CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Official complaint regarding...

Official complaint regarding...

Started by Keith Lee2 · · 👁 6 views · 31 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Keith Lee2Timothy Jackson2shadoworca3Daniel Ward87urbanwalker72Kevin Rodriguez4rustydrifter10
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#21 ·
Keith Lee2 said:It’s a total lie to say I was just ignoring the warning—I actually made a conscious choice to stop going back and forth with @Wand.

Every single warning, every single yellow card—it all counts as a heads-up. But for you? You're already looking at a failing grade on the midterm, and honestly, it’s been coming from a mile away.

It’s a total lie that I just sat around collecting cardboard boxes, because honestly, the only thread I actually jumped into was...
I’ve just been hit with a ban, and honestly, that's the whole story right there. I don't even have the bandwidth or the headspace to dive into the topic because I don't have a single thread left to post in!

Look, you didn't just get a passing grade because of one single topic; it was about the overall quality of communication throughout the entire PDF document. It wasn't just about one specific point, either—it’s the way everything was laid out from start to finish.

Look, let me be crystal clear about this: the whole claim that I broke the rules is nothing but a flat-out lie.
It’s a total lie to say I just tuned out when they first announced this penalty.

Nakon Alright, let's get the ball rolling—here are the upcoming game previews!Look, you’ve racked up quite a few penalties yourself lately, so I definitely wouldn't go as far as calling that a lie.
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active MemberOP
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#22 ·
rustydrifter10 said:After the midterm announcements, you actually picked up a few more strikes—so I wouldn't exactly call it a lie.


My last strike was on August 11, 2011.
The warning came on January 23, 2012.

So yeah, zero strikes after the warning.
Is it a lie then?
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#23 ·
Keith Lee2 said:I received my last strike on August 11, 2011.
The warning came later, on January 23, 2012.

So, there weren't any actual strikes issued after that warning.
Does that mean the whole thing is a lie?

🙈

Actually, those aren't the strikes listed in that PDF. My bad, I misspoke.

But honestly, even if we look at the warning, it clearly stated that you’d face a partial ban if you kept trolling—and you definitely kept right on trolling. So, regardless of the technicalities, the partial ban is totally justified.
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active MemberOP
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#24 ·
rustydrifter10 said:But the warning literally said you’d get a partial ban if you kept trolling, and you did. So, honestly, the ban makes sense.

I wasn't even trolling.
The whole "trolling" thing was just me matching the energy of @Wand, whose style
basically forced my hand—it was just reciprocity.
Even though I stopped, Wand just kept going,
and the mods didn't step in to stop them—which, yeah, is why I'm annoyed,
like I mentioned before.
shadoworca3 shadoworca3 Member
17 messages
joined Jul 2010
#25 ·
Keith Lee2,
The Natural Science section of this forum really isn't the place for posters like you. Your contributions don't actually add anything of value; instead, they just serve as a breeding ground for nonsense—from a scientific standpoint—which inevitably leads to spam, off-topic tangents, trolling, and eventually, nothing but bans.
Perhaps your line of reasoning would find a better home in Philosophy or Religion, where you might actually find the validation you're looking for.
Staying here will only lead to disappointment. 🤷
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#26 ·
Look, that warning was about your writing style in general, not just specifically regarding this one topic. I honestly have no idea what gave you the impression that you could just go around trolling through the rest of the PDF.
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active MemberOP
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#27 ·
shadoworca3 said:Keith Lee2,
you really don't belong in the natural science section of this subreddit. Your posts don't add anything—honestly, they just cause clutter (in a scientific sense) and create the perfect breeding ground for spam, off-topic nonsense, trolling, idiots, and bans...
Maybe your way of thinking would work better in Philosophy or Religion, so why not go find some validation there?
You'll only end up disappointed here. 🤷

Look, more people have spoken up about how much you don't fit in the natural science sub than
about how I don't fit in mine.
It’s pretty obvious why you're still hanging around while I'm gone.

And don't worry about me being disappointed—I've got plenty of other things to be bummed out about besides the stuff you're trying to "protect" me from.
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active MemberOP
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#28 ·
rustydrifter10 said:The warning was more about your writing style in general—just a heads up. It's not just about this one topic—I honestly don't know what gave you the idea that you could just troll through the rest of the PDF like that.

I wasn't even trying to push that PDF. PZ.
I mostly just jump into threads where people are looking for a different perspective—kind of a contrarian vibe, I guess.
Like, on that thread "Is there a moon when nobody's looking at it"—where the OP is basically just asking everyone to chime in...
People have different opinions—so I'll probably just end up getting trashed for them later anyway.
Just a quick heads-up to the OP—I’m circling back to that first post where you asked us all to keep things diverse and open-minded.
My moderator is actually coming at me with insults—seriously.

Keith Lee2 said:image.

Look at this blatant display of disrespect and raw power.
How would you even describe why they gave him that red card?

he'll probably just hand me a red card right after I reply to him—typical.

After that, @Servantes actually had the nerve to point out that the moderator is shadoworca3.
The guy who basically earned himself a red card with that post—and then got hit by the same mod right after.
Straight up red carded.

So, what exactly was that moderator warning even about—like, what part of my writing actually triggered it?
Just asking generally, if you don't mind.
Maybe it’s not even my writing style—or the way everyone else on Reddit writes—that’s the issue, but more about how the mods handle things.
shadoworca3 is out here collecting ban hammers—man, that moderator is being so arrogant.
shadoworca3 shadoworca3 Member
17 messages
joined Jul 2010
#29 ·
Keith Lee2 said:I wasn't just being difficult for the sake of it. PZ.
For the most part, I’ve participated in discussions where people were actually asking for a "different" perspective.
Take, for example, a thread titled "Is there a moon when nobody is looking at it," where the original poster was explicitly inviting
diverse viewpoints, only to start belittling my input later on.
After I pointed out that initial request for various opinions to the person who started the thread,
the moderator turned to me with nothing but condescension:

And then, right after I responded to him, he slapped me with a penalty.

