Cardboard Review

Greetings, everyone,

I am requesting that the super-moderators and administrators conduct a formal review of the infractions I, in my capacity as a moderator, have issued to user amberwalker4. To provide some context, this individual sent me a private message complaining about receiving automated notifications stating, "You have received an infraction at Reddit," and demanded that I cease sending them. I attempted to clarify that these alerts are system-generated notifications triggered automatically whenever any user receives a strike. Following that explanation, I received this rather peculiar response:

amberwalker4 said:Look, let’s not kid ourselves here—you’re clearly waging some sort of personal vendetta against me. Fine. But if you’re going to do it, at least have the decency to ask one of your more rational moderator buddies to issue the strikes instead. This approach is just too obvious.

Given that this user reaches out to me with claims of "persecution" regarding every single infraction I hand down, I believe a full audit of these actions is necessary. If it turns out that > is indeed correct, then I ask that my moderator privileges be revoked immediately. Conversely, if my disciplinary actions are found to be justified, I would ask the administration to consider that this user was previously banned and subsequently granted amnesty (partly due to my own advocacy)—and perhaps reflect on whether such leniency remains appropriate under these circumstances.

Additionally, since > is currently unable to view this specific thread, I request that his access be adjusted accordingly.

Thank you for your time,
Nathan Phillips2

I'm not sure why ZK can't see this subforum, but I'll ask the admins to fix it if this is just a partial ban.

ZK, regarding the moderation, your warnings are staying.

amberwalker4 said:It's weird how The Infallible, the self-proclaimed "archaeology expert" on Reddit, missed commenting on stuff like this. Even weirder that he didn't get flagged for showing a Katana in a battle at Iron. Oh well, I guess someone actually needs to know ☕.

amberwalker4 said:Don't overthink it; you can see it's bad for you.

I thought we agreed that your partial ban—and the permanent one you picked up elsewhere on the site—would be lifted if you stopped arguing the way that got you in trouble in the first place. You said yourself there was no problem and that you’d change your ways and be on your best behavior. I also told you that you'd lose access again if you kept this up, and I really mean it.
What kind of review are you actually asking for? Based on these posts (the snippets I quoted here), the warnings for trolling are justified. On what basis are you talking to people like this? I'm being serious. If everyone else is having a normal conversation and trying to share opinions or participate respectfully, then these attacks on others won't be tolerated from you. They aren't tolerated from anyone else either. I don't see any reason to overturn these warnings.

Look, this really is your last chance. If you keep this up, I'll issue a partial ban on the History section. You've been given a genuine opportunity, and now it's up to you. The next time you get flagged, you'll lose access to History entirely. If others can talk normally, so can you. It's all on you now..

wiredangler5 said:I have no idea why ZK can't see this subforum, but I'll ask the admins to grant access if this is just due to a partial ban.

ZK, regarding the review, your penalties stand.

I thought we had an agreement. We discussed lifting the partial ban and the permanent ban you picked up elsewhere on the site, provided you stopped engaging in the exact behavior that got you banned in the first place. You said yourself there was no problem with that—that you’d change things up and be on your best behavior. I also told you clearly that you'd lose access again if you kept this up, and I truly mean that.
What kind of review are you actually looking for? Based on these posts (specifically the snippets I've quoted here), the trolling penalties are justified. Why do you talk to people this way? I am asking you seriously. If others are having a normal discussion and making an effort to share their views or participate in a civil tone, then these kinds of attacks won't be tolerated from you. They aren't tolerated from anyone else, either. I don't see any reason to reconsider these penalties.

Look, this really is your last chance. If you keep going like this, I'm hitting you with a partial ban on the History section. You were given an opportunity, you really were, and now it's up to you. One more reason for a penalty and you're out of the History section for good. If everyone else can hold a conversation, you can too. It's all on you now..

Since it looks like everything has already been decided, there's no point in arguing. I'll just say this:

If DF is allowed to insult me, calling me a liar and a fraud in almost every thread we both participate in, yet I get slapped with a 45-point penalty just because I called him "The Infallible" due to his massive arrogance, then there really isn't any point in continuing.

That's it. I'm done posting in the History section.

(hey DF, go ahead and celebrate : d)

Look, I just need to set the record straight regarding some lies being told here:

Nathan Phillips2 said:Basically, this user sent me a DM saying he’s annoyed by the "You have received an infraction on Reddit" notifications and asked me to stop sending them.

The reality is that it's ridiculous how often he hands out warnings—I know him all too well. I actually told him that if he’s so intent on getting rid of me, he should just ask another moderator to issue the warning instead. The other mods are more professional and at least explain why you're getting flagged ☕.

