Sir Cromulent Sparkles vs KB (sp/from Moderation: questions, and pointless whinging)

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Hey Kevin, great to be back and see that your so-called "clean up" in this thread involved deleting key information that I posted relating to your bizarre ruling here, such as my efforts to educate you on the word "lying". By the way, I never used the word "liar" in my comment to Scott in the shoutbox as you've mentioned here, but why let the truth get in the way when you can just delete my content and misrepresent me at will after banning me for spurious reasons. Boss move that.

As we've already established that you've incorrectly assumed dominion over the word "lying" and have co-opted it for your own devices as a perceived authority over the good folks at Merriam-Webster, I will just point out that your claim that Scott did not befoul the shoutbox with his usual unruliness in calling multiple people "racist" (including a politician initially) is actually a complete falsehood in regards to your own shoutbox guidelines as per your post here which refers to :

New additional shoutbox guidelines
* strident soapboxing about political or religious non-chess issues. Take it to a thread."
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post260973

These guidelines are linked directly from your own site rules http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....ll=1#post58499 which is why its amazing to see you completely forget about your own rules and guidelines, but I guess you somehow "mysteriously" forgot that Scott calling a politician "racist" was strident soapboxing about political issues.

Also note that nowhere under any decree of "rules" or "guidelines" is your bizarre take on "lying" / "lie" specifically mentioned even though you seem so adamant that not only are you correct (I've already proven you to be wrong), but that the average poster should be familiar with this interpretation. So not only do you fail to qualify to deny me the interpretation of the word I've mentioned (as per the authoritative definition I sourced from Merriam-Webster that you've subsequently deleted ), you don't even pin it to the "rules" post even though you seem so fixated with it.

If you call him a liar first then you don't get any sympathy.

Nice gaslighting here as I clearly didn't ask for sympathy from you or anyone else in the slightest bit (I also didn't use the word "liar" as mentioned earlier), other than requiring you to make a reasonable assessment about Scotts comments of racism (directed towards myself and the aforementioned politician) in the scheme of things, so nice work with that one. Always telling when the amateur obfuscation is foisted on oneself for certain people to dodge the issue at hand when they don't wish to engage sincerely.

I'm sure all this stuff is incredibly tedious for pretty much everyone except the three posters involved. I will if necessary be banning both you and Shaun from replying to or mentioning Scott, and banning Scott from replying to or mentioning either of you.

Lol. And now with the hapless strawman argument that I even care how the conversation is observed, as I've never claimed this conversation was important to anyone at all (let alone to those involved) , so this is just another lame put down of yours that completely misses the mark. Dont forget, I wasn't the one that started moaning about the issue (im only here to put the stroppy and misguided in their place), so maybe try to direct your superfluous apathy towards your boy wonder Scott.

By the way, so nice of you to threaten to further ban myself and Shaun. Funny how Scott is always mentioned as an afterthought in these matters as per usual as if he never starts the controversies here but Im sure this type of logic is one which earns you much respect with boy wonder.

Thread locked temporarily for moderation cleanup later tonight. Commenting on moderation is banned across the entire forum until this has occurred.

Kevin, next time you should try to be a little more transparent and also post exactly what it was you chose to initially ban me for and let everyone marvel at the fact that it was only a reference to Scott being a "teachers pet" and a subsequent reference to you censoring this specific comment with the reply "I heart censorship". This was nothing that was specifically related to the ongoing moderation but Im beginning to see that you are happy to take quite generous liberties when in the mood to ban whoever you see fit with the flimsiest of motives. Funny how such onerous proof of responsibility is needed for some people (not yourself), but no doubt its empowering to dole out these inconsistencies. That said, banning me for no real reason might help you construct the facade that you actually argued your points well, but nobody with a modicum of intelligence is being fooled.

But hey, just as long as your boy thinks your work is "fair and impartial" is all that matters.

[Kevin Bonham]

I'm not sure I should be expected to find the time to read all that angry froth but just for starters I did not put the word "liar" in quotes at any point, so I did not say you used the word "liar" verbatim. If you accuse someone of lying you are calling them a liar. This isn't complicated and neither is allowed on this forum without evidence of intentional dishonesty.

By the way, so nice of you to threaten to further ban myself and Shaun.

And now you are misrepresenting what I said, which was "I will if necessary be banning both you and Shaun from replying to or mentioning Scott, and banning Scott from replying to or mentioning either of you." I was not threatening to ban either of you from the site (unless of course after I imposed such a limit you were pigheaded enough to defy it), and the remedy I threatened to employ clearly applied equally in both directions.