Following that interaction, a user named @Servantes dared to point out that the moderator, shadoworca3,
was actually the one who deserved the penalty for that specific post, which resulted in him receiving a red card from the same moderator as well.

So, I have to ask—what exactly about my writing was the issue, if I may be so bold?
In general, speaking.
Perhaps the problem isn't my writing style or the way other users write when they receive penalties from shadoworca3,
but rather the sheer arrogance displayed by that moderator.

Let me explain this to you in a very honest and straightforward manner.
The person who started that thread is a skeptic who happens to be one of the premier physicists in America specializing in relativistic quantum physics, and arguably the leading expert in the country and surrounding regions regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically the Bohmov formalism. On top of that, he is a brilliant logician, and the philosophy of natural science is his favorite hobby outside of browsing Reddit.
He also possesses a certain mischievous wit, much like Sheldon Cooper, and when he complained to me that you were ruining his thread, try to deduce what my move had to be—remove you from the Natural Science section entirely, or risk losing him? 😕😉
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active MemberOP
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#30 ·
shadoworca3 said:Look, let me just lay it out for you straight.
The guy who started this thread is a skeptic—and I mean he's honestly one of the top physicists in the US when it comes to relativistic quantum physics. He's easily the best in the country and surrounding areas at interpreting quantum mechanics, specifically Bohmov formalism. Plus, the guy is a brilliant logician, and his favorite hobby after hanging out on Reddit is the philosophy of science.
He’s also got that witty, quirky vibe like Sheldon Cooper... so when he files a complaint that you're derailing his thread, try to figure out my move here—do I pull you from the natural science section, or risk him walking away entirely? 😕😉

I appreciate the honesty.
I totally get where you're coming from and why you made that call.
But this all went down back on August 11, 2011, in that thread about the moon, when
I basically ended the conversation with @Skeptic—basically "asking" him nicely to stop belittling
the other users—and wished him nothing but the best in life.
Here's the post:
image

But I actually got banned on February 15, 2012, because of something in a completely different thread;
the "spacetime" one, which I only joined because @Spreče (who
you banned too, by the way) invited me. I didn't even say a single word to @Skeptic in that one.

image
shadoworca3 shadoworca3 Member
17 messages
joined Jul 2010
#31 ·
Keith Lee2 said:I truly appreciate your honesty.
I can certainly wrap my head around the situation you've described, and I find myself fully agreeing with the choice you've made.
However, that entire situation actually unfolded back on August 11, 2011, regarding that specific discussion about the moon, when...
I finally decided to wrap up my conversation with @Servantes, essentially asking him to stop being so dismissive of everything I say.
He offered his sincere thanks to everyone in the conversation and took a moment to wish him nothing but genuine happiness and success in all his future endeavors.
Evo tog posta:

I was hit with a ban back on February 15, 2012, and honestly, it was all because I happened to weigh in on a completely different topic altogether.
I stumbled upon "Space-Time" after being invited by @Servantes, and I have to say, it’s been quite an interesting journey so far.
He also handed out bans, and I didn't even say a single word to @Servantes.

I’ve been "visio" since way before August 11, 2011. Honestly, we were all just waiting for that one final drop to tip the scale. If you want proof, you can find the records regarding this in the moderator archives over at PZ.
Sprečo is the living embodiment of everything we try to avoid on PZ. It really isn't any surprise that you decided to jump ship when the package deal went south.
He was issued a formal warning, but it clearly failed to have any impact whatsoever.

First off, just to keep things lighthearted and friendly,

Quote:
I suppose I should start by offering my sincere greetings to everyone here. kaže:
I find myself caught in a bit of a dilemma regarding how I should interpret my previous thought:
It’s best to view this as nothing more than the individual opinion and stance of a single participant within the discussion, or perhaps just one perspective among many.
b) This serves as my perspective and position regarding the moderator's suggestion that I should refrain from contributing any further posts to this specific thread.
shadoworca3 As stated by:
No one has the right to tell you that you can't post on this forum unless you’re being outright abusive or just posting complete nonsense.
Your writing doesn't offend anyone, but more importantly, it lacks any semblance of clarity. 😬
And then we move on to filing it through official channels.

@Sprečo
Up until this point, we’ve mostly just been joking around.
You spent quite some time acting as a bit of a spectacle—almost like a court jester—but that act has worn thin, and frankly, it isn't even entertaining anymore. You are welcome to continue your work within the realm of natural science, provided you stop peddling those vague, nebulous theories of yours and, even more importantly, quit linking to those crackpot websites.
If you truly find that you cannot function without it, there is an Alternatives subforum where you are more than welcome to do exactly as you please.
You should probably stop posting here immediately, because we are going to start flagging and deleting your posts, which will lead to a partial ban that prevents you from accessing the Natural Science section entirely.

This thread has turned into a complete dumping ground for crackpots, a few of whom have already been partially banned or permanently removed. Every single decision regarding these partial bans was made collectively by the PZ moderators and the administration, following our standard procedures before being carried out.

As long as I am serving as a moderator here, and while this current administration and ownership remain in place, there will be absolutely no pulling back your partial bans from PZ.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#32 ·
shadoworca3 said:As long as this specific mod team is running things at the FBI, with this admin crew and the current owner—you aren't getting those partials pulled from the site.

That pretty much wraps this thread up.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads