Malfeasance in Moderation: An Evaluation of Kwark - Page 9

tofucake

Hyrule19254 Posts

October 25 2012 00:25 GMT

#161

neversummer you seem to be reading every post, then deciding to ignore it, then replying to it as if it said something else instead.

tl;dr: + Show Spoiler +

Mandini

United States1717 Posts

October 25 2012 00:26 GMT

#162

On October 25 2012 09:09 neversummer wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 25 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:56 monk. wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:

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.

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:

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.

I'm inclined to side with him.

This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM.

Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding.
1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge.
2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like:

TL;DR: Kwark needs to go.

TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.

I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this:

On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:

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.

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?

Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.

First, I like how you just ignored everything I said and directed me to something else entirely.

Next, I have no idea the point you're trying to make with the quote you gave me. What Kwark said has nothing to do with who's capable or not capable. He's saying that being mentally handicapped means you're not that smart by definition, which isn't really an insult to mentally handicapped people. Whereas what you said implied that homosexuals are generally child molesters, which is definitely not in the definition of a child molester. I actually had to read what you said many times to figure out what you were trying to get at and then figured out that it was just a weak point.

Finally, since the purpose of your initial post was to demod Kwark, and you've failed to convince anyone that could influence that, or rather anyone at all actually, I'd say you're losing the argument. The only place you're winning is inside your own head.

I feel like my verbosity in the OP has led several, less capable minds astray.

Allow me to answer your question in the simplest way I can:

Kwark said it was okay that he insulted that individual, because he is fully capable. Kwark banned me for insulting homosexuals (even though I did not, but that's a separate matter). Homosexuals are fully capable.

You are not homosexuals. Homosexuals are homosexuals. You are neversummer. An identity crisis like yours is really quite remarkable. Anyway...
If I said "homosexuals are stupid" then that would be a homophobic comment. If I said "neversummer is stupid" then that would be an insult to you (although I would argue there is sufficient evidence for it to simply be a description at this point). Hopefully that clarifies it.

Clarifies nothing. Literally have no clue wtf you're talking about.

NS - "clarify this statement"
everyone - "here's a clarification"
NS - "I don't accept this clarification, therefore I am winning this argument."

Stop doing this, I really don't know how you can twist your reality to think you are winning in any sense of the word. Just take the advice of everyone and quit before you dig yourself into Disneyland.

marttorn

Norway5211 Posts

October 25 2012 00:27 GMT

#163

On October 25 2012 09:14 neversummer wrote:

Show nested quote +

yea me being a logic minor is hilarious. Will really be a detriment to me when I take the LSAT this spring.

Edit: Spring, and fuck off, Frenchie.

I'm afraid I can't hear you from the bottom of your hole. It has grown considerably deeper in the last page or so. Might I suggest a form of speech-enhancement, a microphone, megaphone, something of the sort?

Mandini

United States1717 Posts

October 25 2012 00:27 GMT

#164

On October 25 2012 09:14 neversummer wrote:

Show nested quote +

Edit: Spring, and fuck off, Frenchie.

Are you forela?

SirJolt

the Dagon Knight4015 Posts

October 25 2012 00:28 GMT

#165

On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:
Homosexuals are fully capable.

I'm really sorry if I've missed it buried in prior pages, but I'm very curious. If you believe, as you say, that homosexuals are fully capable, why is it that you think they shouldn't be allowed work with children?

Jaaaaasper

United States10225 Posts

October 25 2012 00:32 GMT

#166

On October 25 2012 09:28 SirJolt wrote:

Show nested quote +

He seems to have homosexuals and pedophiles confused, and hasn't really stated why this is.

monk

United States8477 Posts

October 25 2012 00:35 GMT

#167

On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 25 2012 08:56 monk. wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:

On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:

I'm inclined to side with him.

TL;DR: Kwark needs to go.

TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.

I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this:

On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:

Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.

I like how you keep ignoring what I had originally said and attempt to throw a thinly veiled insult at my intelligence at the same time. ^^

Ok so Kwark compared you(neversummer) to a mentally handicapped person. In this example, only the mentally handicapped person isn't "fully capable."
You seem to think that this is analogous to Kwark banning you(neversummer) for insulting a homosexual, which leads you to draw the conclusion that Kwark thinks homosexuals are not "fully capable".
While in reality, the analogous comparison would be you comparing homosexuals to child molesters. So I guess you don't think child molesters are capable. Poor child molesters.

Probe1

United States17920 Posts

October 25 2012 00:37 GMT

#168

mentally handicapped person, homosexual and child molesters are all blue. Got it boss!

Chomos are retarded homos.

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

October 25 2012 00:38 GMT

#169

On October 25 2012 09:37 Probe1 wrote:
mentally handicapped person, homosexual and child molesters are all blue. Got it boss!

Chomos are retarded homos.

tofucake is blue.....O.o

Impervious

Canada4222 Posts

October 25 2012 00:40 GMT

#170

O.O

That explains a lot.

brian

United States9643 Posts

October 25 2012 00:42 GMT

#171

tofucake

Hyrule19254 Posts

October 25 2012 00:53 GMT

#172

On October 25 2012 09:40 Impervious wrote:
O.O

That explains a lot.

neversummer

United States156 Posts

October 25 2012 01:08 GMT

#173

Thanks for coloring the subjects and predicates. How did you know that I like colors, too?