I will just point out that your claim that Scott did not befoul the shoutbox with his usual unruliness in calling multiple people "racist" (including a politician initially) is actually a complete falsehood in regards to your own shoutbox guidelines as per your post here which refers to :

Should I be counting a single tweet about a US politician as strident soapboxing? If so the appropriate way to raise that is by a request for moderation, which may well have been acted on (indeed I did eventually delete that tweet anyway) not by accusing the shouter of lying.

Kevin, next time you should try to be a little more transparent and also post exactly what it was you chose to initially ban me for and let everyone marvel at the fact that it was only a reference to Scott being a "teachers pet" and a subsequent reference to you censoring this specific comment with the reply "I heart censorship".

So you were not banned for the first; it was deleted and a warning was posted. You were then banned for the second. When I say commenting about moderation is banned I mean exactly that - all commenting about moderation.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

I'm not sure I should be expected to find the time to read all that angry froth but just for starters I did not put the word "liar" in quotes at any point, so I did not say you used the word "liar" verbatim. If you accuse someone of lying you are calling them a liar. This isn't complicated and it is not allowed on this forum without proof.

I love how you start with a desperate ad hominem attack ("angry froth") completely ignore the fact that I've proven all of this to be the fault of Scott with your own rules and you STILL try to push this semantic dribble about how "lying" (the exact word I used) is only framed in the manner you seek fit. Once again, funny how this "rule" of yours isn't actually a site rule.

By the way, you literally deleted a complete dictionary reference to the word "lying" as part of the evidence I provided that you dont understand the word "lying" as if this was inconsequential and you honestly think people are going to take you seriously ?

And now you are misrepresenting what I said, which was "I will if necessary be banning both you and Shaun from replying to or mentioning Scott, and banning Scott from replying to or mentioning either of you." I was not threatening to ban either of you from the site (unless of course after I imposed such a limit you were pigheaded enough to defy it), and the remedy I threatened to employ clearly applied equally in both directions.

Lol. I never mentioned anything about being banned from the site so its you who is making stuff up AGAIN.

And I did not make such a claim; indeed I later deleted that shout as well. The point is that there was no call for you to respond to that in the way you did - if you thought it warranted moderation a polite comment to that effect in here would have been fine and most likely acted upon.

Its literally the first sentence of your initial reply to Scott that confirms you felt he did nothing wrong per his initial shout. And dont pretend that just because you did something retrospectively that its fine as all along you've targeted me and been extremely disingenuous about this whole matter too.

Remember this Kevin : "I've deleted the exchange from the shout that included the claim of lying as that was the first one that was clearly out of bounds although hardly the last (on I suspect both sides but I really don't care)."

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Should I be counting a single tweet about a US politician as strident soapboxing? If so the appropriate way to raise that is by a request for moderation, which may well have been acted on (indeed I did eventually delete that tweet anyway) not by accusing the shouter of lying.

Should you be counting a charge of racism against a politician as strident language ? Honestly, I suggest you consult Merriam Webster for both the words "lying" and "strident" as todays homework.

The tweet was literally brought to your attention via Scotts protest against my shout, but you chose to agree with him and ignore your own rules and think nothing of it until I defended my case. Funny how the obligation is on me to tell you of this specific shout when you already knew about it originally.

So you were not banned for the first; it was deleted and a warning was posted. You were then banned for the second. When I say commenting about moderation is banned I mean exactly that - all commenting about moderation.

I wasn't talking about moderation only about Scotts character and your decision to delete my post about Scotts character. Once again, you trumpet this notion that everyone should have irrefutable proof as to whether others are intentionally lying but when it comes to knowing my intentions you are apparently happy to obtain ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to make decisions. This is hypocritical.

[Kevin Bonham]

I love how you start with a desperate ad hominem attack ("angry froth")

"Angry froth" is not an ad hominem attack, desperate or otherwise.

By the way, you literally deleted a complete dictionary reference to the word "lying" as part of the evidence I provided that you dont understand the word "lying" as if this was inconsequential and you honestly think people are going to take you seriously ?

Well it's funny you mention that because your own reference to the term "lying" was to this entry in Merriam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie#h3

You referred to the content of "lie (noun) entry 3 of 4." But in fact the entry you referred to says "3: a charge of lying (see LIE entry 3)". LIE entry 3 is a link which goes to the entry "lie verb (2)" and the context in which it appears, the only one relevant to a person doing it, is " to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive".

Lol. I never mentioned anything about being banned from the site so its you who is making stuff up AGAIN.

I don't agree. A reference to being banned that doesn't mention that it is only banning from doing something reads like you are talking about being banned completely. Anyway, the point is I was not threatening to ban you from the site (unless you breached any directive I imposed).

And dont pretend that just because you did something retrospectively that its fine as all along you've targeted me and been extremely disingenuous about this whole matter too.

