EPTAllegations:
1. Kwark is unaware of his responsibilities as moderator, and is therefore unqualified to fulfill his obligations as moderator.
2. Kwark lacks both the professionalism and restraint necessary to execute even the most basic of his responsibilities as moderator.
3. Kwark is irascible; he is easily angered and lacks both the patience and mental fortitude to engage in civil or productive discussion to reach comprehensive and just resolutions.
Evidence/Proof of Malfeasance:
Note: I've copy/pasted the PM's, which accounts for the poor organization and visual aesthetic. If anyone is familiar with a better, alternative method, please let me know.
+ Show Spoiler +
Exhibit A:
From: TL.net Bot TL Staff [ 3 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:You have been temp banned for 2 weeks.
Date:10/9/12 06:01
You have been temp banned for 2 weeks by KwarK.
Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
Do not attempt to circumvent this ban by making a new account, or your ban duration will be increased.
Exhibit B:
To: KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject: Ummm....... what?
Date: 10/9/12 12:38
Homophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion?
Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda.
My so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints?
Exhibit C:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:26
We have a website feedback forum which we use for website feedback. If you'd like to give any website feedback then I recommend you take it to the website feedback forum. It can be found at the bottom of the left sidebar where the word website is followed by the word feedback. If you continue to have problems finding it then please let me know.
If you are still angry about the ban and wish to do something about it immediately then you could write us a letter. Just put whatever words you think are pertinent on a piece of paper and then put it in a mailbox.
Exhibit D:
To: KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:31
Is that some sort of joke? Your sense of humor eludes me.
Anyway I'd appreciate it if you actually answered my message and acknowledged my rebuttal, as per your responsibility as moderator. You have banned me, and I have refuted your rationale for doing so. You have not answered my rebuttal, you have not addressed it and instead you've made a sore attempt at a joke.
Exhibit E:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date: 10/9/12 14:39
I'm not sure you understand how this works. I wasn't laying down a challenge for a competition at arguing on the internet and I have absolutely no interest in engaging with you in one. I just banned you, that's pretty much it for my involvement in the matter.
Exhibit F:
To:KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:43
I'm not quite certain you understand how this works. I've contacted another moderator, who has instructed me in order to lift my ban I must present a case for rebuttal, whereby if said case is accepted the ban will be lifted.
Accordingly I have submitted my rebuttal to you, with every ounce of civility I can muster, and you respond by disregarding my rebuttal and personally insulting me by both questioning my intelligence and belittling my original response.
Once again I'd appreciate some transparency in moderation; could you please respond to my rebuttal and offer reasons why my ban should remain in place?
Exhibit G:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:46
Okay, consider your case read and dismissed. If you feel you've been treated unfairly by the process then we have a website feedback forum.
From: TL.net Bot TL Staff [ 3 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:You have been temp banned for 2 weeks.
Date:10/9/12 06:01
You have been temp banned for 2 weeks by KwarK.
Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
Do not attempt to circumvent this ban by making a new account, or your ban duration will be increased.
Exhibit B:
To: KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject: Ummm....... what?
Date: 10/9/12 12:38
Homophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion?
Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda.
My so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints?
Exhibit C:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:26
We have a website feedback forum which we use for website feedback. If you'd like to give any website feedback then I recommend you take it to the website feedback forum. It can be found at the bottom of the left sidebar where the word website is followed by the word feedback. If you continue to have problems finding it then please let me know.
If you are still angry about the ban and wish to do something about it immediately then you could write us a letter. Just put whatever words you think are pertinent on a piece of paper and then put it in a mailbox.
Exhibit D:
To: KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:31
Is that some sort of joke? Your sense of humor eludes me.
Anyway I'd appreciate it if you actually answered my message and acknowledged my rebuttal, as per your responsibility as moderator. You have banned me, and I have refuted your rationale for doing so. You have not answered my rebuttal, you have not addressed it and instead you've made a sore attempt at a joke.
Exhibit E:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date: 10/9/12 14:39
I'm not sure you understand how this works. I wasn't laying down a challenge for a competition at arguing on the internet and I have absolutely no interest in engaging with you in one. I just banned you, that's pretty much it for my involvement in the matter.
Exhibit F:
To:KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:43
I'm not quite certain you understand how this works. I've contacted another moderator, who has instructed me in order to lift my ban I must present a case for rebuttal, whereby if said case is accepted the ban will be lifted.
Accordingly I have submitted my rebuttal to you, with every ounce of civility I can muster, and you respond by disregarding my rebuttal and personally insulting me by both questioning my intelligence and belittling my original response.
Once again I'd appreciate some transparency in moderation; could you please respond to my rebuttal and offer reasons why my ban should remain in place?
Exhibit G:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:46
Okay, consider your case read and dismissed. If you feel you've been treated unfairly by the process then we have a website feedback forum.
Arguments:
Allegation 1:
As evident through examination of exhibits D-G, Kwark is unaware of his responsibility in instances of rebuttal, in which the banned individual has the opportunity to rebut the ban and the moderator has the duty to hear it.
Clearly in this instance my rebuttal has not been heard; he began by dismissing his duty in rebuttal, then completely disregarded my argument in its entirety (enlisting a generic response a mere three minutes after I informed him of his responsibility, clearly indicative of a lack of analysis or utter lack of care).