You spoil me.

Moving on, my point was not to suggest Kwark believes homosexuals are not fully capable and therefore unjust subjects of ridicule. My point was not to suggest anything (a recurring theme here).

Kwark said his personal attack upon that individual (who is NOT me, this appears to have led to more confusion) was justified due to the fact that individual is, in his words, "entirely able." I think it's a natural progression to assume homosexuals are fully able. I think it's even more of a natural progression to assume homosexuals are individuals. Therefore, based upon Kwark's logic, ridicule of homosexuals is justified.

Let's examine Kwark's logic:
Premise 1: Personal attacks are acceptable when the receiving party is "fully able."
Premise 2: Homosexuals are "fully able."
Conclusion: Personal attacks upon homosexuals are acceptable.

Now, we can debate whether my comment constituted a personal attack on homosexuals (which I vehemently deny), or I can share with you my true implication, as explained on the first page:

Although it is not relevant to the purpose of this thread, I will answer your first question because it will probably come up again. I wouldn't want gay men leading boy scout troops because I believe it may affect, or even direct, a child's behavior. Normative social influence is a very real method of socialization, and no one is more susceptible to socialization or more impressionable than a child.

That is not to say homosexuality is a choice; it is merely to say a young, impressionable child may draw homosexual tendencies or homosexual behavior from a homosexual leader. Furthermore, this is NOT to say that homosexuality is wrong. It is merely to say that homosexual leadership may have unintended (which CAN be adverse, but are not REQUIRED to be) consequences and behavior modification.

Yes, you misunderstood my purpose. My purpose was not to exonerate (means to prove innocent) myself from homophobic allegations. My purpose was to evaluate the moderation of Kwark.

I do not believe I know the extent of his responsibilities. I believe HE does not know the extent of his responsibilities, and I have accompanied that allegation with evidence.

Edit: Kwark's quote

KwarK

United States44286 Posts

October 25 2012 01:10 GMT

#174

That individual was also not homosexuals. He was an individual. Why do you keep thinking people are homosexuals? At most they could be a single homosexual.

neversummer

United States156 Posts

October 25 2012 01:12 GMT

#175

On October 25 2012 10:10 KwarK wrote:
That individual was also not homosexuals. He was an individual. Why do you keep thinking people are homosexuals? At most they could be a single homosexual.

Let me just say this response explains a lot. I honestly do not know how to explain my point any simpler than I already have. At this point I can only wish you good luck, sir.

marttorn

Norway5211 Posts

October 25 2012 01:14 GMT

#176

On October 25 2012 10:12 neversummer wrote:

Show nested quote +

Let me just say this response explains a lot. I honestly do not know how to explain my point any simpler than I already have. At this point I can only wish you good luck, sir.

I've only but one question;

Why are you not comfortable with homosexuals being around 8-10 year olds

Please don't refer me to any of the rambling, nonsensical vagueties which you've dealt in so far, just answer right on this page, if it pleases the little lord.

edit: I can see the euthanizer was dispensed before he could formulate a reply. Thank you.

KwarK

United States44286 Posts

October 25 2012 01:20 GMT

#177

You keep asking "Why is it that you can describe a fully able individual who appears, due to stupidity to be less than fully able, as less than fully able for the purpose of insulting them but you can't stereotype a group of people, who are also fully able, as child molesters without evidence?".
The answer is because the individual who I insulted wasn't a group of people and that my insult was specific to them and based upon something they had done. The reason the answer is so absurd is because you're asking a really, really stupid question over and over. You are not, and never will be, homosexuals. Any protection afforded to them as a group will never apply to you as an individual.

monk

United States8477 Posts

October 25 2012 01:21 GMT

#178

On October 25 2012 10:08 neversummer wrote:
Kwark said his personal attack upon that individual (who is NOT me, this appears to have led to more confusion) was justified due to the fact that individual is, in his words, "entirely able." I think it's a natural progression to assume homosexuals are fully able. I think it's even more of a natural progression to assume homosexuals are individuals. Therefore, based upon Kwark's logic, ridicule of homosexuals is justified.

Let's examine Kwark's logic:
Premise 1: Personal attacks are acceptable when the receiving party is "fully able."
Premise 2: Homosexuals are "fully able."
Conclusion: Personal attacks upon homosexuals are acceptable.

Now, we can debate whether my comment constituted a personal attack on homosexuals (which I vehemently deny), or I can share with you my true implication, as explained on the first page:

Premise 1 is not correct. Nowhere in the quote you linked does Kwark imply it. He's merely suggesting that if you called someone as dumb as a mentally handicapped person, as short as a midget, or as quiet as someone in a coma, it's not an insult to the mentally handicapped person, midget, or comatose individual.

According to Kwark's logic, if you called someone who just happens to be a homosexual "as dumb as a mentally handicapped person", it's not an insult to the mentally handicapped person, but it is an insult to the homosexual. That's not even to touch upon the fact that there's a difference between insulting an individual and generally a whole group of people, in your case, homosexuals.