Nathan Phillips2 said:On the other hand, if my actions are correct, please consider that this user was previously banned but was pardoned (partly due to my advocacy), so we should consider if such a pardon was truly justified.

Another lie. When I was reinstated, I thanked that moderator and asked how he managed to get me back in, but he claimed it had nothing to do with him and that he hadn't heard anything about it.

Besides, that moderator and I have been communicating via email, so he surely would have notified me if that were the case.

It doesn't change the core issue, but it's just stupid when people lie like that.

P.S. Thanks for bringing this thread back to life.

amberwalker4 said:Another blatant lie. When I was reinstated, I actually went out of my way to thank the moderator in question and asked how he managed to get me back online, but he just told me it had nothing to do with him and that he hadn't even heard about it yet.

It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what "advocating" means here. I think wiredangler5 could easily testify that during that discussion on history moderation, I was actively standing up for amberwalker4 (once the situation became "problematic").

Besides, what is this nonsense about me constantly handing you red cards? If we look at the 43 total cards you’ve received from me, only 14 of them were yours. A simple bit of arithmetic shows that the percentage doesn't quite justify using a word like "constantly."

Nathan Phillips2 said:It’s pretty clear there's a misunderstanding regarding what I mean by "advocating." I think wiredangler5 can easily back me up on this—back when we were discussing history moderation on Reddit, I was actually pushing for ZK when the issue first became controversial.

I don't buy that. You presented my return like it was some direct result of you campaigning for me—but I highly doubt that's true, for reasons known only to myself.

Regarding the cardboard—you should probably factor in density and specific dates when you plug those numbers into your math formula.

Nathan Phillips2 said:Anyway, how can you say I'm always handing you losses? Out of the 43 games we've played, you've only taken 14 from me. A very simple math equation shows that the percentage doesn't really support your claim that it happens "constantly."

Whatever. I’m just some petty internet troll who decided to pick a fight with you—the pathetic little prince on a white horse among the moderators. We could go back and forth like this until tomorrow if we wanted. You got what you wanted out of me, so let's just stop talking and call it a day. What's the point in even discussing things that are already settled and final? Especially since the decision was made before I even had a chance to speak up and explain my side.

Hey there.

Look, conspiracy theories don't belong here in the history subforum anyway.

Nathan Phillips2 said:Look, conspiracy theories don't belong on the history subforum anyway.

Just let me call my Masonic cousins. ☕If the matter is settled, then it's settled. wiredangler5 posted his thread at 10 AM—I didn't even log on until about 7:30 PM. I have no idea what I did wrong.

ZK is stoked to let you know you aren't the only one who bombed that history midterm! Honestly, it’s no surprise that this sub is one of the dead zones on Reddit!

amberwalker4 said:Just let me call my Masonic relatives ☕. And yeah, it's settled. wiredangler5 posted his thing at 10 AM—I didn't even log on until about 7:30 PM. I honestly don't know what I did wrong.

You’re looking at this the wrong way, amberwalker4. If we had decided everything beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten access back. We wouldn't have given you a second chance, period. It would have been much easier for us to just cut ties, right?
And for the record, DF was also on board with giving you a shot, along with the rest of the Reddit moderators. When I asked if we should give you another chance, everyone said yes. I could have easily skipped asking you and just kept hunting for clones, which wouldn't have been an issue since you haven't really been active lately—you remember that yourself.

You asked about reviewing your status. You got an answer because I don't see anything in the posts I quoted that warrants a formal review. All we're asking is that you stop arguing with other users in that same tone. That's it. If you can't stick to that, then I'll have to issue a partial ban. This isn't about playing favorites; it's simply about making sure people aren't constantly being attacked on this site.
If anyone actually wanted you off the site, you'd be gone already. I think you remember our agreement: one more slip-up with that attitude and you lose access. You accepted that with a huge promise to be on your best behavior. Well, look at now. Based on our actual agreement, I could have kicked you out already. But nobody did.

All you need to do is be respectful to others. Everything else is up to you.

Larry Walker24 said:amberwalker4 is just comforting himself because he wasn't the only one who got a partial ban in History! No wonder that subforum is one of the least visited!

If the History sub is losing visitors, it's because of those pointless one-liners you kept dropping all over threads. Looking at your posts in World Politics, I don't see any change there either; I can't remember seeing a single constructive post from you where you actually explained or argued a point clearly. Both History and World Politics rely on good reasoning to stay relevant. They don't need one-liners that often have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And judging by how hard you try to keep posting one-liners in History, it's hard to believe that sub is unpopular or lacks an audience that keeps it going. 😉 There are usually about 60-100 people online in that sub at any given moment. That's more than many other subforums, so don't twist things just to suit your narrative.

