StarGateWars Forums

Earendil wrote:Instead of demanding, why don't you just look

J-ronimo wrote:So, if you can't answer simple question for current situation, how can i prove mod is being biased, if you give such answers?
As it was at case i have presented, as it is too obvious personal insult, and it was rejected before pm's...

J-ronimo wrote:To ilustrate:
Person A insulted person B with RL insult.
I have simply reported as it was obvious RL insult.
Mod X closed report without any sanctions.
There were line of pm's with mod X and myself.
After line of pm's warning was issued.

Wanna know the secret ingredient of this story?
I belive person A and Mod X are on 'same side' in server war.

This is where mods being biaside comes into play, but you probably don't wanna talk about that...

REK wrote:WE WON WE WON!!
u guys really let a an 80 year old drunk woman lead u ..lol

J-ronimo wrote:Did you or did you not warn REK on current events, report that i have made an hour or two ago?

REK wrote:lol I wonder how many more of those fake operations we put together TTF fell for?

but seriosuly why does TTF want a 3month nap so badly? just surrender and well think about it

deni wrote:This are the facts. Whether they fit in your view of how the forums are run not.[/b]

J-ronimo wrote:

deni wrote:This are the facts. Whether they fit in your view of how the forums are run not.[/b]

Thank you for summing it up for me in one sentence for being biased.

I posted the facts about the report in question. They do not support your claim. That's why I do understand that you throw in the "mods are biased" argument as an ultimo ratio trying to save face that way.

Degree of insult can be debated, but it is obvious one.

I disagree. It was not an obvious insult as neither being drunk nor being old is insulting perse. Considering that there was a debate between the mods/admins if it really constitutes an insult or not, further highlights the fact that it was not so obvious as you might think.

The remark was directed at me, and I did not see it as insulting.

Don't play on your note to defend your fellow members. Would there be more efficient line of pm's, if i would have gone to bed for 12 hrs and then it would be dealt with? Don't play on that either. It is shown obvious how thing was dealt with and obvious stand that person insulting should not be warned.

Your original claim was that the warning was given after a lengthy pm exchange following the closing of the report. This is not true. The time between the warning and closing the report was 25 minutes and there was NO lenghty pm exchange but a single pm.

Further, you miss the fact that REK was warned BEFORE Earendil even replied to you.

Topic clearly says in first place TAF vs. Fuall and has been said several times to leave TF out of that place. Thank you for showing us bending the rules to fit you, as TAF has always been part of TF, but along the way there were notes from mods to leave that out and even non-TAF TF members were told to stay out of it. Stick to rules, if you can.

About yesterday's report: Topic is FUALL vs TAF. As the treaty proposal TTF made includes TAF, discussing details of the said treaty proposal is not off topic.

So current ban has nothing to do with him being warned for making off-topic post and bringing TF in, despite it has been said several times to leave it out.


Topic clearly says: Fuall vs. TAF, which includes members of those 2 parties, how TAF is affiliated with TF has nothing with this TOPIC. This is forum wise and not in game related thing, and this is where you biased comes into play.
As there is obvious on forum that there is another TOPIC to speak about TF vs Fuall.

There is a war topic called "Human Resistance vs Large Empires". I do not see a topic in the Galactic Colloseum discussing "TTF vs FUALL".

Further, the verbal warnings in the FUALL vs TAF topic were about posts regarding the Human Resistance, which is, as I have been told by their leadership, a different ingame entity than TTF.


Eärendil/Lore has something to say how he manage to post on behalf of 2 forum acc. (1 mod, 1 ex-mod), related to same ingame ID.

I am not sure I understand the issue you are talking of. So let me make sure: Are you really implying that Lore/Earendil is the same person? That they play a single account ingame (named ~Lore~) but the forum accounts Lore/Earendil are multies?

This reminds me of modern society where people on important positions making mistakes, can't admit them and they won't give their position away, due to simply not being qualified for it. But hey, what can a normal citizen do...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is just sad when people completely ignore facts or twist them to suit their view of the world. Many refer to that as ignorance

deni wrote:

J-ronimo wrote:

deni wrote:This are the facts. Whether they fit in your view of how the forums are run not.[/b]

Thank you for summing it up for me in one sentence for being biased.

I posted the facts about the report in question. They do not support your claim. That's why I do understand that you throw in the "mods are biased" argument as an ultimo ratio trying to save face that way.

I don't need to save my face, if mods aren't doing what they supposed to do.


Degree of insult can be debated, but it is obvious one.

I disagree. It was not an obvious insult as neither being drunk nor being old is insulting perse. Considering that there was a debate between the mods/admins if it really constitutes an insult or not, further highlights the fact that it was not so obvious as you might think.

The remark was directed at me, and I did not see it as insulting.

[color=#00FF00]Your disagreeing is wrong and you are saving your side of a face, mod face. The remark was not aimed at you, as you are not leading TF, or do you?
[/color]



Don't play on your note to defend your fellow members. Would there be more efficient line of pm's, if i would have gone to bed for 12 hrs and then it would be dealt with? Don't play on that either. It is shown obvious how thing was dealt with and obvious stand that person insulting should not be warned.

Your original claim was that the warning was given after a lengthy pm exchange following the closing of the report. This is not true. The time between the warning and closing the report was 25 minutes and there was NO lenghty pm exchange but a single pm.

Further, you miss the fact that REK was warned BEFORE Eärendil even replied to you.

It is a difference between word lenghty and word line of pm's that i have used, which means, that there was not a simple pm. Feel the difference?

Where does it says he was warned before?


Topic clearly says in first place TAF vs. Fuall and has been said several times to leave TF out of that place. Thank you for showing us bending the rules to fit you, as TAF has always been part of TF, but along the way there were notes from mods to leave that out and even non-TAF TF members were told to stay out of it. Stick to rules, if you can.

About yesterday's report: Topic is FUALL vs TAF. As the treaty proposal TTF made includes TAF, discussing details of the said treaty proposal is not off topic.

Does topic says Fuall vs. TTF or TAF vs. Faull. As said it has been said several times to disitnguish between those two. But you insist on your claims to be right, you are not. This is forum wise, and this is you being biased, and your decisions are in game related.
Same thing you have said with me and beli have same post style on the other topic...wrong. You decision are based in in game relations and not what forums should reflect.

This is being biased.


So current ban has nothing to do with him being warned for making off-topic post and bringing TF in, despite it has been said several times to leave it out.


Topic clearly says: Fuall vs. TAF, which includes members of those 2 parties, how TAF is affiliated with TF has nothing with this TOPIC. This is forum wise and not in game related thing, and this is where you biased comes into play.
As there is obvious on forum that there is another TOPIC to speak about TF vs Fuall.

There is a war topic called "Human Resistance vs Large Empires". I do not see a topic in the Galactic Colloseum discussing "TTF vs FUALL".

Further, the verbal warnings in the FUALL vs TAF topic were about posts regarding the Human Resistance, which is, as I have been told by their leadership, a different ingame entity than TTF.


TTF vs Fuall was closed, deleted, don't know when. That means people are justified people to post in TOPIC named TAF vs. Fuall , TFF stuff?
Despite it was said several times to leave that out, and OFF-TOPIC posts will be warned.

And it is expected just to get a verbal warning...


Eärendil/Lore has something to say how he manage to post on behalf of 2 forum acc. (1 mod, 1 ex-mod), related to same ingame ID.

I am not sure I understand the issue you are talking of. So let me make sure: Are you really implying that Lore/Eärendil is the same person? That they play a single account ingame (named ~Lore~) but the forum accounts Lore/Eärendil are multies?

I am saying that there is something fishy in there, and see forward of what Earendi/lore has to say about it, as it is his matter. It doesn't concern you, as you can't speak for him. Thank you.


This reminds me of modern society where people on important positions making mistakes, can't admit them and they won't give their position away, due to simply not being qualified for it. But hey, what can a normal citizen do...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is just sad when people completely ignore facts or twist them to suit their view of the world. Many refer to that as ignorance

What am i twisting around? I have brought you things and you are saying i am a brick of wall...go figure.

I have seen plenty of ignorance and arrogance so far. Thank you for your sincerest concern.


Replies coloured

J-ronimo wrote:

deni wrote:

J-ronimo wrote:

deni wrote:This are the facts. Whether they fit in your view of how the forums are run not.[/b]

Thank you for summing it up for me in one sentence for being biased.