This is nonsense; there have been plenty of times in these tiresome exchanges where I have moderated different people in different directions. But you were the first one to take it to the point of defying a moderation directive having been clearly warned of the consequences of doing so.

Remember this Kevin : "I've deleted the exchange from the shout that included the claim of lying as that was the first one that was clearly out of bounds although hardly the last (on I suspect both sides but I really don't care)."

Happy to remember it and stand by it. Scott was replying to a comment by Sprouty about US politics. He wasn't launching into a prolonged diatribe or a rant about politics out of nowhere. It's debatable whether it was out of bounds, ergo it wasn't clearly out of bounds. In contrast, standards re claims of "lying" have long been well established here starting from this post on the first page of the decisions thread way back in 2005:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....ll=1#post77855

Once again, you trumpet this notion that everyone should have irrefutable proof as to whether others are intentionally lying but when it comes to knowing my intentions you are apparently happy to obtain ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to make decisions. This is hypocritical.

No it isn't. Your "I heart censorship" post was obviously a comment about moderation.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

"Angry froth" is not an ad hominem attack, desperate or otherwise.

Oh dear what do we have here ? Once again you seem to be in need of an authoritative source such is your feigned knowledge for the term "ad-hominem". Please immerse yourself in the following if you so choose to, since you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that opening with the comment "angry froth" is an ad hominem attack ............. :

Ad hominem (adjective) :
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Feel free to also click on this link if you were wondering where it was sourced from : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Well it's funny you mention that because your own reference to the term "lying" was to this entry in Merriam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie#h3

You referred to the content of "lie (noun) entry 3 of 4." But in fact the entry you referred to says "3: a charge of lying (see LIE entry 3)". LIE entry 3 is a link which goes to the entry "lie verb (2)" and the context in which it appears, the only one relevant to a person doing it, is " to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive".

The only thing that is funny is that you maintain this act of being more fixated over the interpretation of "lying" than on the word "racist" as if being called a racist means very little to you and the theme of racism pales into insignificance in regards to lying.

Once again you are exceedingly disingenuous in trying to create doubt with this reply as I posted the defintion for "lie" to explain to you the confusion you have created in your mind. As the term "lying" doesn't even mention the possibility of your myopic take on this word I actually went out of my way to explain the juxtaposition of how it can be interpreted (by use of the word "lie" instead) but now you pretend like I was the one being deceptive when in fact I was just trying to help you see the light.

By the way, I actually referred to BOTH entry 3 of 4 AND 4 of 4 for the word "lie" and this is just another flawed effort at recalling things of mine you've summarily deleted out of sight.

As mentioned earlier, here is the definition for the word "lying" (the one I specifically used) which technically doesn't even allow for any scope for you to claim what you've been claiming (whereas "lie" does and this is why I posted "lie" instead as a sign of goodwill).

lying adjective
Definition of lying (Entry 1 of 2)
: marked by or containing untrue statements
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lying

Notice how nowhere in this definition is it mentioned that intent is included in the process ? Once again as mentioned previously, Merriam-Webster is the authoritative source in this discussion and you clearly do not exceed their knowledge as you are not a lexicographer.

I don't agree.

You are wrong.

A reference to being banned that doesn't mention that it is only banning from doing something reads like you are talking about being banned completely.

Oh how laughable Kevin. Now you're trying to blame me for you yourself making an erroneous deduction about a comment that in no way mentions being banned in full from the site. As anybody who is familiar with what goes on here knows, Shaun94 hasn't ever been banned to begin with so you pretending that my comment meant a full site ban (even though this was never mentioned) makes even less sense in the context of his inclusion. I would have thought this a pretty basic reply to nut out, but I guess I was expecting too much.

Anyway, the point is I was not threatening to ban you from the site (unless you breached any directive I imposed).

Lol, the point here is that you're desperate to make any silly accusation stick and you're failing miserably. Your stubbornness clearly knows no bounds in pretending you can falsely accuse me of misrepresenting you and then fail to admit fault by blaming me for your assorted transgresses. How noble of you.

This is nonsense; there have been plenty of times in these tiresome exchanges where I have moderated different people in different directions. But you were the first one to take it to the point of defying a moderation directive having been clearly warned of the consequences of doing so.

So good to see you avoid the crux of my reply here with your usual implausible tangents but Im sure it made sense to you.

By the way, you seem to have mixed up the concept of "moderation" (which was already enacted by yourself prior to you banning me) with "defying a moderation directive" as your claim that I was supposedly "the first one to take it to the point of defying a moderation directive having been clearly warned of the consequences of doing so" happened a long long time after you'd started erasing a lot of my content (and some of Scotts) and is clearly an illogical addition and moot to the theme of "moderation".

