Pause……… Elite is about 60 percent correct in this conversation. If archy said the mods are players to why are the mods making the "players" do all the ban reporting. And flint said you are only hurting the players. Like come on, if you want to be a player then retire as staff.

You expect us to put effort into helping you, when you'll put little effort into actually asking for help. You don't even follow the formats, and when I tell you this, you get angry. How about you just try to follow a format? I'm sure it would be more easy than going and making a post this long.
You're continously making reports, and each time we tell you to follow the format. Each time, you ignore that and continue not using any format. You can expect to be ignored by staff, or your post even locked if it's not the correct format.
Do you think you deserve special treatment?

I would link you to all my ban reports with proper ban report format to further prove my point, but it's not worth it.

There it is again. You'll put little to no effort in your reports and expect big results.

You people and novels. -_-

https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4410
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4367
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3899
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3933
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4183
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4196
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3699
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3637
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3629
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3240
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4457 * idk why this is in the reports denied section when it's accepted
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4514
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3926
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3362

I've shortened it for you
Next time don't respond with false words and I'll give you a picture book for you to read instead

https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4457
See what happens when you use the correct format?
You're not getting anywhere by this. I didn't show you any disrespect, or arrogance, at all. You're not taking the responses literally and taking what I respond with personally.

You take offense too easily, I also added to your point and called Varicks a poopy face if you didn't see that. I insulted him good.

Alright, let me start off with that we don't make reports. If we find a player cheating, we record (90% of the time) and ban. Trials, on the other hand, make reports. Regarding your second point, Badlion is one of the only servers I know of where you can be staffing and playing at the same time. I fail to understand how you can't grasp this concept after how long you've played here, but mods are still players. We can either be actively doing our job, or passively, but either way we are still getting rid of hackers.

@_iFalcon_ I think you didn't read my post fully. I said back in 1.5 this whole mod/player thing worked great since there wasn't nearly as much the player base. However since the player base has indeed grew I personally think one should be a full time mod or just retire as a player. I hope that made it easier for you.

@frogmike
@Viprite
@BurntCactus
You say I don't put any efforts into my ban reports yet I already stated I've made 3 ban reports with incorrect format. The reasoning behind this is because it was just to give staff a heads up/investigate players. I don't see other staff being rude when I ask for a player to be looked into? http://gyazo.com/32a30ccdb8e350d5f63f29fce332010b The only legitimate ban report I've made with incorrect format is the "lol" one where I, along with many other players, thought he was blatantly hacking. Here's the report again so you can determine if he's hacking or not - https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4513
I do not ignore the formats "each time". Again, since the people that respond do not take the time to read, I'll spend time in linking you now -
Accepted Reports:
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4410
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4367
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3899
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3933
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4183
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4196
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3699
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3637
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3629
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3240
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4457 * idk why this is in the reports denied section when it's accepted
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/4514
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3926
https://www.badlion.net/forum/thread/3362

Also, I don't get "angry". I don't care what you say to me, it's that you constantly respond to other players that are trying to help out the community in an arrogant and demeaning manor. I have no idea where you got the idea of me wanting special treatment; all I asked for was players to be investigated/looked into without given a response of that manor. If you believe that is me asking for special treatment then I'm guilty.

Me : I would link you to all my ban reports with proper ban report format to further prove my point, but it's not worth it.

Varicks : There it is again. You'll put little to no effort in your reports and expect big results.

^ You've probably misinterpreted my sentence considering I just didn't feel like going through the accepted ban reports and linking all of them. All of these reports have correct format and the players have been banned, so I don't see how those reports above contain no effort.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.Last month, Isaac Fitzgerald, the newly hired editor of BuzzFeed's newly created books section, made a remarkable but not entirely surprising announcement: He was not interested in publishing negative book reviews. In place of "the scathing takedown rip," Fitzgerald said, he desired to promote a positive community experience.

A community, even one dedicated to positivity, needs an enemy to define itself against. BuzzFeed's motto, the attitude that drives its success, is an explicit "No haters." The site is one of the leading voices of the moment, thriving in the online sharing economy, in which agreeability is popularity, and popularity is value. (Upworthy, the next iteration, has gone ahead and made its name out of the premise.)

There is more at work here than mere good feelings. "No haters" is a sentiment older and more wide-reaching than BuzzFeed. There is a consensus, or something that has assumed the tone of a consensus, that we are living, to our disadvantage, in an age of snark—that the problem of our times is a thing called "snark."

The word, as used now, is a fairly recent addition to the language, and it is not always entirely clear what "snark" may be. But it's an attitude, and a negative attitude—a "hostile, knowing, bitter tone of contempt," is how Heidi Julavits described it in 2003, while formally bestowing the name of "snark" on it, in the inaugural issue of The Believer.

In her essay, Julavits was grappling with the question of negative book reviewing: Was it fair or necessary? Was the meanness displayed in book reviews a symptom of deeper failings in the culture?

