API tools faq
paste
Wanderlost

DSD logs (5/26/2016)

Wanderlost
May 26th, 2016
93
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 12.84 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. [05:26:18:36] <DarkSunDuelist> [ ? ]
  2. [05:26:19:24] <DarkSunDuelist> [ ?? ]
  3. [05:26:20:24] <DarkSunDuelist> Look, I can track how long you've been idle. I know you're online. Please stop ignoring me.
  4. [05:26:20:25] <Wander> What?
  5. [05:26:20:25] <DarkSunDuelist> I've been trying to get your attention all day. Wasn't sure if you were ignoring me intentionally or just missing the messages.
  6. [05:26:20:25] <DarkSunDuelist> Figured asking you to stop ignoring me was a surefire way to get your attention.
  7. [05:26:20:25] <DarkSunDuelist> And yeah, /whois tells people how long you've been idle in most clients.
  8. [05:26:20:26] <Wander> I've been busy dealing with some other things most of the day, so the question marks without a context to them haven't been a priority.
  9. [05:26:20:27] <DarkSunDuelist> Honestly, I don't consider it URGENT, per se, but I would like to know why it's been something like 2-3 weeks since I was officially unbanned, unofficially rebanned under bullshit claims, and still haven't been re-unbanned.
  10. [05:26:20:28] <DarkSunDuelist> I was informed of some thing involving wanting to contact Avarii, Lord of Miscommunication and Long-Term Absenteeism, but my opinion on that route should be very much clear.
  11. [05:26:20:28] <DarkSunDuelist> As should his, frankly.
  12. [05:26:20:29] <DarkSunDuelist> Nothing you say to him will likely convince him that I'm anything short of abhorrent and worth banning for no reason except his own personal spite.
  13. [05:26:20:29] <DarkSunDuelist> I know you've been busy with school and stuff (I recently finished finals myself). I've tried to be patient but it's rapidly approaching a month.
  14. [05:26:21:06] <DarkSunDuelist> Anyway, yeah, it'd be nice to know what's going on exactly. Nobody seems to know and it's getting to the point where I feel like I'm being jerked around.
  15. [05:26:21:06] <Wander> You're not being unbanned.
  16. [05:26:21:07] <DarkSunDuelist> Any particular reason for that?
  17. [05:26:21:10] <DarkSunDuelist> I've not caused any trouble on my own, my past infractions have been minor by the community's own admittance, there was an obvious smear campaign by the previous moderation against me which caused me to be banned in the first place, I was promised that I was being unbanned by current moderation staff, and after that occurred I was IMMEDIATELY re-banned by somebody who was completely out of the
  18. [05:26:21:10] <DarkSunDuelist> loop and refused to listen to reason, instead saying he was banning me essentially because he said so, and you yourself have expressed curiosity as to why I was even banned in the first place.
  19. [05:26:21:11] <DarkSunDuelist> The ONLY logical reason to not unban me is because of fear of my potential actions, which is dumb because even if I WERE a threat, I am a significantly greater threat as an irritated and scorned individual than I am as somebody that is allowed to actually participate in the community.
  20. [05:26:21:11] <DarkSunDuelist> So yeah, I'd like some reasoning behind my continued ban.
  21. [05:26:21:16] <Wander> You should probably realize that that bit just now seemed rather like you were pasive-aggressively threatening to cause further problems if you aren't unbanned. Which is itself not exactly encouraging, especially when that matches with several previous statements I've seen.
  22. [05:26:21:18] <DarkSunDuelist> Why on earth would I passive-aggressively threaten you or the community? In case you didn't know, I WANT people to actually see me as a person and not a rage machine. Rage machines don't tend to get players.
  23. [05:26:21:18] <DarkSunDuelist> I was speaking to the logic pattern that would be required to actually keep me banned.
  24. [05:26:21:18] <DarkSunDuelist> As I have many times before in such statements. It's called a "hypothetical counterargument".
  25. [05:26:21:19] <DarkSunDuelist> "If your logic relies on X being true, that's dumb because Y exists and can't coexist with X."
  26. [05:26:21:19] <DarkSunDuelist> "Therefore, your logic is on unsound basis"
  27. [05:26:21:21] <DarkSunDuelist> Notice how I indicated "if I WERE a threat", which implies that I do not consider myself a threat as indicated by my own language.
  28. [05:26:21:21] <DarkSunDuelist> But at this point you've already made your decision, haven't you?
  29. [05:26:21:22] <Wander> Indeed I have.
