Malfeasance in Moderation: An Evaluation of Kwark - Page 6

On October 25 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
so i just read through the whole op. are you saying your ban wasn't justified? or, are you saying your ban was justified, but kwark mishandled your "claim?"

i actually don't think your post was terribly offensive. the only relatively homophobic word was "prancing," but that was pretty ambiguous. if i read through your post history in that thread would it show other homophobic references?

On October 25 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
so i just read through the whole op. are you saying your ban wasn't justified? or, are you saying your ban was justified, but kwark mishandled your "claim?"

i actually don't think your post was terribly offensive. the only relatively homophobic word was "prancing," but that was pretty ambiguous. if i read through your post history in that thread would it show other homophobic references?

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.

On October 25 2012 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:
why did you use the word prancing?

On October 25 2012 08:04 KwarK wrote:

You think the use of the word prancing was the questionable part of it. Curious, I recall reading this somewhere.

On October 25 2012 08:04 KwarK wrote:

You think the use of the word prancing was the questionable part of it. Curious, I recall reading this somewhere.

On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.

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.

On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:


It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him.

And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you.

Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph:



I'm inclined to side with him.

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.

On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.

I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are.

On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:


Oh, the irony!

The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it!


Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable?

On October 25 2012 08:20 KwarK wrote:

You have failed to read or understand anything that I wrote. You have brain power comparable to a lesser animal, perhaps one of the great apes.

On October 25 2012 08:08 neversummer wrote:


Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question.

The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect.

Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned?

On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning.

On October 25 2012 08:22 Firebolt145 wrote:

You know, if you had pm'd Kwark saying 'I did not mean any offence with the word 'prancing', it was supposed to be a feeble attempt at a joke, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it', this whole thing would've blown over by now.

On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:


Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it?