supported by evidence. Somehow, though, this didn't count, and the tactic of making repeated claims about refusal to back up claims finally prevailed. And yet anyone reading the threads could see that evidence was forwarded, and that when the accusations of rule violation were becoming really silly, it was just a question of pointing to the appropriate post to show how all rubbish those attacks were.

"...usually get banned for blatent falsehoods,..."

In reality, nothing more than pure fanboyish bias. It's impressive though that WR knows more about why we were banned than moderators do, since they never replied to requests for clarification on the reasons for the bans.

"...ignoring rules,..."

Clear reasoning and logic, pieces of evidence and calculations were all provided. Notice that he wouldn't have to comply the way we would have to, while he proved to be prolific in his flamebaits and insults. The constructive side of his interventions was not as remarkable.

"...then go and make some thread about moderator abuse."

It's nothing more than a blatant lie. Mith never started such a thread as far as I know, neither on SBC or SFJN, and I didn't post about abusive moderation from Thanatos or CPLF since my first versus thread involving WH40K.

And there, somehow, that was enough to get me permabanned.
Only on the fact that I rejected White Rabbit's revision of the reality. Because, you know, I was properly presenting my points and defending them until he jumped in and started to sling feces around, as usual...

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:45 pm

So, continuing, we see that the story doesn't stop there.

Here's the message I get when trying to reply or start a new thread:
vBulletin Message wrote: You have been banned for the following reason:
Refusal to change behavior after innumerable opportunities and conspiracy theorist mentality. IE, that people are out to get you rather than your own behavior being to blame.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
The claim of "innumerable opportunities" is just too laughable to take seriously.
For some reason I didn't even remember the message was so silly the first time I read it. I don't know if they can edit them.
I had not even noticed the "conspiracy theorist mentality" attack and all the idiocy following that bit. :D
There's no need to go for a "theory": When you have no less than four mods who have refused to reply to your PMs, if only to really get a proper explanation, "face to face", to really see what went wrong, then the point would seem to be clear enough, no?
Yes, that's quite the icing on the cake. I PMed Thanatos and Skyzeta during the former ban. No reply.

During the current permaban, I tried to contact two other mods.

First, I sent a PM to Douglas Nicol.
Mr. Oragahn, Jun 25th 2010, 6:20pm wrote:Hello!
I've been looking around in order to know who I could contact in order to settle an issue regarding my permaban, and since E1701 hasn't posted for more than one year, and Big Steve seems to be off now, you appear to be the one to go to for such matters.
You'll probably tell if that's right anyway.

The problem
I've been banned one week ago by Thanatos, under what I consider an abusive premise. To properly understand this, providing an exhaustive background is required, but I wouldn't want to pull you into that right now, although it's abundantly clear that you could not get what happened with only one single post.
Actually, reading this post alone would most logically make you see this in a way that's juts not what it seems.
Thanatos pretty much picked up the ban campaign where CPL_Facehugger left it, and I have a problem with their moderation standards, style and even etiquette, and I'm not the only one here.
I believe something needs to be done to maintain the versus place as the enjoyable place it's been known for, and I'm all for moderation, but not the biased kind that hurts more than it heals, and frankly a bit more diversity in the mod team for that forum would probably not hurt much either.
A mod like Razor has done a far better job thus far, for example.
So please tell me what you think and should be done, thanks.
I sent a second PM, in case he didn't notice the indication on the top right side of the screen:
Mr. Oragahn, Jun 28th 2010, 6:37pm wrote:Hi!
I'm sending you this PM in order to trigger a "received PM" announcement, as it seems you may have not noticed my former message.
+
Nothing. So I tried to reach The Observer...
Mr. Oragahn, Jul 1st 2010, 5:14pm wrote:Hello!
I've been looking around in order to know who I could contact in order to settle an issue regarding my permaban, and since E1701 hasn't posted for more than one year, and Big Steve seems to be off now, you appear to be the one to go to for such matters.
You'll probably tell if that's right anyway.

