Independence Day vs. War of the Worlds
in Movies ·
I’ll cast my vote for War of the Worlds. Even if I’m not particularly fond of any of the options on the table.
Home ›
mellowhound › Posts
Posts by mellowhound
4 posts shown.
Independence Day vs. War of the Worlds
in Movies ·
redowl90 said:Man, you guys... Once you grow up, you'll finally understand Stanley Kubrick...
What? So, he filmed a fake American moon landing in a studio just in case? Or is it because his entire crew met their end under "mysterious circumstances" shortly after, leaving him to spend the rest of his life hiding away on some private estate—terrified to step foot outside for fear of being silenced before he could leak the ultimate secret?
It's time to replace the Stinger!
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
rowdybear12 said:A perfect, flawless moderator who pleases everyone, stays polite to everybody, treats everyone with white gloves, and makes sure never to tell someone to "get lost"... yeah, that’s a total pipe dream.
The reality is, Michael Lee4 doesn't treat everyone the same—you know, there's a difference between the guys with xx posts and the ones with xxxx.. posts—but he isn't even trying to hide it. And honestly, sometimes he just straight-up ignores certain people, which isn't exactly his finest hour.
Plus, when he gets into an argument with those types, he goes off-topic and then joins them in tearing each other down. In my opinion, that's his biggest flaw, but I think I mentioned that somewhere else lately.
And as for him calling someone a moron or telling them to shut up... look, I'd rather deal with a mod writing about cabbage, carrots, and rabbits. Why is everyone so sensitive about insults online? Like, seriously, does it actually hurt your soul when some mod on some random internet forum calls you an idiot? Give me a break.
Regarding deleted posts and warnings, it's the same story as the insults. I've been warned a few times over stupid stuff, maybe two or three times I posted a picture... and I've had 15, 20, or even 30 posts wiped without any explanation... so what? Am I supposed to cry about it, whine, and throw a fit? Look, it's just a damn forum. If I took every little thing said on a forum to heart, I wouldn't be able to function.
But hey, I get that he clearly clashed with certain people, and that's a different story. As for who's right, I don't care and I'm not wasting energy on it. If his moderating sucks, he'll fall sooner or later. I'm just curious where all these people making a huge scene would end up if they were in charge of moderating. They'd snap and start gossiping themselves eventually! Before you start a revolt, just think about how many times threads started fighting over "French trash" or "garbage golf"... how many times similar topics were opened, how many times people got into massive fights across different threads, or how many dozens/hundreds of times Gary Lewis5 posted pictures of an Astra 😬... you have to keep all that under control, and it's not easy. That's why you need to have some understanding and tolerate mistakes or slips from the mods. They're human beings too, after all.
As for moving the BMW vs. Mercedes vs... threads around and the hunting of certain users—which, if you ask me or User—are the two worst things that happened to this sub, I remember that, and I know Michael Lee4 had nothing to do with it. Also, from reading the PM chats with that user, I know Michael Lee4 actually saved him xy times.
To wrap it up, my final verdict is positive because I haven't actually had problems with the guy, nor does he cut off discussions too much (because, let's face it, I troll and joke around a lot, and my posts only get deleted when I really go off the rails).
The fact that there's so much drama surrounding him... I'd just say: big engines kick up a lot of dust.
I absolutely agree.
But look, if he’s claiming they're short-staffed—that they can't keep up, that they occasionally lack the motivation, or simply don't see everything—then why not just appoint another one, two, or even three members as moderators? It would provide much-needed backup. Ideally, someone with actual moderation experience who is genuinely willing to step up and help out.
Beyond that, there’s one thing: someone who actually deserves a reality check needs to tell certain people to stop talking nonsense—or just ban them outright. Going after everyone with a sledgehammer is ridiculous, especially when dealing with a new member who clearly doesn't have a clue about anything yet. 🙄 Regardless of whether they share the same opinion...
Look, I’ll admit, I wouldn't mind if it happened once or twice, but when it becomes a constant occurrence? That's starting to feel like a bit much.
And people will simply react. They'll either dive straight into an argument, start throwing intentional provocations, walk away entirely, or attempt to take some kind of action on the matter—pointing out mistakes along the way.
But honestly, regardless of what anyone does at the time, there's just no accountability...
It’s absurd to suggest an apology can be excused simply because someone has an "eccentric communication style."
By that logic, politicians could claim they have an "eccentric way of thinking" to justify robbing us blind...
In my view, that isn't a "style"...