Happy to remember it and stand by it. Scott was replying to a comment by Sprouty about US politics. He wasn't launching into a prolonged diatribe or a rant about politics out of nowhere. It's debatable whether it was out of bounds, ergo it wasn't clearly out of bounds. In contrast, standards re claims of "lying" have long been well established here starting from this post on the first page of the decisions thread way back in 2005:

Lol. Your very own rule doesn't mention "prolonged diatribe" or "rant" only that an individual be making "strident" reference to political figures which Scott clearly was and for them to post it in a thread and not in soapbox. Its literally not even remotely debatable other than to those who are disingenuous towards the use of the word "strident".

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....ll=1#post77855

Lol. So your curious interpretation of "lying" is hidden away on the 2nd page (which I've never even read since the site rules are compiled on the 1st post of the very 1st page) and we're all supposed to know this by heart (not that it should be agreed with to begin with )? Once again, if its an official rule and so cherished by you, why isn't it posted on the very first post with all the rest of them (like your rule against strident political soapboxing is ) since you seem to be so fixated with this ?

No it isn't. Your "I heart censorship" post was obviously a comment about moderation.

Once again Kevin, it was a comment about your censorship for my previous post relating to Scotts character (again, not related to the moderation) and didn't reference the ongoing situation in the moderation thread.

You clearly overstepped the mark again here by not bothering to establish the facts which unfortunately seems quite common for you throughout this episode.

[Kevin Bonham]

Oh dear what do we have here ? Once again you seem to be in need of an authoritative source such is your feigned knowledge for the term "ad-hominem". Please immerse yourself in the following if you so choose to, since you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that opening with the comment "angry froth" is an ad hominem attack ............. :

Ad hominem (adjective) :
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You need to read the fine print on this one as well:

An "argument ad hominem" (or argumentum ad hominem, to use the full New Latin phrase) was a valid method of persuasion by which one took advantage of an opponent's interests or feelings in a debate, instead of just sticking to general principles.

How precisely does me calling your angry froth "angry froth" take advantage of your interests or feelings? Why are you even construing it as an "argument" at all rather than simply a description of the content in front of me and an explanation of why I might not necessarily counter it all?

The only thing that is funny is that you maintain this act of being more fixated over the interpretation of "lying" than on the word "racist" as if being called a racist means very little to you and the theme of racism pales into insignificance in regards to lying.

No, as already noted I draw a line between posters insulting each other and posters insulting irrelevant US politicians, and I also distinguish to a degree between someone jumping in and insulting a poster based on what they have posted and the poster then retaliating.

Once again you are exceedingly disingenuous in trying to create doubt with this reply as I posted the defintion for "lie" to explain to you the confusion you have created in your mind. As the term "lying" doesn't even mention the possibility of your myopic take on this word I actually went out of my way to explain the juxtaposition of how it can be interpreted (by use of the word "lie" instead) but now you pretend like I was the one being deceptive when in fact I was just trying to help you see the light.

Ipse dixit.

By the way, I actually referred to BOTH entry 3 of 4 AND 4 of 4 for the word "lie" and this is just another flawed effort at recalling things of mine you've summarily deleted out of sight.

False - I retained the deleted post and it only refers to the noun entry.

Notice how nowhere in this definition is it mentioned that intent is included in the process ? Once again as mentioned previously, Merriam-Webster is the authoritative source in this discussion and you clearly do not exceed their knowledge as you are not a lexicographer.

I may not be a lexicographer and I have been known to argue that only paper dictionaries are the real deal, but I do know the difference between an adjective and a verb.

Oh how laughable Kevin. Now you're trying to blame me for you yourself making an erroneous deduction about a comment that in no way mentions being banned in full from the site. As anybody who is familiar with what goes on here knows, Shaun94 hasn't ever been banned to begin with so you pretending that my comment meant a full site ban (even though this was never mentioned) makes even less sense in the context of his inclusion.

Not given the volume of angry froth surrounding it. It was hardly as if you were being so coherent that I should have assumed you were mindful of that, so I didn't.

So good to see you avoid the crux of my reply here with your usual implausible tangents but Im sure it made sense to you.

By the way, you seem to have mixed up the concept of "moderation" (which was already enacted by yourself prior to you banning me) with "defying a moderation directive" as your claim that I was supposedly "the first one to take it to the point of defying a moderation directive having been clearly warned of the consequences of doing so" happened a long long time after you'd started erasing a lot of my content (and some of Scotts) and is clearly an illogical addition and moot to the theme of "moderation".

