Petition to demod Inks

[Хahar 🤔]

I'll admit it was foolish of me to PM Simfan. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and an attempt to clarify everything before I brought it up to the mods, because with all the leaks, I didn't want Simfan getting dragged through everything Einzige has. I genuinely like Simfan, and I am glad he was allowed to return... perhaps that biased me. it probably did... I'll admit that. but then he started getting more and more secretive, and it's disappointing. After he told me what happened, I was able to verify that my initial theory was wrong, but now we're left with everyone standing and pointing their guns at each other in a manner like the end of the murder mystery episode of The Office... where everyone just shoots everyone and dies.

Literally none of this explains or justifies lying about moderator information to receive access to private chat logs.

Doesn't a blackmailee by definition need something to have helld against them, which in this case appears missing?

No.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

For reference, the timeline as it stands:

1. Libertas petitions to be unbanned and the moderators discuss this.

2. Snowstalker finds out that the moderators are discussing unbanning Libertas and makes a thread about it on the forum.

3. Inks becomes convinced that Snowstalker found this information out as a result of a "leak" from the mod board and demands that the moderator responsible for this "leak" confess.

4. Still looking for the source of the "leak", Inks decides that he should look through chat logs to uncover the guilty moderator.

5. Inks makes up an "Arkansas IP address" and blackmails Simfan into giving him chat logs.

6. Simfan sends chat logs to Inks, after which Inks triumphantly posts those logs on the mod board as evidence of the "leak".

This ignores the personal threats made to yours truly on the basis of said link, threatening to 'call the authorities' on me (LOL the Gardai have better things to do to listen to the ravings of a some randommer in Michigan) because I created this thread and because I had revealed that I knew that he supported Libertas' unbanning.

In IRC I said obviously in jest that "Inks needs to be shot" in regards to this position vis-a-vis Libertas. This was used against me both on the IRC and in a PM where he referred to me by my real surname. This is obviously completely unacceptable behaviour and further evidence that he needs to be stripped of his responsibilities.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll admit it was foolish of me to PM Simfan. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and an attempt to clarify everything before I brought it up to the mods, because with all the leaks, I didn't want Simfan getting dragged through everything Einzige has. I genuinely like Simfan, and I am glad he was allowed to return... perhaps that biased me. it probably did... I'll admit that. but then he started getting more and more secretive, and it's disappointing. After he told me what happened, I was able to verify that my initial theory was wrong, but now we're left with everyone standing and pointing their guns at each other in a manner like the end of the murder mystery episode of The Office... where everyone just shoots everyone and dies.

Literally none of this explains or justifies lying about moderator information to receive access to private chat logs.

You're right. It doesn't, and that would matter if I had actually lied about moderator information.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Time to drop the banhammer on Inks obviously.

[Lief 🗽]

Ban Inks. What he's done is more damaging to the forum than anything opebo ever posted.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

For reference, the timeline as it stands:

1. Libertas petitions to be unbanned and the moderators discuss this.

2. Snowstalker finds out that the moderators are discussing unbanning Libertas and makes a thread about it on the forum.

3. Inks becomes convinced that Snowstalker found this information out as a result of a "leak" from the mod board and demands that the moderator responsible for this "leak" confess.

4. Still looking for the source of the "leak", Inks decides that he should look through chat logs to uncover the guilty moderator.

5. Inks makes up an "Arkansas IP address" and blackmails Simfan into giving him chat logs.

6. Simfan sends chat logs to Inks, after which Inks triumphantly posts those logs on the mod board as evidence of the "leak".

This ignores the personal threats made to yours truly on the basis of said link, threatening to 'call the authorities' on me (LOL the Gardai have better things to do to listen to the ravings of a some randommer in Michigan) because I created this thread and because I had revealed that I knew that he supported Libertas' unbanning.

In IRC I said obviously in jest that "Inks needs to be shot" in regards to this position vis-a-vis Libertas. This was used against me both on the IRC and in a PM where he referred to me by my real surname. This is obviously completely unacceptable behaviour and further evidence that he needs to be stripped of his responsibilities.

I never threatened to call anybody. I merely played a prank on you to teach you a lesson that those who post personal information on the internet that is easily found through public means should not say that people "need to be shot". But I never said I was actually going to contact the authorities.