Furthermore, you can prevent conflicts and bad behavior without resorting to insults or offering others backhanded "compliments." You don't lose any authority or firmness by telling someone not to do this or that, then issuing a two-day ban, followed by a longer suspension or even a permanent one if they persist. In short, you don't sacrifice your authority or discipline by omitting the part where you call someone a moron, an idiot, or a complete jerk...
It's time to replace the Stinger!
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
First of all, greetings to everyone.
So, I'm 27 years old. Even though my registration date makes me look like a relatively new face around here on Reddit, I've actually been lurking and following this place for several years now.
I also happened to moderate a forum back in the day. Specifically, I served as a supermoderator for a community of about 15,000 members.
While I am certainly aware of the specific hurdles that moderators, supermoderators, and admins face in their roles, I am equally mindful of the issues encountered by the "average" users on Reddit.
I am also one of those people who earned a red card from Michael Lee4.
I managed to earn myself a three-day ban just by sharing my thoughts in a thread about the new VW Polo—that so-called "little beast." Since the whole discussion was framed as an open exchange of opinions and personal experiences with the Polo, I figured it was only fair to contribute mine. Instead, my posts were deleted the very next day, and I was handed a direct red card without any explanation or justification. Meanwhile, the thread remains cluttered with a mountain of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject matter, yet they haven't been deleted, sanctioned, or even given a warning. Given the sheer level of off-topic nonsense being posted there, I thought it would be appropriate to share my own commentary—specifically, my rather unpleasant experience with a previous Polo model. It isn't the latest version, certainly, but it is still an experience worth noting.
No, like I already said, my posts were deleted.
It’s true, my tone wasn't exactly polite. However, unlike many others—and unlike Michael Lee4 himself—I have never once referred to ANYONE (whether a person or a user) as "trash," an "idiot," a "moron," or a "cretin."
No, this isn't about my specific thread. This is about how Michael Lee4 operates. He caught my eye long before I even signed up here, and that was specifically because I used to be a super moderator on several massive forums myself.
Quite simply, the way Michael Lee4 treats other members, the specific vocabulary he chooses to employ, and his overall conduct are entirely unacceptable to one of the moderators. He has been informed of this, and he has received numerous warnings regarding his behavior. Yet, he hasn't given it any thought, much less made any attempt to rectify his actions.
He spends his time messing around with others and belittling them, using that tired line that if you have to say something ten times, you’re basically an idiot. Meanwhile, people keep presenting him with the same arguments over and over—that his methods aren't fair, ethical, or even remotely normal. It simply isn't right. Yet, he consistently dodges any direct answer to those points, behaving exactly like a politician dodging uncomfortable questions and inconvenient truths.
It is simply unacceptable for a moderator to ban a member or issue a warning based on their own personal vendettas.
Take this scenario, for instance: Person A gets banned simply because they constantly insult and mock others. Meanwhile, Person B—the very individual who handed out that ban—regularly insults and belittles members themselves.
I find myself wondering, isn't that just pure hypocrisy?
Is that fair?
A moderator should, by all accounts, serve as an example through their conduct and work.
Personally, I have NEVER acted as a super moderator by immediately kicking someone out or insulting them on sight. If I saw someone posting absolute garbage in a DM or on a thread, my approach would be to simply warn them that's not how we operate here. If they repeated the behavior, they’d receive a warning. If it happened again, they’d get a two-day "cooling off" period accompanied by an explanation. If the behavior persisted after that, they’d face a ten-day ban. And if they still couldn't get it together? Then despite all my efforts, there's no saving them—it would be a permanent ban.
Communication was established with that user, and several attempts were made to point out his mistakes.
He didn't even bother checking his post count. He just looked at it, thought, "Yeah, this guy barely posts, not worth my time," and hit the ban button immediately.
It’s true, Reddit has an enormous user base, which is exactly why they need such a massive team of moderators, especially since the Automobiles subforum is just as vast.
That simply isn't acceptable, nor should it ever serve as an excuse for that particular way of thinking or working.
If you and your colleague Grace Turner are the only ones left holding down the fort—since half the moderators have either vanished or are clearly MIA—and you can't keep up with everything on your own, then I fail to see where the issue lies. What exactly is stopping you from teaming up with the administrators to request backup? Why not just ask for some new colleagues to step in and help lighten the load?
The claim that there aren't people capable of being moderators is a lie. Furthermore, why limit the role to someone who must have several thousand posts?
I’ve written all sorts of things here myself, and I’ve rightfully received comments on some of my own posts. I don't run from anything; I recognize my mistakes. What I cannot grasp, however, is this tendency to categorize users based solely on post counts and perceived likability.