I posted the facts about the report in question. They do not support your claim. That's why I do understand that you throw in the "mods are biased" argument as an ultimo ratio trying to save face that way.

I don't need to save my face, if mods aren't doing what they supposed to do.

So what were the mods supposed to do? Confirm your claim despite it being not the truth?

I am sorry, but neither me nor any other mods will lie just to make you happy.

Degree of insult can be debated, but it is obvious one.

I disagree. It was not an obvious insult as neither being drunk nor being old is insulting perse. Considering that there was a debate between the mods/admins if it really constitutes an insult or not, further highlights the fact that it was not so obvious as you might think.

The remark was directed at me, and I did not see it as insulting.

[color=#00FF00]Your disagreeing is wrong and you are saving your side of a face, mod face. The remark was not aimed at you, as you are not leading TF, or do you?
[/color]

REK's remark was aimed at me. That is a fact. It was not directed at the leader of TF but the leader of DDE (=me). I even replied to REK in the thread, threatening him to come to Miami and kick his ass personally if he calls me old again. If you still do not believe me, REK posted somewhere himself, that the remark was aimed at me. And he knows best who his post was referring to, doesn't he?

I do not understand what REK's remark has to do with the leader of TF whoever that might be.


Don't play on your note to defend your fellow members. Would there be more efficient line of pm's, if i would have gone to bed for 12 hrs and then it would be dealt with? Don't play on that either. It is shown obvious how thing was dealt with and obvious stand that person insulting should not be warned.

Your original claim was that the warning was given after a lengthy pm exchange following the closing of the report. This is not true. The time between the warning and closing the report was 25 minutes and there was NO lenghty pm exchange but a single pm.

Further, you miss the fact that REK was warned BEFORE Eärendil even replied to you.

It is a difference between word lenghty and word line of pm's that i have used, which means, that there was not a simple pm. Feel the difference?

Where does it says he was warned before?

If you have bothered to read my post before replying to it, you would have seen that the time of the report and the mod actions was posted aswell. It is a direct copy of the mod logs (with the IP's being deleted). The screenshots of your pm exchange with Eärendil do have time stamps aswell. With that info, the timeline can be reconstructed.

Topic clearly says in first place TAF vs. Fuall and has been said several times to leave TF out of that place. Thank you for showing us bending the rules to fit you, as TAF has always been part of TF, but along the way there were notes from mods to leave that out and even non-TAF TF members were told to stay out of it. Stick to rules, if you can.

About yesterday's report: Topic is FUALL vs TAF. As the treaty proposal TTF made includes TAF, discussing details of the said treaty proposal is not off topic.

Does topic says Fuall vs. TTF or TAF vs. Faull. As said it has been said several times to disitnguish between those two. But you insist on your claims to be right, you are not. This is forum wise, and this is you being biased, and your decisions are in game related.
Same thing you have said with me and beli have same post style on the other topic...wrong. You decision are based in in game relations and not what forums should reflect.

This is being biased.

I say it again. TAF is a member of TTF. The treaty that was proposed by TTF includes TAF. If that treaty was accepted, then it would mean an end to the war with TTF and thus with TAF. Thus the post was not off topic but directly connencted to the TAF vs FUALL war. Do you deny that?

As for me being not able to distinguish yours and beliblisk's post without looking at the name: yes, that is true. Both yours and beliblisk's post sound the same to me. I do not see how you can conclude that I my mod decisions are based on ingame relations from that. Please elaborate.

So current ban has nothing to do with him being warned for making off-topic post and bringing TF in, despite it has been said several times to leave it out.


Topic clearly says: Fuall vs. TAF, which includes members of those 2 parties, how TAF is affiliated with TF has nothing with this TOPIC. This is forum wise and not in game related thing, and this is where you biased comes into play.
As there is obvious on forum that there is another TOPIC to speak about TF vs Fuall.

There is a war topic called "Human Resistance vs Large Empires". I do not see a topic in the Galactic Colloseum discussing "TTF vs FUALL".

Further, the verbal warnings in the FUALL vs TAF topic were about posts regarding the Human Resistance, which is, as I have been told by their leadership, a different ingame entity than TTF.


