It’s impossible for him to view and leak PMs, which is what started all this.
He has repeatedly posted almost exactly what you’re saying he should have said, iirc. This is old drama, there’s no point in relitigating it and you’re already on a warning.
I might be fucking up my timing but I’m pretty sure him threatening someone via PM actually took place after this heartfelt apology
if only there were logs to verify all of this.
yes this is my position. I did not doxx anyone. you guys have been accusing me of this since day 1.
I looked up victoar’s sn one day and first result that came up was his public github with his name attached to it. I shared this info ONLY with him, to warn him that he had doxxed himself, and instead of fixing it, he did nothing for months and then posted links to the file on this forum that exposed his real name, as I was telling him to delete/edit the posts to remove that info.
so no, i did not doxx victor or anyone else on this forum. he doxxed himself and to this day I’ve not shared what I found with anyone (which is the actual definition of doxxing).
google is a fun tool. I’m sure you’re capable of using it to look up these definitions.
We don’t need to relitigate it, but if you’re going to step in as a mod of this place you should at least be aware of the relevant history at play here.
Now drop it. (And that was just the most recent result, it’s come up repeatedly and he’s apologized repeatedly.)
Oh so you were aware of this relevant history, but just deemed it irrelevant while churchill’s “history of bans” is relevant. I guess I got my answer to who gets a clean slate and who doesn’t.
1 Like
What in the world are you talking about? What has jmakin done today that deserved a warning or a ban? Please flag the post and I’ll handle it.
I’m talking about how you deemed churchill’s history relevant while jmakin’s history is somehow off-limits as being “old drama” and warned me for bringing it up. Your distinctions between what is and isn’t relevant are arbitrary and based on which posters you may like or dislike (or that you perceive as liked or disliked by other posters here that you like), which is a bad sign for people hoping for more consistent modding (or at least less active modding)
1 Like
Churchill’s history of being repeatedly banned for ignoring moderators and violating warnings, which I brought up as he was trying to dance around a warning, is different from old drama between posters.
Meanwhile, people are just dredging up jmakin’s old wrongs which he’s accounted for, in order to stir shit up with him.
That’s the difference, but if you can point to anything jmakin has done wrong since I’ve taken over as moderator I’ll be happy to address it.
Nevermind, if you don’t see it then you don’t see it. No point in going back and forth if we’re just going to repeat ourselves.
1 Like
It sounds like churchill’s and jmakin’s old drama will be treated equally in terms of what is acceptable posting, but churchill’s recidivism will be taken into account in doling out punishment.
Actually in this case his recidivism was simply taken into account in not arguing with him about his warning. If I were taking everyone’s recidivism into account, I wouldn’t be giving everyone a warning first. Other mods likely have no need to start with warnings as they’ve already been dealing with all of this.
1 Like
I wonder if it would have been better to implement this policy change by giving warnings for the first week, allowing people to get a feel for the line on what is acceptable, then handing out bans after the week is up.
Well, so far I’ve only given warnings under the policy change. The only suspension was for an egregious offense that would always be beyond a warning.
No, I think the warnings reset a midnight, IIRC. One free shot per day, like a coupon.
Nope.
In the future it would be more professional to let a different mod intervene when you are involved in the dispute.
of course, an arbitrary and of course perfectly fairly applied standard of professionalism is to be expected from pure volunteers, because of course
No chance of that if it pertains to anything resembling/approaching/alluding to doxxing, threats, horse porn, etc. If you expect mods to let themselves get doxxed without doing anything about it, feel free to put that to a community vote.
And does “involved in the dispute” = the victim of borderline doxxing?
All I did to involve myself in that was see my initials posted.