That was my desperate attempt to make even the slightest sense of you nailing yourself sookily to the cross that "all along you've targeted me". Aside from you being the only one who has got themselves banned (as such) during any of these exchanges I couldn't think of any remotely rational way you might even imagine that was a sensible thing to say. If I overestimated the rationality of your comments by not very much then my apologies.

Lol. Your very own rule doesn't mention "prolonged diatribe" or "rant" only that an individual be making "strident" reference to political figures which Scott clearly was and for them to post it in a thread and not in soapbox. Its literally not even remotely debatable other than to those who are disingenuous towards the use of the word "strident".

You seem to be confused here between the words "soapbox" and "shoutbox". Perhaps your friends at Merriam-Webster can assist you with that one.

Lol. So your curious interpretation of "lying" is hidden away on the 2nd page

(which I've never even read since the site rules are compiled on the 1st post of the very 1st page) and we're all supposed to know this by heart (not that it should be agreed with to begin with )? Once again, if its an official rule and so cherished by you, why isn't it posted on the very first post with all the rest of them (like your rule against strident political soapboxing is ) since you seem to be so fixated with this ?

Because as the opening post says, the rules list does not aim to be complete, and the thread is a thread to post details of moderation standards. If people choose not to read the whole thread that's fine; it just may be that now and then they'll get moderated for something not mentioned in the first post. In any case you were not "respectful of other conversations" so you were in breach of the forum rules anyway.

Once again Kevin, it was a comment about your censorship for my previous post relating to Scotts character (again, not related to the moderation) and didn't reference the ongoing situation in the moderation thread.

Once again, which part of "Commenting on moderation is banned across the entire forum until this has occurred." was difficult for you to understand? I did not limit that directive to comment about any specific situation (though your comments obviously were to a significant degree in relation to that situation anyway).

You clearly overstepped the mark again here by not bothering to establish the facts which unfortunately seems quite common for you throughout this episode.

Nonsense; your account of the facts only shows that you agree that you were commenting on a moderation action - something which I had explicitly banned.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

You need to read the fine print on this one as well

No I dont since this is more predictable silliness on your behalf.

An "argument ad hominem" (or argumentum ad hominem, to use the full New Latin phrase) was a valid method of persuasion by which one took advantage of an opponent's interests or feelings in a debate, instead of just sticking to general principles.

How precisely does me calling your angry froth "angry froth" take advantage of your interests or feelings? Why are you even construing it as an "argument" at all rather than simply a description of the content in front of me and an explanation of why I might not necessarily counter it all?

My goodness Kevin you really are hilarious with your constant need to ignore the truth and pretend I uttered things I never did. Once again, you now pretend I mentioned "argument" in relation to ad hominem which I never did (only "ad hominem attack"). Its pretty amazing how times you misrepresent me here, and keep coming back to beclown yourself with more whimsical attempts to dig an even bigger hole for yourself. [snip-mod]

By the way, "angry" of the aforementioned "angry froth" is clearly an attempt at framing my feelings in a certain light (like your previous gaslighting) so dont waste my time pretending you've suddenly found a successful counterpoint when even that which you've found (even though I've established its not what I've said) is sadly lacking in substance and logic. Once again you flail away in the mire of quicksand as per usual.

No, as already noted I draw a line between posters insulting each other and posters insulting irrelevant US politicians, and I also distinguish to a degree between someone jumping in and insulting a poster based on what they have posted and the poster then retaliating.

And as already noted before, you have an existing guideline relating to shoutbox conduct that you've completely ignored here and elevated another one (as dubious as it is) with more prominence even though it isn't even referenced or linked to on the 1st post of the 1st page.

If this was a legal case you'd be laughed out of the court by all and sundry and the judge would fine you for wasting the courts time.

Ipse dixit.

Derp derp.

False - I retained the deleted post and it only refers to the noun entry.

I never said my reference wasn't related to noun entries only that you've completely failed to reference 3 of 4 AND 4 of 4.

False - the deleted material did not refer to this at all.

Lol. Once again, I've already said that I only posted a reference to Merriam-Webster for the word "lie" and gave explicit reasons why I didn't offer "lying". Reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be a huge forte of yours.

I may not be a lexicographer and I have been known to argue that only paper dictionaries are the real deal, but I do know the difference between an adjective and a verb.

Congrats on this achievement. Not that its relevant to anything here, but I do applaud the start of your re-education here to make amends. Good to see your literacy is improving and that you finally know the difference between an adjective and verb. Gold star for you.

Not given the volume of angry froth surrounding it. It was hardly as if you were being so coherent that I should have assumed you were mindful of that, so I didn't.

I love how you're still keeping up with this ludicrous assumption that your powers of deduction can astutely pinpoint when a particular person is "angry" on the internet . You really shouldn't keep kidding yourself that you can adequately understand my intentions let alone anyone on the net, as I hardly think your EQ is at the right side of the bell curve.