It isn't rare to see Michael Lee4 wander into off-topic threads or resort to insults, so I am uncertain whether he has even been warned by his fellow moderators, let alone sanctioned. His vocabulary and habit of insulting others are always conveniently brushed off as just "his unique writing style."
I will intentionally provide a radical and seemingly absurd example to make the point clear: Why punish criminals? Is that not simply their unique way of life?
They aren't necessarily bad people; they just happen to disagree with someone's opinion or desires, so they get taken out. And then what?
To reiterate, we are discussing a method of operation that is unbecoming of a moderator. It is substandard, and it should not be permitted.
I follow many subreddits, and nowhere else has there been such an uproar regarding a moderator's performance—or lack thereof—as there has been with Michael Lee4. One might ask why. The answer certainly isn't because Michael Lee4 is an excellent moderator.
Furthermore, this shouldn't be viewed strictly as criticism. Why not view this through the lens of improving cooperation between mods, administrators, and users? Ultimately, a forum is a place where people come for advice, an exchange of ideas, relaxation, information, and shared experiences. Why ruin that with inadequate management and the persistent failure to sanction certain individuals' poor behavior?
No matter how irritated Michael Lee4 may occasionally feel toward the mistakes made by new users or certain members, that can never be an excuse to resort to insults, belittlement, or similar tactics.
Change your communication style slightly. From your words, one often senses arrogance, condescension, and a sense of talking down to people, which is hardly a way to communicate normally.
Nobody wants to tear the forum down, nobody is starting revolutions, and nobody is raising any kind of rebellion.
All that is requested is to acknowledge the oversights and the frequent hypocrisy of those who penalize others for the very same things they allow themselves to do. That is not the way.
If you don't have the temperament for this job, if you don't want to do it, if you can't find the time, or if you simply don't feel like dealing with new members—who will always exist—then quite simply, do not take the job.
Understand and accept that there will always be new members. Not everyone reads the forum rules upon registration; they don't know everything allowed or disallowed right out of the gate. If they make a mistake, warn them and set an example. Must you immediately go for the throat, practice tyranny, and kick them out?
In a vast number of these cases, I am certain a good portion of the members had good intentions and were not "trolls," yet they were simply never given the chance to prove it.
Everyone makes mistakes. One should be big enough and fair enough to admit their own errors, reflect on their actions, and attempt to change them. Above all, one should stand by their words. Many people here do not.
So, I'm 27 years old. Even though my registration date makes me look like a relatively new face around here on Reddit, I've actually been lurking and following this place for several years now.
I also happened to moderate a forum back in the day. Specifically, I served as a supermoderator for a community of about 15,000 members.
While I am certainly aware of the specific hurdles that moderators, supermoderators, and admins face in their roles, I am equally mindful of the issues encountered by the "average" users on Reddit.
I am also one of those people who earned a red card from Michael Lee4.
I managed to earn myself a three-day ban just by sharing my thoughts in a thread about the new VW Polo—that so-called "little beast." Since the whole discussion was framed as an open exchange of opinions and personal experiences with the Polo, I figured it was only fair to contribute mine. Instead, my posts were deleted the very next day, and I was handed a direct red card without any explanation or justification. Meanwhile, the thread remains cluttered with a mountain of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject matter, yet they haven't been deleted, sanctioned, or even given a warning. Given the sheer level of off-topic nonsense being posted there, I thought it would be appropriate to share my own commentary—specifically, my rather unpleasant experience with a previous Polo model. It isn't the latest version, certainly, but it is still an experience worth noting.
No, like I already said, my posts were deleted.
It’s true, my tone wasn't exactly polite. However, unlike many others—and unlike Michael Lee4 himself—I have never once referred to ANYONE (whether a person or a user) as "trash," an "idiot," a "moron," or a "cretin."
No, this isn't about my specific thread. This is about how Michael Lee4 operates. He caught my eye long before I even signed up here, and that was specifically because I used to be a super moderator on several massive forums myself.
Quite simply, the way Michael Lee4 treats other members, the specific vocabulary he chooses to employ, and his overall conduct are entirely unacceptable to one of the moderators. He has been informed of this, and he has received numerous warnings regarding his behavior. Yet, he hasn't given it any thought, much less made any attempt to rectify his actions.
He spends his time messing around with others and belittling them, using that tired line that if you have to say something ten times, you’re basically an idiot. Meanwhile, people keep presenting him with the same arguments over and over—that his methods aren't fair, ethical, or even remotely normal. It simply isn't right. Yet, he consistently dodges any direct answer to those points, behaving exactly like a politician dodging uncomfortable questions and inconvenient truths.