Take care, Larry Walker24. 🙂

wiredangler5 said:You're looking at this all wrong, ZK. If we had pre-decided everything, you wouldn't have even been given a chance to get back in. We wouldn't have offered you an out, period. That would've been way easier for us, right?
And yeah, DF was also down to give you another shot, just like the rest of the Reddit mods. When I asked if we should give you a break, everyone gave me the thumbs up. Honestly, I could've just not asked, and you'd still be out here hunting clones—which wouldn't have been a big deal since you never really stuck around long anyway, you remember that yourself.

You asked about reviewing your ban. You got your answer because I don't see anything in the posts I quoted that actually warrants a review. All I'm asking is that you stop going at other users with that same attitude. That's it. If you can't stick to that, then I'll have to issue a partial ban. It’s not some "pre-planned" move; it's just simple: I won't let people sit here and take your constant attacks.
If anyone actually wanted you gone from the site, you'd be gone already. I think even you remember the deal: one more slip-up with that tone and you lose access. You accepted that, making huge promises that you were gonna be on your best behavior. And look at you now. Based on our actual agreement, I could've kicked you out already. But nobody did.

Just be decent to people, that's the whole thing. Everything else is on you.

If History is losing traffic, it's because of those mindless one-liners you've been dropping all over threads where they don't belong. Looking at your posts in World Politics, I don't see any change there either; I can't even remember the last time I saw one of your constructive posts where you actually made a solid point or argued something clearly. Both History and World Politics need well-argued discussions to stay relevant. They don't need one-liners that usually have nothing to do with what's being talked about.

And judging by how much you insist on spamming one-liners in History, I find it hard to believe that sub isn't one of the most visited ones with its own dedicated audience keeping it alive. 😉 At any given moment, that sub has about 60-100 people online. That's more than plenty of other subreddits, so don't try to twist the facts just to suit your narrative.

Take care, Larry Walker24. 🙂

Look, wiredangler5, you're a real sweetheart. Why don't you go find me a single post in the politics thread that actually has nothing to do with the topic? 😉

Anyway, all the best to you too. 🙂🙂

I love history. The fact that my posts didn't get a response from you is a completely different story. 😉

Larry Walker24 said:ZK is just trying to make you feel better by saying you aren't the only one who got a partial grade in history. It's no surprise this subforum is one of the least visited ones out there!

I don't know about the traffic here, but I do know I wasn't the only one pushed aside by DF... now we just wait for the next person.

Thanks for the support 🙂!

wiredangler5 said:You're looking at this all wrong, amberwalker4. If we had just settled certain things ahead of time, he wouldn't have been able to get that refund. They wouldn't have given him a second chance, period. It would have made things a lot easier for us, wouldn't it?

I'm not really looking to start an argument here. But from what I understand, when both sides stand before a judge, they first have to explain themselves and lay out their reasons for being there in the first place, right?

wiredangler5 said:Yeah, look, the Democratic Party was on board with giving you another shot, and the rest of the moderators felt the same way. When I asked if we should give you a chance, everyone said yes. Honestly, I didn't even have to ask. You'd still be out there hunting for clones right now. It wouldn't have been much of an issue anyway. You never really stuck around long enough to cause trouble. You remember that too.

Yeah.

wiredangler5 said:You brought up the question about reviewing the transcripts.

I didn't even get a chance to post anything. The Democratic Party managed to succeed at that, too—stripping away the only weapon I had left: my initiative.

wiredangler5 said:You got your answer because I don't see anything in what you wrote that warrants a review. All I'm asking is that you stop arguing with other people on the forum in that same tone. That's it.

I’ve said my piece. No one should be allowed to insult others. People can troll my thread all they want, yet I'm the one getting hit with warnings for being insulting. Fine.

wiredangler5 said:If you can't stick to it, I'll just give you the partial payment. It isn't about getting ahead of things. It's just making sure we don't let this happen. The forum users are constantly reading about how you attack them.

Poor forum members. I just hope nobody ended up traumatized because of me. Thank Bog they got an angel in the form of the Democratic Party.

wiredangler5 said:If anyone actually wanted you gone from this forum, you'd be gone already. I think you remember our deal—that you'd lose access over the smallest thing if you kept up this tone. You accepted that with a massive promise to be on your best behavior. And look at us now. Based on our agreement, I could have kicked you out already. But nobody did.

All you need to do is be respectful to others. That's it. Everything else is really up to you.

Others aren't respectful to me either, so what then?

We're done with the headache. I won't be posting on the History subforum anymore.