That was my desperate attempt to make even the slightest sense of you nailing yourself sookily to the cross that "all along you've targeted me". Aside from you being the only one who has got themselves banned (as such) during any of these exchanges I couldn't think of any remotely rational way you might even imagine that was a sensible thing to say. If I overestimated the rationality of your comments by not very much then my apologies.

Once again with the gaslighting in your usual desperate attempt to cast me as a sook when I was merely stating a fact . What a triumphant and juvenile refrain this is. Cant say I was feeling anything other than a fairly neutral range of emotions when I wrote that but good on you for being you and casting more underhanded aspersions such is your need. Im also completely certain you shouldn't consider yourself to be an authority on rationality owing to your assembled output here but best wishes with that fantasy (among others).

You seem to be confused here between the words "soapbox" and "shoutbox". Perhaps your friends at Merriam-Webster can assist you with that one.

Amazing how you can instantly link "soapbox" to "shoutbox" as if there really was no confusion at all, but why let a perfect opportunity to snipe away go to waste when you've got nothing of substance to offer ? Huge win for you no doubt as nothing wins an argument quite like identifying obvious spelling mistakes.

Hopefully my friends at Merriam-Webster can sponsor you with a college dictionary to help keep you on the path to full enlightenment.

Because as the opening post says, the rules list does not aim to be complete, and the thread is a thread to post details of moderation standards. If people choose not to read the whole thread that's fine; it just may be that now and then they'll get moderated for something not mentioned in the first post. In any case you were not "respectful of other conversations" so you were in breach of the forum rules anyway.

Bizarro World must be hugely amusing for all of you guys. Give my best wishes to your peers Antichrist and Scott when you see them next.

Once again, which part of "Commenting on moderation is banned across the entire forum until this has occurred." was difficult for you to understand? I did not limit that directive to comment about any specific situation (though your comments obviously were to a significant degree in relation to that situation anyway).

Clearly the bit where you retrospectively massaged the meaning of this flimsy edict of yours into meaning something completely different which I've established was a huge problem earlier. Maybe have a look back at the numerous times I've already pointed out the flaws in your ramshackle ideas and reassess things.

Nonsense; your account of the facts only shows that you agree that you were commenting on a moderation action - something which I had explicitly banned.

Lol with this lunacy again. Funny how you seem to keep ignoring the fact that my first comment that was deleted relating to Scott WASN'T about moderation. I also love that youve somehow broadened the scope of "moderation" to be that which doesn't involve that original situation (Scotts complaint) to conveniently include my post commenting on your deletion of my "teachers pet" post. Either way, even if that does qualify under your fancifully imperious decree , it still means that I've only provided one instance of violating your precious ruling and not two. That said, nobody with any semblance of propriety would begrudge my critique of your obvious errors and overzealous moderating so none of this is really needing debate .

By the way, you really do love a good old power trip dont you ?

[Scott Colliver]

Kevin is a longstanding moderator of good standing who is not biased. Please follow his ruling and move on.

[Kevin Bonham]

My goodness Kevin you really are hilarious with your constant need to ignore the truth and pretend I uttered things I never did. Once again, you now pretend I mentioned "argument" in relation to ad hominem which I never did (only "ad hominem attack"). Its pretty amazing how times you misrepresent me here, and keep coming back to beclown yourself with more whimsical attempts to dig an even bigger hole for yourself.

And I snipped the bit at the end of this because it was false. Don't make false claims about any poster's medical history, not even mine. They will be removed.

Now, to the point at hand. Your source used "ad hominem" in the context of "argument ad hominem". If I was giving you too much credit by assuming you had actually read and understood the context in which a term was used by your source prior to deciding to use it to defend your indefensible position then I must apologise again.

By the way, "angry" of the aforementioned "angry froth" is clearly an attempt at framing my feelings

So? "framing" has nothing to do with the context referring to feelings above.

And as already noted before, you have an existing guideline relating to shoutbox conduct that you've completely ignored here

Correction - as already claimed and rebutted before.

If this was a legal case you'd be laughed out of the court by all and sundry and the judge would fine you for wasting the courts time.

The judge would be more likely to fine me for yawning at this point.

I never said my reference wasn't related to noun entries only that you've completely failed to reference 3 of 4 AND 4 of 4.

Go write a thesis about how this is a remotely relevant response to what it was posted in response to and nail it to a door somewhere. Preferably as far away from here as possible.

Lol. Once again, I've already said that I only posted a reference to Merriam-Webster for the word "lie" and gave explicit reasons why I didn't offer "lying". Reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be a huge forte of yours.

