Hannah Gonzalez75 said:Yeah, exactly. Frejack It’s based on that Sheckley book. I'd watch a movie like that any day. By the way, who is the director Tarsem Singh? Never heard of him...
The Fall is an excellent movie. He's known for his visuals, but Selfless really lacks them.
briskhound2 said:You're being contradictory. One minute you're calling me some nostalgic kid stuck in the past who hates everything made after 1990, then in the next post you claim I hate San Andreas, which came out in 2015. It’s obvious the point isn't the debate; you just want to take shots at me. So, send over the links to prove this fake claim that I don't like modern movies. Like Blood dim said, all posts are visible to the admins. If you can't see them, at least point me to the thread. Otherwise, you're just making things up.
You’re acting like you're some sophisticated intellectual, which feels a bit silly. It's obvious you aren't praising San Andreas because it's actually good; you're just using it to trash another movie. Basically, you're saying, "That movie is so bad that even San Andreas looks like a masterpiece." You do this all the time. And you pick San Andreas specifically because it's trending right now. Please don't insult my intelligence. This tactic is pretty transparent. Smoogj once tried something similar with Twilight—maybe involving Avatar too—on a forum thread once, but they backed off quickly when they saw where it was going. You, on the other hand, just keep at it.
I got a warning and a formal write-up from the admin in charge of the film section. I went too far and broke the rules, so I took the hit. Apologized and we're moving on. 🤷
Of course, how would I know? Good to know, though. Thanks for the info if it's right.
Let me quote that bit again about whose mother spins black wool. Personally, I think he'd get slapped with a ban just for even hinting at someone's mother, but that's just my take. Your way of talking to the mods is top-notch.
Looking at the context, it was pretty obvious that was just a joke. If you actually took it personally... honestly, it feels like you're acting all high and mighty again, which is kind of silly. That’s really the issue here. Discussions flow fine for a while, but then suddenly, things like this start bothering you—maybe it's just a bad day or a lack of actual arguments, who knows—and then comes the reporting, the warnings, the bans. I haven't had much trouble with other moderators, if I recall correctly. For some reason, you took this as a massive insult when there was absolutely no reason to. That’s the problem when you can't tell the line between being a user and being a moderator. If you don't know where that line is, how am I supposed to?
The numbers don't lie. You claim I'm protecting Bumboslav, but he’s already racked up six warnings for trolling—mostly over that Prometheus thread—plus a few extra notices to just chill out. You, on the other hand, got a strike just for ignoring my warnings and being disrespectful. I haven't issued any warnings or penalties to you before or since this. So, who's actually getting the better deal here? The guy people think I'm shielding because we agree, or you, whose opinion I don't even share?
Again, how would I know? It looks like they aren't getting any warnings. I'm not hanging out on the forum every single minute.
And while we're on the subject, it would be great if this whole discussion just moved over here instead of getting wiped out and lost in the void again.
I’m still encouraging anyone who had issues with that specific moderator to reach out, even if it's just via DM, because that's the only way we might actually change things. If we start with one moderator, maybe we can overhaul the entire system to make it more transparent and democratic for everyone.
Or should I just start a new thread about how we handle moderator ratings and reporting?
northernpilot2 said:Which is fine. Edward Price6 can vent here if they want. This isn't meant to be a massive pile-on against briskhound2 like he originally intended.
Why aren't users allowed to post specific examples of when a certain moderator fails? Or any moderator for that matter. It’s the only way to actually gather evidence. I don't have anything personal against briskhound2 since I don't even know him. My issue is strictly with his moderation style.
Does that mean someone posted something and you just deleted it? Real democracy right there.
Alright, I'll spend just a little more time on this. Though looking at the other posts here, it always ends the same way. A second moderator jumps in to defend the first one, and that's how the argument dies.
briskhound2 asked me for links and proof and all that stuff. But when I ask for things, everyone goes silent. Why is that? It would be cool to see how many times a moderator has been warned, suspended, or banned within a certain timeframe. I bet it's zero since moderators are supposedly perfect. Statistically, that's just impossible.
It’s pretty symptomatic, actually. Like I mentioned before, the last thing left in that thread—after all the posts were wiped—was a comment from briskhound2. As a moderator, he basically told me I had nothing to say because of my signature in Avatar. Is that even normal? Does anyone do that? A moderator talking to a user like that just isn't right. It’s not even the first time his behavior has pushed me to finally take action. It’s like hopping on a Greyhound bus only for the driver to tell you he won't take you because he doesn't like your haircut. Plus, I pay my dues here as a taxpayer, and I honestly think I add value to the film discussion.
It’s time we set up a way to report or rate moderators. If a mod hits a certain number of complaints within a specific timeframe, they should get a warning, then a strike, and eventually a temporary or permanent ban from moderating. Since students get to evaluate their professors at university, why shouldn't you guys be held accountable too? It seems obvious that everyone is just covering for each other to protect their spots. But even if you're volunteering, that doesn't give you the right to act out against the users.
Going back to my initial complaint: briskhound2 either can't or won't separate his role as a user from his role as a moderator. I don't have this issue with any of the other mods. Usually, if I break a rule, I just get a warning and move on. But briskhound2 gets dragged into the argument and starts playing dirty once he runs out of actual points. Then, when he’s lost the debate, he hides behind his moderator status. You can't do that. Either stay out of the discussion or shut the whole thing down immediately. It used to be that comments like these were treated as jokes, and honestly, even worse insults toward certain users went unpunished. Now, much lighter remarks are getting hit with warnings and penalty points—I think it was around 35 points. Meanwhile, the garbage being posted about Prometheus is unbelievable. And absolutely nothing happens.