  30. [05:26:21:22] <DarkSunDuelist> And you've no intention of reconsidering? You're going to just go "you're banned because I said so" and leave it at that?
  31. [05:26:21:25] <DarkSunDuelist> Where's the community input? What about my ability to appeal? You've made a decision as a representative of a community that has already spoken against the decision you made.
  32. [05:26:21:25] <DarkSunDuelist> Even your own moderation has voiced against it.
  33. [05:26:21:26] <DarkSunDuelist> hell, many people in the community you're now charged with don't even know who I am. You're punishing me out of fear and flawed logic instead of thinking the facts through.
  34. [05:26:21:26] <Wander> Some of them have, sure. Not all, nor even a majority.
  35. [05:26:21:27] <Wander> Fear? Oh please.
  36. [05:26:21:27] <DarkSunDuelist> Yeah? Prove it. All those times I tripped into the channel by accident, only two people ever cared.
  37. [05:26:21:27] <DarkSunDuelist> Tangent and DoveDoctor. One left due to unreleated conditions and the other is considered a salty joke by many.
  38. [05:26:21:28] <DarkSunDuelist> Even if my own guesswork for your logic is flawed, you've not presented anything that would prove me wrong.
  39. [05:26:21:28] <Wander> He's only considered that by you, to my knowledge.
  40. [05:26:21:28] <DarkSunDuelist> Oh? Is that so?
  41. [05:26:21:29] <DarkSunDuelist> madbrewer, Whiteknight, Zene, SkinnyNecro, Flamy, and a few others would all disagree with that statement.
  42. [05:26:21:29] <DarkSunDuelist> Two of which are part of your current moderation staff.
  43. [05:26:21:29] <DarkSunDuelist> Brewer has gone on record as saying he completely tunes out Tangent on a regular basis.
  44. [05:26:21:30] <DarkSunDuelist> Are you going to now say that your own moderators are flawed?
  45. [05:26:21:30] <Wander> Well, they've not brought up any concerns about him to me.
  46. [05:26:21:31] <DarkSunDuelist> It's called being polite in the face of adversity. A trait I very much lack.
  47. [05:26:21:31] <Wander> They're human beings, of course they're flawed. I don't expect perfection out of them.
  48. [05:26:21:31] <DarkSunDuelist> Plus, to put it bluntly, they've not been personally attacked by the guy.
  49. [05:26:21:31] <DarkSunDuelist> You have numerous logs of what he's spammed at me, unprovoked.
  50. [05:26:21:31] <DarkSunDuelist> I can pull up the logs of you getting those logs.
  51. [05:26:21:32] <DarkSunDuelist> Will you say that I, who have done little against anyone, deserve to be banned over he, who completely flips out against people he doesn't like at the drop of a hat?
  52. [05:26:21:32] <DarkSunDuelist> Inequally applied rules mean nothing and are worthless.
  53. [05:26:21:32] <DarkSunDuelist> As are the people that support them.
  54. [05:26:21:34] <DarkSunDuelist> Numerous testimonial statements about him saying "that guy really makes my skin crawl" unprovoked in main chat, amongst other similar bouts of complaints, mostly about myself, with myself completely unable to defend against his flagrant libel of my person.
  55. [05:26:21:34] <DarkSunDuelist> He's allowed to run free, call me a liar, a cheat, a shitposter, a scammer, a manipulator.
  56. [05:26:21:34] <DarkSunDuelist> And yet
  57. [05:26:21:35] <DarkSunDuelist> One of us is banned, and not the other.
  58. [05:26:21:36] <Wander> He has been instructed not to continue doing so, though you can certainly set him to ignore. Further, anyone who cares to do so can, and often has, refuted claims about you where they believe them untrue.
  59. [05:26:21:38] <DarkSunDuelist> You still have not answered the question of what I'm guilty of that warrants a ban.
  60. [05:26:21:55] <DarkSunDuelist> According to your own rules, I've not violated any of them (I personally have not been disruptive, and I've not been ALLOWED to follow any of the rules so you can't get me on that one)
  61. [05:26:21:55] <DarkSunDuelist> Additionally, through your own rules I have a three-strike system. Due to the change in moderation, I have 0 strikes to my person.
  62. [05:26:21:56] <DarkSunDuelist> As such, you have absolutely zero grounds for banning me per your own rules, which I am fully willing to play by.
  63. [05:26:21:56] <Wander> Nowhere does it say that strikes go away when the moderation changes, which they indeed do not.