I actually removed the second "false" here because I realised you might have just been expressing yourself terribly and your claim to have mentioned the definition of "lying" before may have been confined to you stating that such a definition existed in your pet source.

Congrats on this achievement. Not that its relevant to anything here, but I do applaud the start of your re-education here to make amends. Good to see your literacy is improving and that you finally know the difference between an adjective and verb.

But do you?

I love how you're still keeping up with this ludicrous assumption that your powers of deduction can astutely pinpoint when a particular person is "angry" on the internet .

Well there are some common hallmarks. Needlessly putting things in bold and underlining them for no reason at all is often one of them. But not always!

You really shouldn't keep kidding yourself that you can adequately understand my intentions let alone anyone on the net, as I hardly think your EQ is at the right side of the bell curve.

Um er what? I'm being lectured on EQ by a person who's picked being quite nasty to a person with obvious mental health challenges as a hill to die on? Seen it all now!

Once again with the gaslighting in your usual desperate attempt to cast me as a sook when I was merely stating a fact .

But it's not a fact; it's complete nonsense that you have been targeted all along. I haven't been targeting you for moderation attention over any series of incidents or history of your exchanges with Scott. I didn't even accept Scott's suggestion that I should ban you from the shoutbox, I just deleted a shout and said why.

Amazing how you can instantly link "soapbox" to "shoutbox" as if there really was no confusion at all, but why let a perfect opportunity to snipe away go to waste when you've got nothing of substance to offer ? Huge win for you no doubt as nothing wins an argument quite like identifying obvious spelling mistakes.

Ah yes, so blame the reader because you didn't write properly. I was hoping you'd show the same vivid interest in the MW definition of "soapbox" as you do in all of their others.

Clearly the bit where you retrospectively massaged the meaning of this flimsy edict of yours into meaning something completely different which I've established was a huge problem earlier. Maybe have a look back at the numerous times I've already pointed out the flaws in your ramshackle ideas and reassess things.

I reckon you could give even antichrist lessons in empty triumphalism here. There was no change in meaning whatsoever.

Funny how you seem to keep ignoring the fact that my first comment that was deleted relating to Scott WASN'T about moderation.

Oh yes it was! The irrefutable font of all definitional wisdom according to you, Merriam Webster defines "teacher's pet" as "1: a pupil who has won the teacher's special favor
2: a person who is treated as a favorite by one in authority". By using this claim you said that I was moderating to favour Scott (which is absolute bulldust anyway, I have moderated him heaps.)

I also love that youve somehow broadened the scope of "moderation" to be that which doesn't involve that original situation (Scotts complaint) to conveniently include my post commenting on your deletion of my "teachers pet" post.

There was no broadening - the decree was absolutely broad from the start. One reason it was so broad is that this board has a long-running issue with some posters being particularly bad at keeping comments about moderation to the appropriate section. The warning was to make it clear to all posters - not just those discussing that current situation - that discussion of moderation was closed until the discussion thread was cleaned up.

That said, nobody with any semblance of propriety would begrudge my critique of your obvious errors and overzealous moderating so none of this is really needing debate .

Rubbish. We were actually bending over backwards to be slack in moderating you by only kicking you off for a short time after you used another account to post while banned, something which has led to very long bans in the past. But we know well from all the past dribblers we eventually evicted that no matter how lenient we are they will always complain they were hard done by.

By the way, you really do love a good old power trip dont you ?

No but I do have a great compulsion to flippantly comply with invalid stereotypes just to discourage people from making them about me in the future.

[Kevin Bonham]

Posts deleted

Posts not commenting on moderation and starting with one poster responding to a comment about moderation with abuse have been provisionally deleted. I may move some or all of them to a different thread but posters are entitled to make on-topic comments about moderation without being subject to such replies.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Posts deleted

Posts not commenting on moderation and starting with one poster responding to a comment about moderation with abuse have been provisionally deleted. I may move some or all of them to a different thread but posters are entitled to make on-topic comments about moderation without being subject to such replies.

Wow, you really are desperate to cover Scotts backside aren't you ?

[false claim deleted - mod]

Youve really sewn this up well haven't you Kev and its pitiful how posts of mine always seem to disappear AFTER I respond to he who should not be contacting me in the first place. Lol with trying to frame me as abusive once again as the worst I called him was "too hopeless" and "too abusive" and you only need to remember back to him calling me racist 2 weeks ago and notice his efforts today in trying to pretend he apologised to qualify both those comments.

But hey, whats new ?

[Kevin Bonham]

What a brilliant move it is to delete my content once again and desperately frame me as some sort of villain incorrectly. This despite us both knowing that the last part of the conversation I had with Scott after he'd interjected here today (once again, he contacted me not the other way around), involved him pretending to have apologised for calling me racist when this was patently false and proven by the Shoutbox Archive which I provided evidence for.