Now they’re trying to paint me as some kind of troublemaker. Here is a chance to actually prove it. How many warnings or penalties have I really picked up over the last year or two? Maybe two minor ones at most. One of those involved briskhound2. Now suddenly it looks like I'm constantly attacking him. It's nonsense. I usually just avoid arguing with him because I know exactly how it ends. I get a strike, he insults me, and then he deletes whatever part of my post he doesn't like. He always gets the last word, which builds this false reputation of being a moderator who never loses an argument. Statistically impossible.
Now that the second moderator is throwing around the word "lynching," it's clear what's happening. Every single attempt to challenge the current system gets labeled as an attack. It makes it impossible to call out misconduct when any complaint is shut down immediately. I see people posting grievances on this thread, but nothing ever changes. It’s easy to dismiss someone who resorts to insults, but much harder to ignore a solid, reasoned argument. I'm curious to see how this plays out and if the moderator will actually face any consequences. Based on what I'm seeing here, though, I doubt it.
I think this is a perfect chance to push for a moderator rating system that shows up right on their Avatar. It would make it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. Or are you guys afraid of that? If needed, I'll just start a separate thread and see if enough people are on board.
I’d love for the admins to step in here. I need someone above this moderator to give him a reality check because I've never seen bias this bad.
The guy acts like he's some untouchable deity. He runs the whole discussion, then starts handing out warnings the second his arguments run dry.
Then there are the people who back him up. I remember Bumboslavov being super disrespectful in the Prometheus thread, saying things way worse than anyone else, but he didn't get a warning or a ban. I recall briskhound2 commenting that the mod knows how to play the rules perfectly, so he doesn't have to issue any penalties. That comment just proves the mod knows exactly which rules are being broken.
Now, this latest mess started over Transformers. It's exhausting how he compares every single movie to Transformers. I made a joke about him being a closeted Transformers fan and ended up getting a warning. Now the debate has spilled over into the Mad Max thread, where the moderator is stooping to Bumboslav's level. He actually insulted me personally just because I mentioned Avatar in my signature. He started claiming I was constantly attacking him and demanded I prove my claims. That's impossible since he has a habit of deleting posts or editing them to make himself look right and like the victim. If anyone besides him can access the archives or deleted posts, I'd love to see what he's been scrubbing and why he's handing out warnings. Logic says if I'm getting warned just for mentioning him, it's unfair. He gets to mock my taste in movies, though. Regardless of who started it, an objective moderator would warn both of us because the offense is identical. But that's just how it works when he can just delete or edit posts whenever he wants because he holds the power.
I hope others who have been treated this way will speak up. I remember him doing this across various threads. He usually just shuts down a conversation by threatening a warning because he's the moderator. And he mostly does this when he's actively participating in the talk. That's the only way to stop this undemocratic and biased moderation without wasting hours digging through old threads—which, again, he frequently deletes.
The bottom line is that the other moderators on the Smoogj and katatoničan dabar threads don't abuse their power. They don't use warnings to dominate discussions or push away users they disagree with. This guy's moderation is amateurish and totally subjective, with rules that seem to change constantly. Worse insults go unpunished, but when someone targets him while he's acting as a regular user—though he claims he knows the difference—the sanctions are much faster and harsher than they are for his supporters, even when those supporters are being much worse.
Unfortunately, the movie is just a drag and feels repetitive. It basically plays out like a courtroom drama. Of course, there are a few decent moments, though not enough—except for one absolute gem: when they heckle an improv troupe. That alone makes the movie worth sitting through. Plus, half the good jokes are already in the trailer.
Also great for fans of Melissa McCarthy. I'm a fan myself. Her improv is top-tier.
This movie is definitely a step up from her usual stuff. It pokes fun at James Bond movies—is that a thing now? Kingsman did it too. Even the opening sequence is better than some actual Bond flicks.
Jason Statham is hilarious playing against type. He’s making so many jokes at his own expense. Some lines felt improvised, which was a surprise. He totally steals the show. Rose Byrne is great here, too.
The whole theater was cracking up. Super fun. Two hours flew by.
One downside is that Feig uses some of the best jokes in the trailer, so when they actually happen in the movie, they lose their punch.
I did like that they went big with the locations. Seeing the action in major European cities was a nice touch.
Highly recommend if you want a solid comedy with good parody and improv. Great if you enjoy Feig's work. Tons of easter eggs.
analogseal86 said:😂 genius 😂 haha, I'm watching this 😁 and the first bit was great too 😁
people, stop taking everything so seriously 🎉
I don't let the movie snobs get to me. No worries at all. You can't really argue with Karen Smith9 when it comes to anything regarding Prometheus. She just moved over here to vent instead. I'm just here to watch movies and have some mindless fun.
mistyseal8 said:Revenge seems to be the core theme of almost every story, except for the ones involving wealthy characters.
That’s the point though—revenge at the end. Sure, it hits the wrong person, but whatever. If you make a deal with the devil, you live with the consequences.
They stopped carrying it locally, so only Empire is left. Luckily, they have an international subscription, so I'll stick with that. They offer a digital version too, plus some discounts.
Pretty sure this thread exists because I know I commented on it before. The movie is honestly total trash. The first half is fine. Fun and witty. Then it just gets heavy and exhausting.
Great! I had a good laugh. The plot feels tighter, less improvised, maybe just better. Pin is a fantastic Psycho. Everyone seems to be having a blast. Personally, I liked it more than the first one. Great jokes, that kidnapping planning scene was cool... Really hoping for a third one. Don't get the bad reviews.
Come on, it's no big deal. This is just a forum, not the World Series of posting pictures. Plus, cosmiclynx57 already won, and there might be more games down the road.
Besides, the winner's photo follows the rules, if I'm not mistaken.