The problem
I've been banned one week ago by Thanatos, under what I consider an abusive premise. To properly understand this, providing an exhaustive background is required, but I wouldn't want to pull you into that right now, although it's abundantly clear that you could not get what happened with only one single post.
Actually, reading this post alone would most logically make you see this in a way that's juts not what it seems.
Thanatos pretty much picked up the ban campaign where CPL_Facehugger left it, and I have a problem with their moderation standards, style and even etiquette, and I'm not the only one here.
I believe something needs to be done to maintain the versus place as the enjoyable place it's been known for, and I'm all for moderation, but not the biased kind that hurts more than it heals, and frankly a bit more diversity in the mod team for that forum would probably not hurt much either.
A mod like Razor has done a far better job thus far, for example.
So please tell me what you think and should be done, thanks.
... who must have some sight issues since he didn't notice the PM either.


I contacted Reaperman directly some four days after that, and he replied shortly after:
Reaperman, Jul 4th 2010, 10:49pm wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Hi. I've been trying to reach both Douglas and Observer lately, but they didn't notice my PMs.
Something's gone wrong, dunno.
May you tell one of them that I tried to reach them?
Thanks!

Ciao
ive fwd ure message to them and asked them to reply
On the 11th of July, I sent him a second PM since neither Observer nor Nicol had replied to my PMs.

A couple hours later, I was receiving the following PM from The Observer (I take the liberty to post it as it's totally informal and particularly uninformative):
The Observer wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Hello!
I've been looking around in order to know who I could contact in order to settle an issue regarding my permaban, and since E1701 hasn't posted for more than one year, and Big Steve seems to be off now, you appear to be the one to go to for such matters.
You'll probably tell if that's right anyway.

The problem
I've been banned one week ago by Thanatos, under what I consider an abusive premise. To properly understand this, providing an exhaustive background is required, but I wouldn't want to pull you into that right now, although it's abundantly clear that you could not get what happened with only one single post.
Actually, reading this post alone would most logically make you see this in a way that's juts not what it seems.
Thanatos pretty much picked up the ban campaign where CPL_Facehugger left it, and I have a problem with their moderation standards, style and even etiquette, and I'm not the only one here.
I believe something needs to be done to maintain the versus place as the enjoyable place it's been known for, and I'm all for moderation, but not the biased kind that hurts more than it heals, and frankly a bit more diversity in the mod team for that forum would probably not hurt much either.
A mod like Razor has done a far better job thus far, for example.
So please tell me what you think and should be done, thanks.
Dear Sir,

Your banning has been reviewed and found just. You have been given many chances in the past but your behaviour never changed. In fact you were up for perm ban at least once before but that was reduced in a "last chance" manner.

Thanks,

The Observer
To which I replied:
Mr. Oragahn, Jul 11th 2010, 12:22am wrote: Hi,

The trouble is, it was never explained what was actually wrong with my behaviour. It would be a bit hard to change anything when having no real clue what to start with.
Neither CPLF nor Thanatos bothered with the warning system, which at least providing a modicum of information.

At the very least, it would be more constructive and respectful to explain what was clearly wrong and when this did happen.

Hell, the permaban which was turned into a last chance followed a series of bans which were pretty much lopsided and hardly clear to begin with.

I'm actually wondering if you and any other mod, aside from those who were directly involved in the enforcement of sanctions such as CPLF and Thanatos, have come to weigh the evidence with enough objectivity, or simply on your own, independently of what you may have been told.

You know, not replying to PMs is quite rude. I'm looking for real explanations here.

+
I also tried to reach Commander Razor:
Mr. Oragahn, Jul 12th 2010, 12:13am wrote:Hi.
I'm most curious about what goes on here.

I get why you warned both Mith and WR about "the affairs of other blah blah blah" rule.

However, is it normal White Rabbit doesn't get strongly warned for literally trolling and trying to bait me openly while I haven't even posted once in that thread, pulling me into said discussion I obviously can't partake in due to my permaban by quoting a PM I sent him, this against my will and basic netiquette code, and which actually ends completely infringing the permaban I'm actually under???

I'm sure if it had been done by someone else, like say Mith, it would have resulted in an obvious strong warning, if not a direct x days ban, especially considering the "lostness" of my sorry case, for daring allowing me to "post" while I'm under a permaban.