TTF vs Fuall was closed, deleted, don't know when. That means people are justified people to post in TOPIC named TAF vs. Fuall , TFF stuff?
Despite it was said several times to leave that out, and OFF-TOPIC posts will be warned.

And it is expected just to get a verbal warning...

Again: the post was not off topic. You can ask any mod around and I doubt someone will consider the post as off topic. But hey. all mods are bias if they do not agree with you, arent they?

Eärendil/Lore has something to say how he manage to post on behalf of 2 forum acc. (1 mod, 1 ex-mod), related to same ingame ID.

I am not sure I understand the issue you are talking of. So let me make sure: Are you really implying that Lore/Eärendil is the same person? That they play a single account ingame (named ~Lore~) but the forum accounts Lore/Eärendil are multies?

I am saying that there is something fishy in there, and see forward of what Earendi/lore has to say about it, as it is his matter. It doesn't concern you, as you can't speak for him. Thank you.

I think both - Lore and Eärendil - will forgive me if I do speak for them here. I find that accusation so completely ridiculous and laughable that it does not even deserve a reply. It says alot about the !quality" of your other accusations.

This reminds me of modern society where people on important positions making mistakes, can't admit them and they won't give their position away, due to simply not being qualified for it. But hey, what can a normal citizen do...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is just sad when people completely ignore facts or twist them to suit their view of the world. Many refer to that as ignorance

What am i twisting around? I have brought you things and you are saying i am a brick of wall...go figure.

I have seen plenty of ignorance and arrogance so far. Thank you for your sincerest concern.


Replies coloured

Replies colored

deni wrote:

J-ronimo wrote:

deni wrote:

J-ronimo wrote:

deni wrote:This are the facts. Whether they fit in your view of how the forums are run not.[/b]

Thank you for summing it up for me in one sentence for being biased.

I posted the facts about the report in question. They do not support your claim. That's why I do understand that you throw in the "mods are biased" argument as an ultimo ratio trying to save face that way.

I don't need to save my face, if mods aren't doing what they supposed to do.

So what were the mods supposed to do? Confirm your claim despite it being not the truth?

I am sorry, but neither me nor any other mods will lie just to make you happy.

You don't need to lie for me, tell the truth, Earendil/Lore can help out with this matter as he was the one who did it. As it has been stated seeral times what answers can we get from mods...that is you way getting out with murder.



Degree of insult can be debated, but it is obvious one.

I disagree. It was not an obvious insult as neither being drunk nor being old is insulting perse. Considering that there was a debate between the mods/admins if it really constitutes an insult or not, further highlights the fact that it was not so obvious as you might think.

The remark was directed at me, and I did not see it as insulting.

[color=#00FF00]Your disagreeing is wrong and you are saving your side of a face, mod face. The remark was not aimed at you, as you are not leading TF, or do you?
[/color]

REK's remark was aimed at me. That is a fact. It was not directed at the leader of TF but the leader of DDE (=me). I even replied to REK in the thread, threatening him to come to Miami and kick his ass personally if he calls me old again. If you still do not believe me, REK posted somewhere himself, that the remark was aimed at me. And he knows best who his post was referring to, doesn't he?

I do not understand what REK's remark has to do with the leader of TF whoever that might be.

This was aimed at you? You are getting of track and things i have posted. Don't derails from obvious things, thank you.

Don't play on your note to defend your fellow members. Would there be more efficient line of pm's, if i would have gone to bed for 12 hrs and then it would be dealt with? Don't play on that either. It is shown obvious how thing was dealt with and obvious stand that person insulting should not be warned.

Your original claim was that the warning was given after a lengthy pm exchange following the closing of the report. This is not true. The time between the warning and closing the report was 25 minutes and there was NO lenghty pm exchange but a single pm.

Further, you miss the fact that REK was warned BEFORE Eärendil even replied to you.

It is a difference between word lenghty and word line of pm's that i have used, which means, that there was not a simple pm. Feel the difference?

Where does it says he was warned before?

If you have bothered to read my post before replying to it, you would have seen that the time of the report and the mod actions was posted aswell. It is a direct copy of the mod logs (with the IP's being deleted). The screenshots of your pm exchange with Eärendil do have time stamps aswell. With that info, the timeline can be reconstructed.