[Simfan34]

Well, I don't know what to say about inks, but saying "I'll do x to you if you don't do y" seems pretty coercive. But I mean is that what this it is to you? A "prank"? I've spent this nice Sunday afternoon inside because of the BS (not that's that really anyone's fault but mine). Although, note I haven't called for anything except clarification.

[Oakvale]

The information on the IRC channel can't be found "through public means". That is a lie. It can be accessed in two ways -

1) Be in the chat yourself

2) Get someone who was there to leak you the information.

You chose the latter, by blackmailing Simfan with a ban threat. This is clear cut.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Really it was said best that anyone who treats message board moderation as such SERIOUS BUSINESS as Inks shouldn't have the position.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Inks is a borderline psychopath who is clearly unfit to come any position of power. Seriously, Inks, if there is an ounce of dignity left in you, just resign and have the decency to shut the f-ck up. Since you have become a mod all you've been capable of is dragging down this forum with your mind-boggling, stubborn, creepy insanity.

[Paul Kemp]

Inks is a borderline psychopath who is clearly unfit to come any position of power. Seriously, Inks, if there is an ounce of dignity left in you, just resign and have the decency to shut the f-ck up. Since you have become a mod all you've been capable of is dragging down this forum with your mind-boggling, stubborn, creepy insanity.

RIP Tony

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have no intention of resigning.

[Paul Kemp]

Good Evening.

With the deliberations of the House Judiciary Committee completed and its recommendations awaiting action by the full House of Representatives, questions have been raised about my own plans for dealing with the impeachment issue.

I have requested this time in order to tell you how I intend to proceed.

Debate on the committee’s impeachment recommendations is scheduled to begin on the House floor two weeks from today — on Aug. 19.

In the wake of the Judiciary Committee’s action, there has been a very substantial erosion of the political base that I would need in order to sustain my position in the House of Representatives. Therefore, at this time it appears almost a foregone conclusion that one or more articles of impeachment will be voted by the House, and that the matter will go to a trial in the Senate. . . .

It is not my purpose tonight to argue my case. There will be time for that later. Rather, I want to explain how I intend to proceed.

I also want to tell you about one new piece of evidence I have discovered, which I recognize will not be helpful to my case — but which I have instructed my attorneys to make available immediately to the Judiciary Committee. . . .

In the past several days, I have been engaged in an intensive review of the 64 taped conversations covered by the Special Prosecutor’s subpoena and the Supreme Court’s recent order that they be turned over to Judge Sirica. With one exception, I have found that they bear out what I said on April 29 when I announced my decision to make public the original transcripts: that the evidence I have turned over to the Judiciary Committee tells the full story of Watergate, insofar as the President’s knowledge or involvement is concerned. These 64 additional tapes are being turned over to Judge Sirica. . . .

As they become public, which they undoubtedly will, the truth of this will be evident.

The one exception is a conversation I held with H. R. Haldeman on June 23, 1972, which concerns my instructions with regard to coordination between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. In reviewing the tape it is now clear to me that Mr. Haldeman and I did discuss the political aspects of the situation, and that we were fully aware of the advantages this course of action would have with respect to limiting the possible public exposure of involvement by persons connected with the re-election committee. Because this conversation took place just a few days after the break-in, I know it will be widely interpreted as evidence that I was involved from the outset in efforts at cover-up.

Let me take a moment to explain why I did not make this public sooner, although I should have. In May of this year I began a review of the 64 tapes subpoenaed by the Special Prosecutor, but then postponed completing it pending the decision that was finally handed down 12 days ago by the Supreme Court. In the course of that earlier partial review I listened to this tape, but did not focus on it thoroughly. I did not at the time consider it inconsistent with my past statements, nor did I have transcripts made or advise my staff or counsel about any possible concern with it.

I now recognize this as having been a serious mistake, because as a result of it my counsel, my staff, and others, including members of the Judiciary Committee, who defended my position did so on the basis of facts that were incomplete. . . .

Let me turn now to the future.