In other words, is it right for WR to troll so openly, cheat the rules, circumvent my permaban, and still get a free pass while others wouldn't?
:wtf:
Don't you think - and I'm not saying this against you specifically - that it's getting a bit worrying?

And btw, how does he know about my "campaign" (:rolleyes:) against what I consider to be nothing more than abusive moderation? I have never talked to him about that.
Do mods have a habit of forwarding PMs they received to members who have nothing to do with the moderation staff? That seems to be what's going on.

Finally, now that you're reading this, perhaps you could do what your other staff partners obviously refused -and still refuse- to do, which is explicitly explain what was wrong with my behaviour, which warranted such a lopsided moderation against me (and some other members) over the last two years, aside from obscure and vague claims about "continued poor behavior" or anything sounding like "refusal to support claims" or whatever cryptic and useless junk of the same vein that fails at being constructive in the slightest possible way.
All the accusations of lack of support of claims in versus debates are nothing more than sheer bullshit. I know the threads where I was warned and even banned by both CPLF and Thanatos, and I know where I posted the evidence I supposedly didn't post.
I even have largely demonstrated at SFJN how those accusations were pure bollocks and nothing more than complete and utter bias against one side, in a way that makes Alyeska's mod power abuse rather tame by comparison.
Perhaps my mistake was not to trust the other mods and supermods enough to go right for them when problems showed up the first time, but back then I didn't see any good doing it since from my point of view, I considered that two mods couldn't act like they did without a large support from the higher ups, especially since what happened with Alyeska, so I didn't bother. And my posts at SFJN, when things were really getting stinky, were made to make sure no one would erase them, a guarantee I obviously didn't have if I had made that public at SBC. And since people at SFJN like to talk about the affairs of other boards, it was just a place as good as any other to say what I had to say. It's a good way to sanely keep an eye on the way the versus community evolves.
Perhaps I should have come to ther higher ups earlier on (that despite my ics related wanking gif drama :p oh boy), but now it's really getting silly, if not downright immature.
Four mods in total have been contacted since my former ban, some of them twice actually, and I never got a real answer to my question. I took me two PMs to Reap himself to get one of you guys, Observer, to reply, and he served me the same old tripe about bad behaviour whatever. In other words, he could have refrained sending me this PM, it would have saved me space in my inbox.
Nevertheless, I contacted Obs to get a clarification over that murky nonsense. Unsurprisingly, he stays mute.

Now I'd rather these same people cut the sissy diplomatic crap and say what they really think, or on the contrary, try to prove that CPLF and Than had any clue about what they were doing with those moderation powers over the last two years, aside from favouring a particular side during the debates (side either being SW or WH40K).
If mods can't even be arsed to indicate which rules are violated and actually demonstrate it, nor respect the warning point system, nor bother warning members to cool down instead of immediately going for the sanction, perhaps they should stop being mods at once?

+
Message -> Deaf ears.

That's about it.
I will certainly not bother making another account if it's to deal with such behaviour. It's silly and a waste of time.

Last but not least, as a final note on this story, before going into details about two moderators, let me point out something else.
As I said earlier on, the mods were not bothering with proper warnings nor explanations anymore. There's a warning points system at SBC.
See here:
Twisted Mentat, Jul 8th 2010, 7:32am wrote:
The points correspond to specific temp bans. Whenever you reach the threshold a temp ban is automatically given.

Code: Select all

Points  	Ban Period
100 	  	1 Day(s)
200 	  	3 Day(s)
300 	  	3 Day(s)
500 	  	5 Day(s)
800 	  	7 Day(s)
900 	  	2 Week(s)
I have 50 points, about to expire the Oct 9th 2010, at 11:10pm.

Conclusion: their warning system is a joke they'll happily ignore at the first occasion, as it's very useful to enforce bans without leaving the slightest clue about the real reasons.
Now you get an idea of the mentality over there. I expected better of them.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

Re: Attn: Thanatos

Post by Tyralak » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:47 am

I'm not sure why you expected better of them. Their dishonesty and infantile double standards is why we used to refer to SB.com as "The kiddie pool". Let them pat themselves on the back, just like they do at SDN. They give White Rabbit a pass on everything he does, yet they come down hard on people who can actually make salient points.

Post Reply