It is simply unacceptable for a moderator to ban a member or issue a warning based on their own personal vendettas.
Take this scenario, for instance: Person A gets banned simply because they constantly insult and mock others. Meanwhile, Person B—the very individual who handed out that ban—regularly insults and belittles members themselves.
I find myself wondering, isn't that just pure hypocrisy?
Is that fair?
A moderator should, by all accounts, serve as an example through their conduct and work.
Personally, I have NEVER acted as a super moderator by immediately kicking someone out or insulting them on sight. If I saw someone posting absolute garbage in a DM or on a thread, my approach would be to simply warn them that's not how we operate here. If they repeated the behavior, they’d receive a warning. If it happened again, they’d get a two-day "cooling off" period accompanied by an explanation. If the behavior persisted after that, they’d face a ten-day ban. And if they still couldn't get it together? Then despite all my efforts, there's no saving them—it would be a permanent ban.
Communication was established with that user, and several attempts were made to point out his mistakes.
He didn't even bother checking his post count. He just looked at it, thought, "Yeah, this guy barely posts, not worth my time," and hit the ban button immediately.
It’s true, Reddit has an enormous user base, which is exactly why they need such a massive team of moderators, especially since the Automobiles subforum is just as vast.
That simply isn't acceptable, nor should it ever serve as an excuse for that particular way of thinking or working.
If you and your colleague Grace Turner are the only ones left holding down the fort—since half the moderators have either vanished or are clearly MIA—and you can't keep up with everything on your own, then I fail to see where the issue lies. What exactly is stopping you from teaming up with the administrators to request backup? Why not just ask for some new colleagues to step in and help lighten the load?
The claim that there aren't people capable of being moderators is a lie. Furthermore, why limit the role to someone who must have several thousand posts?
I’ve written all sorts of things here myself, and I’ve rightfully received comments on some of my own posts. I don't run from anything; I recognize my mistakes. What I cannot grasp, however, is this tendency to categorize users based solely on post counts and perceived likability.
It isn't rare to see Michael Lee4 wander into off-topic threads or resort to insults, so I am uncertain whether he has even been warned by his fellow moderators, let alone sanctioned. His vocabulary and habit of insulting others are always conveniently brushed off as just "his unique writing style."
I will intentionally provide a radical and seemingly absurd example to make the point clear: Why punish criminals? Is that not simply their unique way of life?
They aren't necessarily bad people; they just happen to disagree with someone's opinion or desires, so they get taken out. And then what?
To reiterate, we are discussing a method of operation that is unbecoming of a moderator. It is substandard, and it should not be permitted.
I follow many subreddits, and nowhere else has there been such an uproar regarding a moderator's performance—or lack thereof—as there has been with Michael Lee4. One might ask why. The answer certainly isn't because Michael Lee4 is an excellent moderator.
Furthermore, this shouldn't be viewed strictly as criticism. Why not view this through the lens of improving cooperation between mods, administrators, and users? Ultimately, a forum is a place where people come for advice, an exchange of ideas, relaxation, information, and shared experiences. Why ruin that with inadequate management and the persistent failure to sanction certain individuals' poor behavior?
No matter how irritated Michael Lee4 may occasionally feel toward the mistakes made by new users or certain members, that can never be an excuse to resort to insults, belittlement, or similar tactics.
Change your communication style slightly. From your words, one often senses arrogance, condescension, and a sense of talking down to people, which is hardly a way to communicate normally.
Nobody wants to tear the forum down, nobody is starting revolutions, and nobody is raising any kind of rebellion.
All that is requested is to acknowledge the oversights and the frequent hypocrisy of those who penalize others for the very same things they allow themselves to do. That is not the way.
If you don't have the temperament for this job, if you don't want to do it, if you can't find the time, or if you simply don't feel like dealing with new members—who will always exist—then quite simply, do not take the job.
Understand and accept that there will always be new members. Not everyone reads the forum rules upon registration; they don't know everything allowed or disallowed right out of the gate. If they make a mistake, warn them and set an example. Must you immediately go for the throat, practice tyranny, and kick them out?
In a vast number of these cases, I am certain a good portion of the members had good intentions and were not "trolls," yet they were simply never given the chance to prove it.
Everyone makes mistakes. One should be big enough and fair enough to admit their own errors, reflect on their actions, and attempt to change them. Above all, one should stand by their words. Many people here do not.