What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

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.

Would you mind pointing out the rule against quoting someone in your signature or "quote mining" as you put it?

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.

Look you stated:

"Oh, so what you're saying is that you remember that we consider that exact form of quote mining to be against the rules, and just decided to do it again. So you intentionally decided to break the rules, fully knowing what you were doing at the time. Great! Glad you admitted that."

Which WAS a misrepresentation. And I DID send a pm with the evidence I presented here, Never received a response...

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?

No, you know why? You have a quote from a forum member in your sig, and a know of at least one other member who has a quote from Godschild in his sig, APPARENTLY it's only against the rules if it's an "embarrassing" quote.

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.

That
I'm not imagining anything, it is unfair to be judged by your accuser...that's a fact.

If your saying the person that brought the allegations played no part in the proceedings, then I stand corrected.

Then that is an assurance I am happy to be able to give. You would be correct that it is unfair to have the person bringing the charge in a position where they can pass judgement. Fortunately, every time a member of Staff here finds themselves in such a situation, he or she abdicates themselves from the discussion.

Can we now consider the matter closed?

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.

You realize I had rhythm quoted (with permission) in my sig for about seven / eight months? Now all of the sudden I'm supposed to realize the interpretation of the rules have changed and now it's considered "trolling"? Give me a break..
Sounds more like a convenient excuse.

Why could I have Rhythm quote in my sig for about seven months and it not be an issue, then all of the sudden it's against the rules?