Furthermore, the hypocrisy of Kwark is on display in another thread in which his moderation is under scrutiny. In this thread, in which his response is dated nearly two weeks after my PM, Kwark attempts to lecture TL netizens about proper procedure for instances of rebuttal. I will label this auxiliary evidence Exhibit H:
+ Show Spoiler +
Exhibit H:
On October 21 2012 16:25 KwarK wrote:
He's PMed the mod who warned him regarding the warning and is unhappy with the outcome. His next option is to explain to the mod that he is unhappy with the explanation and feels that the moderation is inconsistent. Should that fail, or if he wants to skip that step, it's straight to website feedback where the site admins do read stuff, even if they don't necessarily feel the need to intervene. What is not, and has never been, acceptable is grandstanding about the injustice in a completely unrelated topic. It's an issue between you and the tl staff which is irrelevant both to the general tl public and to the topic in question, going "Raaarggghhh, oppressed masses of tl! Rise up and throw off the shackles of the hated oppressors!" has no place there.
Don't grandstand about how you disagree with moderation in non moderation related topics. It's that simple.
He's PMed the mod who warned him regarding the warning and is unhappy with the outcome. His next option is to explain to the mod that he is unhappy with the explanation and feels that the moderation is inconsistent. Should that fail, or if he wants to skip that step, it's straight to website feedback where the site admins do read stuff, even if they don't necessarily feel the need to intervene. What is not, and has never been, acceptable is grandstanding about the injustice in a completely unrelated topic. It's an issue between you and the tl staff which is irrelevant both to the general tl public and to the topic in question, going "Raaarggghhh, oppressed masses of tl! Rise up and throw off the shackles of the hated oppressors!" has no place there.
Don't grandstand about how you disagree with moderation in non moderation related topics. It's that simple.
Allegation 2:
As evident in Exhibit B, I presented the premise of my argument for rebuttal (albeit with some degree of hostility, although I'm sure you can understand why). I stated the implication or "assumption" that gay men are child molesters is an illogical jump from my original statement, and should not be used as evidence against me. Furthermore I believe, although I did not explicitly state, that semantics (i.e., using "prancing" instead of "running") should not be grounds for banning.
Kwark failed to moderately or objectively examine my original post, which I will submit as Exhibit J, and instead banned me without proper cause or due course. Therefore it is evident Kwark lacks the restraint necessary to effectively and rightfully moderate these forums, as he is more inclined to act in regard to his own interests and opinions as opposed to the rules or guidelines set forth by TL management.
+ Show Spoiler +
Exhibit J:
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post.
Upon several people questioning his decision to ban me, as evident throughout the thread, Kwark responded by manipulating my original response to better suit his argument. Kwark's response in this thread will be labeled Exhibit K.
+ Show Spoiler +
Exhibit K:
On October 09 2012 06:52 KwarK wrote:
You can always check the ABL topic in the closed forum to see who banned for what. Micronesia is engaging in this topic as a regular poster and, as far as I know, hasn't banned anyone in it. Likewise I came into this topic as a banling and saw someone with a long history of awful posting imply that those fairies are out to molest children and handed out a ban. TL staff are generally unpaid community members but where the roles may overlap I believe we have a good track record of maintaining a responsible distinction of roles. If you would like to discuss this further then take it to website feedback.
You can always check the ABL topic in the closed forum to see who banned for what. Micronesia is engaging in this topic as a regular poster and, as far as I know, hasn't banned anyone in it. Likewise I came into this topic as a banling and saw someone with a long history of awful posting imply that those fairies are out to molest children and handed out a ban. TL staff are generally unpaid community members but where the roles may overlap I believe we have a good track record of maintaining a responsible distinction of roles. If you would like to discuss this further then take it to website feedback.
I can assure you this post was originally far more hostile and unrepresentative of my initial statement, although I will not use this as evidence against him as it constitutes nothing more than hearsay. Regardless, Kwark has now relegated himself to manipulating my argument and putting words in my mouth (I'd guess the word "fairy" carries more negative gay connotations than the word "prance").
Allegation 3:
Although Exhibits C-G accurately depict Kwark's irascible demeanor, I'll enlist additional auxiliary evidence from other cases of malfeasance to help prove my point (see references at bottom for additional information).
The case I will reference is similarly in regard to questionable moderation (i.e, the rebuttal of a ban), but I will not examine whether Kwark was right or wrong to ban this individual, as it is not pertinent to the matter at hand. Instead, I will evaluate his course of action following the rebuttal. I will label these forms of auxiliary evidence Exhibits L and M.
+ Show Spoiler +
Exhibit L:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UNL7l.png)
Exhibit M:
Exhibit M:
On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter.
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter.
Exhibit L demonstrates Kwark's attitude, as well as his lack of patience and mental fortitude. The banned individual offered Kwark a civil discussion regarding his ban and consequent rebuttal, to which Kwark responded by calling him/her stupid.
Exhibit M further demonstrates this behavior, as he continues to berate the individual and insinuates the individual may be either stupid or psychologically deficient. Kwark then continues to personally attack the individual, implying he/she must've been dropped on his/her head as a child, or that he/she suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome as an infant.
I find this particularly troubling, as well as immensely hypocritical, as Kwark so brazenly pokes fun at a debilitating illness and yet so valiantly stands to defend homosexuals. I'd venture to guess a homosexual man or woman would possess the mental capacity to deflect homophobic sentiment; to understand the ridicule derived from ignorance and to find solace in his or her physical and mental health. These luxuries are often not afforded to those affected by fetal alcohol syndrome.
Concluding Argument:
Although previously mentioned, I'd like to reiterate this is neither a witch-hunt nor is it a criticism of any TL staff aside from Kwark. Furthermore, I'd like to commend a certain member of the TL staff and fellow banling, who will remain nameless, for his civility, professionalism and help in resolving this issue. He was the one who provided me with information regarding the rebuttal process, and although he could not lift my ban, provided me with all of the necessary information.
Kwark is ill-suited for his position as moderator as evident via the aforementioned allegations and ensuing evidence presented.
References:
-The awesome MODS of TL
-What to do if Mods incite mass bans.
-TL goes too far. KwarK
TL;DR: Kwark needs to go.