The decade that followed did little to clear up the trouble; if anything, the identification of "snark" gave people a way to avoid thinking very hard about it. Snark is supposed to be self-evidently and self-explanatorily bad: "nasty," "low," and "snide," to pick a few words from the first page of David Denby's 2009 tract Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation. (I bought the Denby book used for six bucks, to cut him out of the loop on any royalties.)

But why are nastiness and snideness taken to be features of our age? One general point of agreement, in denunciations of snark, is that snark is reactive. It is a kind of response. Yet to what is it responding? Of what is it contemptuous?

Stand against snark, and you are standing with everything decent. And who doesn't want to be decent? The snarkers don't, it seems. Or at least they (let's be honest: we) don't want to be decent on those terms.

Over time, it has become clear that anti-negativity is a worldview of its own, a particular mode of thinking and argument, no matter how evasively or vapidly it chooses to express itself. For a guiding principle of 21st century literary criticism, BuzzFeed's Fitzgerald turned to the moral and intellectual teachings of Walt Disney, in the movie Bambi: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

The line is uttered by Thumper, Bambi's young bunny companion, but its attribution is more complicated than that—Thumper's mother is making him recite a rule handed down by his father, by way of admonishing her son for unkindness. It is scolding, couched as an appeal to goodness, in the name of an absent authority.

The same maxim—minus the Disney citation and tidied up to "anything at all"—was offered by an organization called PRConsulting Group recently, in support of its announcement that the third Tuesday in October would be "Snark-Free Day." "f we can put the snark away for just one day," the publicists wrote, "we can all be happier and more productive." Is a world where public-relations professionals are more productive a more productive world overall? Are the goals of the public-relations profession the goals of the world in general?

Perhaps they are. Why does a publicist talk like a book reviewer? If you listen to the crusaders against negativity—in literature, in journalism, in politics, in commerce—you begin to hear a recurring set of themes and attitudes, amounting to an omnipresent, unnamed cultural force. The words flung outward start to define a sort of unarticulated philosophy, one that has largely avoided being recognized and defined.

Without identifying and comprehending what they have in common, we have a dangerously incomplete understanding of the conditions we are living under.

Over the past year or two, on the way to writing this essay, I've accumulated dozens of emails and IM conversations from friends and colleagues. They send links to articles, essays, Tumblr posts, online comments, tweets—the shared attitude transcending any platform or format or subject matter.

What is this defining feature of our times? What is snark reacting to?

It is reacting to smarm.

On Smarm

What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.

Smarm would rather talk about anything other than smarm. Why, smarm asks, can't everyone just be nicer?

The most significant explicator of the niceness rule—the loudest Thumper of all, the true prophetic voice of anti-negativity—is neither the cartoon rabbit nor the publicists' group nor Julavits, nor even David Denby. It is The Believer's founder and impresario, Dave Eggers. If there is a defining document of contemporary literary smarm, it is an interview Eggers did via email with the Harvard Advocate in 2000, in which a college student had the poor manners to ask the literary celebrity about "selling out."

It is also no accident that David Eggers is full of shit.

In reply to the question, Eggers told the Advocate that yes, he was what people call a sellout, that he had been paid $12,000 for a single magazine article, that he had taken the chance to hang out with Puffy, and that he had said yes to all these opportunities because "No is for pussies." His response builds to a frenzied peroration:

Do not be critics, you people, I beg you. I was a critic and I wish I could take it all back because it came from a smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and envy. Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them.
Here we have the major themes or attitudes of smarm: the scolding, the gestures at inclusiveness, the appeal to virtue and maturity. Eggers used to be a critic, but he has grown out of childish things. Eggers has done the work—the book publishing, the Hollywood deal-making—that makes his opinions (unlike those of his audience) earned and valid opinions.

It is no accident that he is addressing undergraduates here; he tells the Advocate that before he sent back his reply to its questions, he had already delivered a version of the text as a speech at Yale. He is explicitly performing, for an audience of his inferiors. ("The rant is directed to myself, age 20, as much as it is to you, so remember that if you ever want to take much offense.")

It is also no accident that Eggers is full of shit. He is so passionate, and his passion has such rhetorical momentum, that it is almost possible to overlook the fact that the literal proposition he's putting forward, in the name of large-heartedness and honesty, is bogus and insulting. Do not dismiss … a movie? Unless you have made one? Any movie? The Internship? The Lone Ranger? Kirk Cameron's Unstoppable? Movie criticism, Eggers is saying, should be reserved for those wise and discerning souls who have access to a few tens of millions of dollars of entertainment-industry capital. One or two hundred million, if you wish to have an opinion about the works of Michael Bay.

And now here is Dave Eggers 13 years later, talking to the New York Times about his new novel, The Circle, a dystopian warning about the toxic effects of social media and the sinister companies that produce it:

I've never visited any tech campus, and I don't know anything in particular about how any given company is run. I really didn't want to.
Someone has come a long way from "do not dismiss a book until you have written one." But Eggers was never laying down rules for himself. He was laying down rules for other people.

The quotes are real.

Pretty much