  64. [05:26:21:57] <DarkSunDuelist> By denying or ignoring this claim without proper evidence, you admit your own fault and admit that you have no basis whatsoever for keeping me banned. Even in the event that the moderation change does not clear strikes, I only have one from the previous moderation (and the logs to prove it).
  65. [05:26:21:57] <Wander> You have the same three strikes you had when you were banned to begin with. None of them have been overturned.
  66. [05:26:21:57] <DarkSunDuelist> I've not recieved any additional strikes. Ever.
  67. [05:26:21:57] <DarkSunDuelist> I can give you my entire Rizon PM history with admins if you'd like me to prove this.
  68. [05:26:21:58] <DarkSunDuelist> I recieved one strike from Tian over an incident where I was aggressive with a user over a character I did not like.
  69. [05:26:21:58] <DarkSunDuelist> Avarii administered a strike for the same incident less than a week later. It was overturned by Tian and Avarii was reprimanded for jumping the gun without proper info.
  70. [05:26:21:59] <DarkSunDuelist> I was never issued a second or third strike. Any evidence you have of such an incident is falsified.
  71. [05:26:22:03] <DarkSunDuelist> Either that, or I was not informed of it, meaning it wasn't a legal strike, meaning it's null and void.
  72. [05:26:22:13] <Wander> Honestly, I don't see why why I should or would believe your claims that they shouldn't be counted.
  73. [05:26:22:16] <Wander> I mean, of course you might have your logs, but realistically you both could easily edit them to get unbanned if I believed you at face value and certainly would have plenty to gain by doing so.
  74. [05:26:22:17] <DarkSunDuelist> A fair argument, but that means that neither of our arguments have merit, since the only evidence we have is hearsay and logs (which can be falsified).
  75. [05:26:22:19] <DarkSunDuelist> As such, since there's insubstantial evidence to prove my guilt, and the burden of proof primarily lies with the accusator and not the accused, you are obligated to unban me for unfit punishment pending such evidence coming to light.
  76. [05:26:22:21] <DarkSunDuelist> Since, y'know, I can just as easily say that you faked the existence of multiple strikes against me just as you can say I faked the inexistence of such things.
  77. [05:26:22:22] <Wander> I do have logs of the incidents in question, though, if not necessarily of the strikes being delivered in as many words.
  78. [05:26:22:24] <Wander> And I would agree that they were satisfactory cause for delivering strikes.
  79. [05:26:22:25] <DarkSunDuelist> However, without the logs from the moderation issuing the strikes, it doesn't matter if you think they're satisfactory or not, as you did not issue them yourself and the incidents have long since passed for them to be punished.
  80. [05:26:22:27] <DarkSunDuelist> It would just be percievable as "i didn't like this thing that person did so I'm punishing them for it months after the fact".
  81. [05:26:22:28] <DarkSunDuelist> Since nobody can prove nor disprove the existence of these strikes, they're as good as any other hypothetical: Not.
  82. [05:26:22:54] <DarkSunDuelist> Which, again, loops back to the previous point that this logic pattern made: Without anyone being able to prove anything, no punishment can be meted out, meaning my ban is unlawful.
  83. [05:26:23:03] <DarkSunDuelist> So to follow your own logic and your own rules, and to not be painted as somebody that uses the past as a weapon to their own benefit, your only option is to unban me.
  84. [05:26:23:03] <Wander> No amount of talking about law on your part is especially likely to convince me to unban you, as this isn't a courtroom. Nor would I expect any amount of tangible evidence to be enough for you to accept either your initial or continued ban.
  85. [05:26:23:04] <DarkSunDuelist> Keeping me banned demonstrates that either you are willing to betray your logic, your rules, or your own personal whims to punish whoever you want whenever you want for any slight in the past.
  86. [05:26:23:04] <DarkSunDuelist> Doesn't really make for good mod material.
  87. [05:26:23:04] <Wander> You will not be unbanned at this time, nor at any point in the forseeable future.
  88. [05:26:23:04] <DarkSunDuelist> I'd think that the community would love to hear that the new person in charge is just as bad as the old one.
  89. [05:26:23:05] <DarkSunDuelist> This isn't law.
  90. [05:26:23:05] <DarkSunDuelist> It's never been about law. Tian made the same mistake.
  91. [05:26:23:06] <DarkSunDuelist> Logic is logic. And people are easily swayed by logic and emotion. Which sounds better: that you defied your own morals, your own logic, or your own rules to keep me banned?
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!