May I get a quote of when I equated, say, the Southern Strategy or something along those lines, with The Big Lie? Thanks.

You got banned for your posts in my jurisdiction. Lol at skipping the last sentence of that paragraph.

Proph they are just going to mock and deride you here.

In short, your posts in this thread will be used as a distraction and frankly this thread is about MrWookies posts, opinions and statements that don't regard you. Though I do understand you question his overall authority. The authority of his opinion about this matter is at question, so I understand how you may relate.

Please don't add to the excessive argumentation. That has already runs it's course on this topic. This thread is not about the overall merits of MrWookie being a mod. You are quite free to start a thread about that though or take it to the bad poster thread, please.

lol@skipping my entire post.

You banned me for "conspiratarding," an extremely vague and subjective reason.

Why are you trying to infringe on his right to be heard?

A patently dishonest and misleading question for the purpose of intentionally inviting excessive argumentation.

If I were also banned as well due to unfounded criticism, does this thread concern me then?

My post struck at the heart of the validity of his opinion, which he -- of course -- chooses to brush aside.

Your posts fit here Proph, don't let Spank bully you into silence.

You are subject to subjective modding in every forum, and no one pretends otherwise.

Kerowo literally said that banning you in the hypothetical he described would be wrong. He agrees with you and me that it would be wrong! You quoted him saying it was wrong in that very post.

Well, but including information that doesn't involve the SMP fiasco likely makes more noise and doesn't add to settling that conflict. This is why I suggest keeping on topic here as much as possible and avoid excessive arguing with team mr wookie. See how evil my infringement of being reasonable and asking please is so terrible that rjoe had to make an absurd accusation I was infringing upon you. Just for rjoe I state: By all means you can argue about your moderation by MrWookie here, I'm just stating my observations of how that will probably work out and asking to stay on topic which is fairly obvious too you without stating I imagine. I certainly do not want to argue with you here.

We have reached absurd accusations, which is a new level.

If such is the case, then ignore him. (lol@"right" to be heard!)

Why are you trying to compel me to modify my posting behavior, particularly in this thread? (Please, use this as an excuse to air your grievances.)

How 'bout dem "racist" posts, MrWookie?

I've seen plenty of witch-hunts perpetuated on here, and I suspect this BruceZ fiasco of being yet another.

I have no power to compel you to behave personally, I can only ask and explain the benefit of my thinking.

The accusation political method doesn't work well out in the open. At times It's more informative to identify behavior rather than ignore it to illustrate that it has pattern. I practice an open political method. I have no reason to ignore anything that is better served identified in the open towards settling a conflict.

Spank invented the right to be heard, he's constantly going on about it when others say they're going to ignore him. It's shocking for him to try and infringe someone else's rights. I wouldn't think him to be such a hypocrite.

A right to correspondence does equal a right to not be socially ignored. Treating a human as openly ignorable does conflict with the spirit of community correspondence. Science also shows this causes emotional harm to various degrees. A completely ignored human is functionally dehumanized.

Plus all the evidence suggests that excessive mockery and derision is what supports the promotion of ignoring. Mockery and derision lacks substance and would never be grounds to dehumanize a person socially. Unless you have some other substantive support for publicly ignoring that explains what is otherwise quite indicative by the presence of excessive mocking and derisive behavior which is connected with it in a pattern.

Disagreeing with and criticizing an opinion surely doesn't meet any smart standard for public ignoring campaigns. Actually seems rather stupid because derision and mockery is even more stupid in excess.

Many have been quoted in this thread. Multiple times.

You have no such right. ("Life, liberty, propertai, bruh!")

You're currently exemplifying the unintended consequences of perpetuating the behavior you're trying to avoid -- argumentation, distraction, avoidance -- by attempting to influence said behavior.

Without mockery and derision, many comedians would be hungry and homeless!

Oh man, I looked up the 3 months thing chez mentioned. lololololol, yeah, great, reasonable offer, bro. Predictably, that post was followed by multiple other ideas about what would actually be best for 2+2 and that I would have found satisfactory, none of which were heeded by Bruce.

Could you restate your assertion? It sounds rather accusatory. Excessive argumentation is something to make comedy about. You don't declare my rights and if you are going to challenge my assertion of rights, please explain how and why it is mutual beneficial to give up rights to your assertion?

Lol, I know right because if you are accusing Bruce of something because of something else Chez posted do you know what you are even mocking to apply more derision? lol.

But, I thought the whole purpose of your (unintentional?) derailment was to avoid argumentation:

You were trying to influence my behavior by dissuading me from conversing in the discussion. In the process, you invited "excessive argumentation" yourself, which you were supposedly trying to avoid.

Or, were you asking me to elaborate on rights? If you think you have a right to be heard, then I have every much as right to ignore you. (Liberty, bruh!)

However, you don't have a right to force others to listen to you, just as I don't have a right to force others to ignore you. (If you want to transition this issue into bans, then property rights become involved.)

Which of those assertions did you want clarified? (I did both, but specification is needed to proceed further.)

I assume you gave up on sticking to the topic of the validity of MrWookie's accusations of racism. (That might actually be a wise decision, because most of his responses are either dismissive or insincere anyway. We are left to infer approximate truths via his non-answers.)

I'm not trying to be confrontational.

Proph,

Rights and granted privileges related to communication are somewhat topical as Bruce's critics have an ongoing ignore campaign targeting at least a one of their outspoken critics. Other critics they stop at just derision and mockery.

Taking an opportunity to be open about communication and rights helps illustrate how poor of an idea that kind of behavior is towards a goal of settling the conflict. It's not helpful to anybody and it's not effective on it's target.

You see a person with a deceased reputation has no risk when facing an obvious attack designed to diminish reputation. My reputation died in a smear campaign months ago and so I have no reason to be personally effected by the tactic of an ignore campaign and I have every reason to resist the extra-personal effects of one.

So taking an opportunity to discuss human communication ability in forums open to the public is pretty smart in my opinion.

Look, I'm going to confront any person who states I don't have a human right which I have decided upon. I welcome open discussion and thorough vetting of human rights. We don't have to argue and we don't have to argue excessively if we do.

You saw my apology, correct?

We now know that only an unreasonable level of apology was acceptable to you.

Why were you so bothered about him modding the probability forum during that 3 months? Of what possible importance was it to you unless you simply wanted him gone from 2+2.