There has been a great deal of speculation that I would resign, rather than face trial by the Senate. Some cite the erosion of my political base, and say that this either dims or dooms my chances in the Senate. Some cite the costs to the nation of more months of distraction and uncertainty. Some say I should not see the Constitutional process through, because even if vindicated by the Senate I would be so weakened politically that I could not govern effectively for the remainder of my term.
Some suggest that if I persevere, I am not only ignoring what they consider the inevitable outcome, but doing so at considerable political risk.

Indeed, when I reviewed the June 23 tape, and realized the interpretations that will probably be placed on it, I seriously considered resigning.

I have thought long and hard about all of these questions. . . . I have explored the questions thoroughly with my family.They share in my belief that the Constitutional process must not be aborted or short-circuited — that having begun, it must be carried through to its conclusion, that is, through a fair trial in the Senate. . . .

If I were to resign, it would spare the country additional months consumed with the ordeal of a Presidential impeachment and trial.

But it would leave unresolved the questions that have already cost the country so much in anguish, division and uncertainty. More important, it would leave a permanent crack in our Constitutional structure: it would establish the principle that under pressure, a President could be removed from office by means short of those provided by the Constitution. By establishing that principle, it would invite such pressures on every future President who might, for whatever reason, fall into a period of unpopularity. . . .

Whatever the mistakes that have been made — and they are many — and whatever the measure of my own responsibility for those mistakes, I firmly believe that I have not committed any act of commission or omission that justifies removing a duly elected President from office. If I did believe that I had committed such an act, I would have resigned long ago. . . .

For me to see this through will have costs for the country in the short run. The months ahead will not be easy for any of us. But in the long run — whatever the outcome — the results will be a more stable form of government. Far more damaging than the ordeal of a Senate trial, far more damaging that even the conviction and removal of a President, would be the descent toward chaos if Presidents could be removed short of impeachment and trial.

Throughout the Western world, governmental instability has reached almost epidemic proportions. . . . In the United States, within the last dozen years one President was assassinated; the next was in effect driven from office when he did not even seek re-election; and now the third stands on the verge of impeachment by the House of Representatives, confronted with calls for his resignation in order to make the process of removal easy.

This country bears enormous responsibilities to itself and to the world. If we are to meet those responsibilities in this and future Presidencies, we must not let this office be destroyed — or let it fall such easy prey to those who would exult in the breaking of the President that the game becomes a national habit.

Therefore, I shall see the Constitutional process through — whatever its outcome.

I shall appear before the Senate, and answer under oath before the Senate any and all questions put to me there.

[Joe Republic]

I have no intention of resigning.

Nobody is surprised.

It kind of amazes me though that somebody who now has zero credibility left with the community he is meant to be a steward of won't take the hint and go.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Whatever his intentions might have been, Inks' actions were highly unethical and destroyed all credibility  he had left as moderator. His secretive, not to say paranoid, schemes also shows, that he's unable to trust his fellow mods, so I don't think how can he continue to work on a team.

And seriously, dude, going through that length to play a very srs internet policeman and investigator? Don't you have better things in live to focus your energy?

For sake of us, ordinary posters, as well as a number of mods who are doing a good work around, Inks should be demoded.

[Simfan34]

I have no intention of resigning.

This is because you are a sad, arrogant, pathetic little sh*t who blames others for his own problems. Get a f-cking clue.

Calm down, Antonio.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have no intention of resigning.

This is because you are a sad, arrogant, pathetic little sh*t who blames others for his own problems. Get a f-cking clue.

Calm down, Antonio.

I am generally nice and level headed in my criticisms if the person displays any willingness to actually accept any criticism. People like Inks deserve only contempt.

[Napoleon]

Yeah Inks really needs to check himself into a facility but he will not.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Inks needs to be banned while opebo is freed

[Simfan34]

Inks needs to be banned while opebo is freed

Stop it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Inks needs to be banned while opebo is freed

No. Inks need to join opebo.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL Kal
 You did something far worse than anything opebo did and weren't punished AT ALL for it. Of course what Inks is doing us even worse.

[Simfan34]

Kal did something worse than supporting pedophilia? But seriously Inks, can you please tell me more about these issues- I'd really want to get to the bottom of it!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Sorry, Inks. Time to resign. I really can't believe the last several pages here.

[Paul Kemp]

FYI Inks is currently doing a Q&A in IRC.