Mojo wrote:no. i don't think i really have to argue that anymore. even YOU admit that my ban was not kosher.
I admited Mike may have overreacted not that he went beyond the bounds of his modhood or that you didn't give him just cause. There is a difference.
1. i created a joke thread in which i asked the question, who would fin in a fight, mike or light yagami with his death note.
2. i claimed that light yagami would not only win, instantaneously, but that he would also be capable of controlling mike's actions from the moment he wrote mike's name in the note until his inevitable death, which is a perfectly valid statement.
3. i suggested the possibility that light yagami, pissed off, would likely choose to utilize this ability to humiliate mike, and then further suggested that he might do this by forcing mike to act as if he were a furry and a virgin or something like that.
4. this debate goes on for two or three days, and actually becomes interesting.
5. mike finds the thread and flips the fuck out, totally missing the fact that i did not imply that mike WAS a furry or whatever, only that the death note is capable of forcing anyone to act in any way desired by it's owner, and that it would be perfectly in character for light yagami to amuse himself by forcing this on mike.
6. mike, apparently dissatisfied by the board's policies regarding warnings and bans, invokes emergency powers and bans me for six months although i sat at exactly one warning.
7. he proceeds to petition jms to permban me, and then when airlocke submits a list of questions and statements for me, he ignores them, his only response an admission that my lengthy ban was basically the result of a temper tantrum and that my only recourse was to appeal to jms myself.
8. a few days later, jms complains that he has already pointed out the fact that he no longer wished to moderate the site in any way, and had given control to mike. at this point, mike was fully aware that he possessed the power to permban at will.
9. strangely, mike apparently decides that my post was not worthy of permban after all
given the fact that he does not do so.
10. he does, however, leave me banned for months. questioned on this point, mike literally states himself that he had banned me because i was irritating him, and then states that he doesn't care what anyone thinks about this blatant disregard of board policy.
Or in otherwords you broke the rules blatantly, after being warned not to, deliberatly continued actions to aggrevate the sole mod and are apparently upset that he decided not to go full permaban on you. That isn't abuse on Mike's part, thats being forced into a bad situation by you trying to get a reaction from him. For it to be abusing his power you would need a situation where you were not breaking the rules and he punished you.
i have proven that my ban was unjustified, at the very least in length
You have alleged and stated this, you have not provided any actual evidence to support it. Conversely considering the seriousness of what you did and your refusal to call its quits when Mike warned your punishment of ten weeks while extreme is justifiable. At best you could only petition Triyonia to review his moderation but as I said before you really don't have a case.
mike doesn't even bother to respond, preferring to instead ignore me, lie, lie about lying, lie about having already answered me, and then return to ignoring me again
He has responded to you. You may not like his answers but he has responded. So far at best you have proven that there is disagreement between you and him on certain matters but you have far and away not proved he was lying much less lying about not lying.
you yourself know that invoking emergency powers in order to ban someone for pissing you off is a goddamn textbook example of abusing your power.
Not when "pissing you off" involves breaking the rules which you did. Repeatedly even after being warned. Furthermore considering he was the sole mod at the time and the directed, personal nature of your antics I think he actually showed some restraint in the matter.
so no, i in no way concede anything of the sort.
Well I'm glad to continue discussing it with you through I'm curious why you appeared to drop this argument and from tone and words imply you always been arguging that your problem was that Mike lied about being distracted by you.
board policy requires very specific conditions for a permban, including official warnings and bans of increasing length. go back and look through this thread, and show me where ksw has been given four official warnings and is informed that his next infraction will result in permban.
KSW repeatedly created puppet accounts in blatant violation of the rules in which he used to circumvent bannings. Mike tolerated this far a fairly long time, so there goes your Hardass Mike argument, until at least on like KSW tenth puppet after becoming abusive, which is in violation of the rules, Mike disposed of him. To be blunt KSW had already supplied the rope to hang himself and it required only for the moderators, in this case Mike, to decide to be ride of him. So no dice.
I also feel the need to point out you have changed your argument from KSW wasn't trolling when he was banned to Mike merely didn't follow proper procedure when he banned him.
do not repeat the extremely dishonest claim that i previously supported such action. in the quote you provided which you gave as evidence that i did indeed support that sort of thing, you somehow managed to snip out the part where i am clearly pushing for moderator freedom in giving official warnings. i have never, never argued that the warning system should be circumvented.