So you are saying that i am covering my arse with my PS skills and that i am adjusting timelines? You wanted me to post things that i have, so i did, and now you are saying i am lying and editing things?
Why do you thing i mentioned them in 1st place. Don't derail from obvious things here. It is not me being mod and moding things, you guys are, and stand up for you mistakes.

Make Earendil post his pm's and then you can apologize to me for this.


Topic clearly says in first place TAF vs. Fuall and has been said several times to leave TF out of that place. Thank you for showing us bending the rules to fit you, as TAF has always been part of TF, but along the way there were notes from mods to leave that out and even non-TAF TF members were told to stay out of it. Stick to rules, if you can.

About yesterday's report: Topic is FUALL vs TAF. As the treaty proposal TTF made includes TAF, discussing details of the said treaty proposal is not off topic.

Does topic says Fuall vs. TTF or TAF vs. Faull. As said it has been said several times to disitnguish between those two. But you insist on your claims to be right, you are not. This is forum wise, and this is you being biased, and your decisions are in game related.
Same thing you have said with me and beli have same post style on the other topic...wrong. You decision are based in in game relations and not what forums should reflect.

This is being biased.

I say it again. TAF is a member of TTF. The treaty that was proposed by TTF includes TAF. If that treaty was accepted, then it would mean an end to the war with TTF and thus with TAF. Thus the post was not off topic but directly connencted to the TAF vs FUALL war. Do you deny that?

As for me being not able to distinguish yours and beliblisk's post without looking at the name: yes, that is true. Both yours and beliblisk's post sound the same to me. I do not see how you can conclude that I my mod decisions are based on ingame relations from that. Please elaborate.

Do you understand that i am talking about forum thing, how topics are dealt with.

Again, it has been several times to leave things out TTF related, REK stated in first post that TTF is no more, so it is off-topic spam.
Relations in game doesn't play role in NAME OF A TOPIC-FORUM RELATED.

Elaboration, the very same thing i have stated in ombudsman corner, and i will just point out your comment on our 'posting style', which is waa different, as it is mine to anyone elses, words used, formation of words in sentecens, and senteces to making points. Posting style is even seen in spelling.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

If you are looking for same posting style you can easily compare Bebita and Robert, both using small caps, not conneceted words in senteces, using many images that forum offers...this is post style.
And, if you didn't notice beli is using lods of $, i simply don't, so there is one obvious difference right there, besides that he uses many more dost than i do...



So current ban has nothing to do with him being warned for making off-topic post and bringing TF in, despite it has been said several times to leave it out.


Topic clearly says: Fuall vs. TAF, which includes members of those 2 parties, how TAF is affiliated with TF has nothing with this TOPIC. This is forum wise and not in game related thing, and this is where you biased comes into play.
As there is obvious on forum that there is another TOPIC to speak about TF vs Fuall.

There is a war topic called "Human Resistance vs Large Empires". I do not see a topic in the Galactic Colloseum discussing "TTF vs FUALL".

Further, the verbal warnings in the FUALL vs TAF topic were about posts regarding the Human Resistance, which is, as I have been told by their leadership, a different ingame entity than TTF.


TTF vs Fuall was closed, deleted, don't know when. That means people are justified people to post in TOPIC named TAF vs. Fuall , TFF stuff?
Despite it was said several times to leave that out, and OFF-TOPIC posts will be warned.

And it is expected just to get a verbal warning...

Again: the post was not off topic. You can ask any mod around and I doubt someone will consider the post as off topic. But hey. all mods are bias if they do not agree with you, arent they?

You sure about this?

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Confirmation:
[spoiler][/spoiler]

And more recent, stating nicely, in first sentence to take multy talk in other section. Second sentence includes warning for off-topic post, which means any post, as it is not explicitly said for multying, but for an off-topic post. And as pointed out in those pics above, this is off-topic, stated by mods.


[spoiler][/spoiler]

Eärendil/Lore has something to say how he manage to post on behalf of 2 forum acc. (1 mod, 1 ex-mod), related to same ingame ID.