I deleted the off-topic posts for now but in one of them Scott made the completely obvious reply that the Shoutbox Archive proves absolutely nothing because I deleted all the shouts between you starting from your claim of lying (which means they are not in the archive). Therefore at this stage you've presented no viable evidence that he is pretending to have apologised, and not even any evidence that he did not apologise. This means that you are again accusing him of dishonesty, but you've not even presented valid evidence that he did not apologise, let alone that he is now dishonestly and falsely claiming not to have apologised.

If you do not within 24 hours present valid evidence as part of your next post to this thread, or properly retract your claim, I will delete your accusation.

Youve really sewn this up well haven't you Kev and its pitiful how posts of mine always seem to disappear AFTER I respond to he who should not be contacting me in the first place.

At the moment he is entitled to publicly comment on your posts (especially as you are so constantly commenting about him) - that is not "contacting" you. If he was contacting you via PM and you had asked him to desist that would be a different matter.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

deleted the off-topic posts for now but in one of them Scott made the completely obvious reply that the Shoutbox Archive proves absolutely nothing because I deleted all the shouts between you starting from your claim of lying (which means they are not in the archive). Therefore at this stage you've presented no viable evidence that he is pretending to have apologised, and not even any evidence that he did not apologise. This means that you are again accusing him of dishonesty, but you've not even presented valid evidence that he did not apologise, let alone that he is now dishonestly and falsely claiming not to have apologised.

Lol with this garbage once again of the onus being on myself to prove things after you've apparently deleted content that wouldn't ordinarily deserve deleting. [reference to false claim deleted - mod] Amazing too that you're always so happy to mention that you've saved my deleted comments from various places (boss move that cowboy ) but not this shout from Scott . Huge coincidence that it is nowhere to be seen but apparently its my job to somehow retrieve the irretrievable from the guy who willfully deletes my content for fun.

[deleted - mod]

Once again, Im seeing a lot of similarities between the two of you so its becoming less of a surprise to see you have flipped on a dime in the last ~6-7 years and now back the guy up at every single juncture instead of the old Kevin who would get rather annoyed at his nonsense (justifiably) much like you still treat A/C. Really big difference with you now and how you operated back around 2015-ish but try to not waste my time with your current smoke and mirrors pantomime wheeling out these horrendous assertions of yours as its a pretty tedious little sideshow.

At the moment he is entitled to publicly comment on your posts (especially as you are so constantly commenting about him) - that is not "contacting" you. If he was contacting you via PM and you had asked him to desist that would be a different matter.

Ah yes, the usual semantic gymnastics (a treasured bastion of yours) being relied upon once again to prop up your woeful points.
Who could ever imagine this ragged attempt might appear once more ?

Firstly, Im only mentioning him enough in the context of his outburst and discussing your conduct and abilities to moderate as the main thrust of my content, so once again your disingenuous nature shines through (to make it seem like Im always talking about him). This is clearly false so once again please do better.

Additionally, Im not sure if the concept of social interaction is something you struggle with, but he literally is "contacting" me as per the standard process of interacting with others. He was clearly not required by myself (nor anyone else) to communicate his opinion about you and your character to me but he did. That is literally the definition of contacting someone and it hardly requires involving messages via PM.

If contacting someone specifically requires PM, then that would completely invalidate Scotts claim that he apologised (using this claim of yours) as he has never contacted me with that information via PM (as stated earlier), but he didn't so you're in a bit of bind with this latest boondoggle of yours.

By the way Kevin, I have glanced at your previous effort but have decided that since you immediately started misrepresenting me again by saying I made a claim in regards to [deleted - mod] (which I clearly didn't) and have once again censored my content in your usual overzealous fashion when I only asked you a question, that I wont be bothering paying any attention with the rest of the variously cobbled together splutterings you've written.

All the best.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

If you do not within 24 hours present valid evidence as part of your next post to this thread, or properly retract your claim, I will delete your accusation.

Lol. I missed this supposed update at 4:35pm of yours and its interesting to note that my above reply at 5:48pm didn't pick this up which would indicate I took at least 1:13hr to write and post my reply which definitely wasn't the case. Hmm I wonder whats going on here since Im pretty sure you didn't even post your original "decree" relating to my original ban BEFORE my supposed "violation" of it (thus invalidating it).


By the way, if you do not within 24 hours present valid evidence that you are fit to act as moderator here and properly retract the various erroneous claims you've made against me over the past few days that have been demonstrably wrong, I will be forced to continue to laugh at your hapless efforts.

Its your call.