Actually I pointed to your give mods free reign sthick about your complaint Mike used grevious board violations which he'd allowed to sit idle to "justify" bannings incurred for minor infractions. Which is exactly the sort of behavior you encouraged, do anything required to achieve ones ends, as I showed.
although that's a hell of an exaggeration, the basic idea is sound.
So Mike is a hard ass smashing down all disdent and he's also a Mod who allows major infractions to pile up such as in KSW case? The same Mike who has created threads to house our remarks and responses to the peramanning of both KSW and SWST?
look through the posts of the past few months. you'll find requests for transparency long before my ban ended. oragahn specifically has made some good arguments. you'll find these requests ignored, as per usual mike dicenso style.
It is your argument please provide the supporting evidence.
mike has accepted the reins of sfj. he is the lead moderator and holds all admin powers. he is also a human being with a life outside the internet. so if mike knew he would often be gone for days at a time and that he somehow has trouble keeping up with the ten posts a day this forum produces, i would think finding new mods and tweaking the rules would be a pretty goddamn high priority. so why did it take a month to bring in trinoya when the board elected him in a poll?
Well an addition of a second Mod is a good thing but that is hardly an argument that his priorities are all askewed, doubly so since this was on the subject of him going after KSW instead of SWST, but if you want to go down that road he compares far better than you who, knowing he is human with Rl obligations, chose to act childish on the boards with your screeds. Also didn't Donner win the poll?
how the fuck could i 'concede' an obvious fact? for christ's sake. mike permanned ksw and then totally failed to permban swst.
Correction. It is a fact that KSW was banned before SWST. However it is not a fact but personal opinion that the banning of KSW before SWST was due to an inherent failure of priorities. Further more since you imply you are still arguing this I would recall your attention to this:
Mojo Fri May 18, 2012 11:43 pm wrote:he thinks my whole problem is his moderation (lack thereof) of swst. i don't care about that, i haven't cared about swst in ages. in fact, i PRAISED his moderation toward the end of that debacle. my problem is his repeated insistence that I am responsible for his inadequate moderation there. all i'm asking for is admission that he used me as a scapegoat and continues to do so.
As taken here
where you clearly state you haven't had a problem with the moderation of SWST in ages, that your solely upset because you feel Mike lied about being distracted by your antics. While Conversely here
Mojo Sat May 05, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:the fact that ksw was banned before swst is an absolute travesty, and the fact that mike went after ksw AND THEN STILL refused to go after swst shows that priorities are so far out of wack i don't know why i even bother to continue typing.
You clearly make mention of the skewed priorities of Mike's moderation habits.
trinoya had to do it, because mike simply refused to, for whatever reason.
Actually without Mike Trinoya couldn't have gotten the permaban in when he did, as Mike has pointed out. And the "killing blow" involved a insult post directed at Mike which he couldn't really act upon and maintain imparitality so he couldn't use it no matter how much he wanted to be rid of the guy. Not without risking becoming what you accuse him of, and if I may be so bold had he done so you almost certainly would have created a thread and complained of him going rogue for that as well.
to sum up, i concede nothing
That is your right but I feel I must point out your arguments tend to mutually exclusive. Mike can not both be a hard ass who crushes all dissident to his will and someone who lets blatent violations slide such as with KSW or with you where he first tolerated and then warned you about your insulting threads before at last banning you. Simiarly you can't argue that you are only concerned about him lying about being distracted, that you have no other issue and have been repeating this sole issue which he has ignored when in fact you have argued half a dozen disparate things over the last couple of weeks.
i offer as evidence strengthening my claims the fact that mike continues to refuse to address them.
Not liking Mike's answer is not the same as not addressing them. You may disagree on the verdict of your ban but Mike stated his reasonings. You may disagree on KSW being banned before SWSt but Mike gave reasons for that in the thread in which he was permabanned. Ect.
but i have come to the point of realizing i need to pick my battles, and the one that bothers me the most is the blatant 'lying'.
So you are at least drawing from debate of the other points? Your choice.