I am not sure I understand the issue you are talking of. So let me make sure: Are you really implying that Lore/Eärendil is the same person? That they play a single account ingame (named ~Lore~) but the forum accounts Lore/Eärendil are multies?

I am saying that there is something fishy in there, and see forward of what Earendi/lore has to say about it, as it is his matter. It doesn't concern you, as you can't speak for him. Thank you.

I think both - Lore and Eärendil - will forgive me if I do speak for them here. I find that accusation so completely ridiculous and laughable that it does not even deserve a reply. It says alot about the !quality" of your other accusations.

Do you realize that i am not accusing them of anything solid, and i am questioning what that is about. As seeing ex-mod posting for current-mod...it is odd, don't you say so?
It is easier to make a laughable sentence and diver things...now leave Earendil/Lore to speak for themselves, as they are probably capable of doing it, thank you.

And how does this reflects on my 'other accusations'?


This reminds me of modern society where people on important positions making mistakes, can't admit them and they won't give their position away, due to simply not being qualified for it. But hey, what can a normal citizen do...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is just sad when people completely ignore facts or twist them to suit their view of the world. Many refer to that as ignorance

What am i twisting around? I have brought you things and you are saying i am a brick of wall...go figure.

I have seen plenty of ignorance and arrogance so far. Thank you for your sincerest concern.


Replies coloured

No reply on my twisting things around, this is odd. Speaks for it self loud enough...







Replies colored

another fancy color

REK wrote:whats the point I called deni an 80 year old drunk cause she was stuttering and robe felt I was seaking about her so had Eärendil 's crybaby ass warn me for it then I made a thread pointing out robes abuse of power since she felt offended by me calling deni and old drunk since and im only speculating that robe truely is an old drunk she deleted my thread and every post I talk about it in lol this place is a joke

J-ronimo wrote:
1. TTF was never lead by you, so i don't why you think he was reffering to you.
Read again:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
It clearly says that the one who is leading TTF is *what says above*.


I do not see REK mentioning TTF in the above post.

As posted in my previous post, REK himself says he was referring to me in this post:

REK wrote:whats the point I called deni an 80 year old drunk cause she was stuttering and robe felt I was seaking about her so had Eärendil 's crybaby ass warn me for it then I made a thread pointing out robes abuse of power since she felt offended by me calling deni and old drunk since and im only speculating that robe truely is an old drunk she deleted my thread and every post I talk about it in lol this place is a joke

Where does it "clearly" say that it is about a female TTF leader?


2. What decency are you talking about? You are trying overthrow my words and proves that i have provided in any way possible to save your chair.
If you do something wrong, stand after it.

What is issue with timestamps. I have recieved that via my mail as notification that it was closed, he was not warned at that time, quoted it and used it to address mod. Then warning was made after the pm exchange. What do you not compute?


It seems you are either unable or simply refuse to read my post.

A pm "exchange" is by definition at least 2 pm's being sent both ways. The warning (according to the timestamps) was given BEFORE there was any exchange.




3. Do you not understand picture material that i have attached. Let me do it again and i will try to explain it's meaning:
[spoiler][img]http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac121/beliblisk/Eärendil-taf-fuall.png[/img][/spoiler]
Meaning that anything besides TAF vs. Fuall things do not belong in here. So it is considered as off-topic or spam.

[spoiler][/spoiler]
Here is confirmation of Eärendil's words by another mod, and it clearly states that it is TAF vs. Fuall, no TTF mentioned.

[spoiler][/spoiler]
It clearly says in 2nd sentence that off-topic post gets warned. Based on images above from Eärendil and Tekki which clearly shows what it is off-topic, it should be sanctioned with warning.

What you are doing now is exactly the same thing Eärendil did at that time.


Again. TAF is a sub entity of TTF. A treaty made with TTF would cover TAF. Thus posting about a possible treaty with TTF is automatically posting about a possible treaty with TAF. This NOT off topic.

The post you reported did not mention "other battles", nor was it a discussion about multiing.




At this point, i would like to invite anyone from mods to share their thoughts and ideas about this matter, as material presented in this post that is somehow summed up, clearly shows on mods being biased and can't admit being wrong.

Thank you.

J-ronimo wrote:Vice versa.