What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Esquilax]

You act like I don't have the pm I received, quote mining had nothing to do with it and since you insist on continuing to misrepresent the situation I'll quote the pm here... if that constitutes an ban, so be it.

I'll leave the sender anonymous.

I have the report, moron; I can read the entirety of the discussion surrounding that issue from beginning to end, and yes, quote mining is in there. That there were multiple reasons you were breaking the rules doesn't make things any better.

As you can see, It had NOTHING to do with quote mining, now who's lying?

Hey, I'm the one with full access to the behind the scenes stuff, I know what's there. If you want to know why that's not present in the PM you got about it then that's something you'll need to take up with the person who sent it, not the five other people who voted for it to happen. I'm not actually responsible for the wording choices of my other mods, nor am I capable of reading PMs that come to you; I simply had no way of knowing how it was phrased within private correspondences with you. I can certainly tell you how it went in the discussions that I was privy to, which is what I'm doing here. Don't get petulant that I didn't know things I couldn't possibly know.

I was asked to change my sig because it was reported that I made it AFTER a mod asked Bad Wolf and I to "quit our pissing contest"...

This is false because you can clearly see that I made that sig before the mod got involved as evidenced here

Good thing that wasn't the only factor that contributed to our action, isn't it?

Yeah, you did report me which would suggest anything before that wasn't official, would it?

Are you serious? You're telling me that "I'm going to report this if you don't knock it off" doesn't give you a reasonable expectation that it's going to become official if you persist? Or that "it's been reported" doesn't give you an explicit, black and white indication of precisely the moment it became official?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Also you were supposed to recuse yourself, but guess who handed out the warning... YOU did, must not know what RECUSE means.

If I had been personally involved with the action, I would have recused myself. But I wasn't; I perceived that a rule had been broken, warned you to knock it off, and reported it when you didn't. That's.... sort of literally the entire purpose of moderators, to point out where rules have been broken and to adjudicate on those. Are you seriously asking that we recuse ourselves every time we bring an issue to the staff's attention?

Now, I know it rustles your little jimmies that I was the one who handed down the warning, but that's not my problem. We aren't here to cater to your pride, we're here to enforce the rules. There's no reason I should have recused myself there, though it's nice to see you're still salty about it months later.

When I say I was never told in an official capacity, I mean as staff, you know, green and red text... as Pandaemonium himself put it.

When the staff post in their relevant colours, we're posting as staff.

When we post any other time, we post as members. If this is difficult to understand, Randy, I'm not sure what else can be done. But to clarify, here I am posting as a normal member.

There is no added value whatsoever in us having two accounts, or remaining 'anonymous' (why would we want to do that?).

Post your suggestion, by all means, however.

Now, show me where I was warned officially. I'll wait...

You are not going to convince me that you are so much of an idiot that it's impossible for you to read context cues and see consequences. Stop with the ignorant act and grow the fuck up.

You were warned in thread by multiple mods, but more importantly, we're not required to warn you before we take action. It was determined that you'd had sufficient explanation in the threads, and what's particularly interesting is that this little mystified act you're putting on, as if you'd have no way to know you were being officially reprimanded without the benefit of green text, didn't show up at all at the time; when you started PMing me back following your warning you knew exactly what you'd been warned for: all I had to say was "trolling" and you immediately understood we were discussing the signature issue.

So don't give me this bullshit about not being adequately warned. You knew then, you know now, and if you didn't have this inbuilt need to cause trouble and this bruised pride from being warned by someone who has the power to do so without needing your imprimatur, then you wouldn't be scrabbling for reasons to bitch now.