What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

The first time I quoted someone in my sig, I was told to remove it despite NOT naming anyone, I hadn't visited the forum for a few days and came back to find the sig removed... how does that break the rules?

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.

Furthermore, I have access to that report, Huggy. It never goes away: you did identify the other party in your quote mine via his initials, and you were online at the time it was deleted. In fact, the reason it was deleted is that you had been given a length of time to alter it yourself, you were available to do that, and yet you hadn't done it.

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.

It is come to our attention that after you were asked to quit your tiff
with Bad Wolf that you added the signature currently cited at time of
this message. I don't care why you put it there.

Change it to something else.

I certainly hope that your entire tenure here will not be just about bothering bad Wolf. That said, even if the preceding was true, we don't want to see it.

As you can see, It had NOTHING to do with quote mining, now who's lying?
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
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid614936

(In David Attenborough's voice):
'And here we have an example of a defeated theist. He flees from the forum with his tail between his legs, his head up his arse, and his fingers in his ears. Maybe he well think twice before testing the biblical knowledge of an atheist again.'

You know, yesterday was Sunday. I tend to spend that day in something called a church. But since your talking nonsense, I think i'm going to debut my new sig just for you.

Huggy74: "But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee"

Bad Wolf: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Huggy74 "except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave""

Bad Wolf:"Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?"

Huggy74"they were paid a pittance."

Bad Wolf:"Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves."

LOL man, pure comedy.

Note that post in on page 10
the mod didn't intervene until page 12 as evidenced here (Or look at the time stamps)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid615141

Mod hat on.

Nobody is going to get banned for misquoting someone.  Please adjust your expectations.

If the quote is not an accurate representation of what was said and the flow of the conversation, then the staff would insist that a correction be made.

In any case, this pissing contest between the two of you needs to stop.

Note how the mod makes it clear he posting as staff?
Also, since when do Initials = naming? B.W. .....yeah, I see how that's clear

Esquilax repeatedly requested that I remove that sig, even though Rhythm clearly indicated that he didn't care if I put it in my signature.... How is that against the rules?
So you're saying that even though the sig broke no rules, Esquilax simply asking for it to be removed (though not officially), should always be regarded as an Official mod request?

You know, you posted the thread in which we were talking about your latest signature rule break... did you read it before you posted? Or was it just the part that you thought proved your infantile point that you were interested in? Because, see, if one were to actually read the thread, including my comments therein, it would be pretty clear to them what actually happened: You were asked to remove a quote from FaF, not Rhythm, so what you're saying here is completely irrelevant.

Oh and also? You say you were never told in any official capacity to remove your sig, but that's a lie too, because I told you directly, when you asked me if I was telling you as a mod to remove your sig, that if you didn't on your own I would report it and we would be addressing that as moderators; see, I was following the rules myself and going through the normal staff process, rather than throwing my weight around and acting as a single mod, which we generally don't do: Here's the post where I explicitly told you I would report... which is where the moderators go to do things officially. You did know this would become an official action. Oh, and fun fact? Right fucking below that post, and I mean directly below it, Becca explicitly indicated that it had been reported, meaning that you did know this had escalated to an official issue for the staff.

Everything you do, top to bottom, is either misinformed garbage made to assuage your ego, or out and out lies for the same purpose. It's not even like you weren't told why your sig broke the rules; there are posts and posts by multiple mods detailing exactly why it was, so this faux-innocent "how was I breaking the rules?" bit is not only idiotic, it's another outright lie, because when I find lengthy explanations both from myself and Pandaemonium on exactly that point, I have a hard time believing that you still don't get it. So you're either lying by feigning ignorance, or you're genuinely so ignorant that a clear explanation from multiple sources doesn't get through to you.

Liar, or moron? Which suits you best, Huggy?

Yeah, you did report me which would suggest anything before that wasn't official, would it? Also you were supposed to recuse yourself, but guess who handed out the warning... YOU did, must not know what RECUSE means.

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...