Posts by Sandra Gonzalez3

Susan Price30 said:__________________

specifically the last two pages, for instance...

And another thing—I really don't like your tone, so I don't want to keep this going (this is the second time you've acted combative and patronizing whenever someone criticizes how you moderate this specific sub-forum; it seems like your default setting).

Personally, I was just looking for opinions and input from others (like the admins) regarding the questions I brought up here...

Oh, there it is. Another baseless, sweeping accusation. Look, Susan Price30, you're wrong. You got a perfectly decent response before you started whining about people "targeting" your posts. Both you and I—and God knows the admins too—know nobody was targeting you. Everything that got deleted deserved to be deleted.

And hiddenmoose16 got a fair response, too. Everyone gets what they deserve here: polite people get politeness, and trolls get what's coming to them. 👍 So you can take those new lies about me having a "standard way" of acting and shove 'em.

And what would that even be? And you think whatever "context" you see justifies your rude response or something? I don't get it.

Yep, my "rude" response is justified by your intentionally rude and totally unfounded accusations.

As for the topic, like I told hiddenmoose16, it's not being reopened. It turned into a giant ego trip for some old lady, and every time there's a critique, her little subjects jump in like they're on fire. How long do these two old fossils think they can stand out in the rain and wave at their followers... and what does any of this have to do with actual global politics? Who actually cares? Go to some gossip site, celebrity news, or whatever trashy tabloid you like. I think you guys had plenty of time and space to worship your queen... don't overdo it now and start asking for a hand to hold.

If the admins feel differently, then step up.

Peace.

The main reason I’m even replying is because of that "artistic" way you address a lady on this Forum, especially that whole bit about "insulting someone's reading"...
And honestly? I'm not fascinated by some "artistic" performance, nor am I interested in how that crap affects this site (PDF Politics)...

Look, that answer needs a lot more context. 🙂

hiddenmoose16 said:but since we're here...
You’ve got a specific complaint right here in this post, which you seemingly ignored just to turn this into some petty back-and-forth. And let me be crystal clear—I have zero interest in bickering with anyone, especially you...

I said what I said. 😁
Live and let live...

I wrote that post after I moderated the thread, wiped out the problematic comments, and locked it because it had completely lost its purpose. It turned into a playground for subjects throwing themselves at the throne, demanding we delete any criticism and punish anyone who doesn't worship her like a goddess...

Then came the sweeping, baseless accusations about "targeting" certain posts, "selective deleting," and all that nonsense... so naturally, I asked for them to actually get specific.

hiddenmoose16 said:Look, personally I’m with Susan Price30 on this one. The way you and a few others handle the political moderation is obvious to anyone with eyes...
And don't come at me with that "show me proof" crap. I stated my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and I'm not asking you to.
I've been hanging around the Forum, posting here and there, reading more than I write, and honestly? It feels like this whole place is circling the drain...

And listen, hiddenmoose16, if we're talking about "artistic vibes" or just your gut feeling, hey, you're entitled to it. Saying "I hate how politics are moderated" is fine. Me or someone else on the Forum might think you're wrong, but you've got a right to say it.

But if we're gonna start whining about "selective deleting" of posts, then I'm gonna demand actual receipts. I'm not accepting hearsay as gospel truth. If you're making accusations, back them up...

Susan Price30 said:Look, my point was just about that selective deleting we saw happening in that other thread. That's all there is to it...

When you say "which one"... what's that even supposed to mean? Seriously... Still waiting on that update... honestly... "Witnessed"? You mean more of you? Who exactly witnessed anything? All I see here is your complaint... and honestly, it’s pretty vague as hell. No specifics at all...

Look, I need some actual, concrete examples of this "selective" deleting they’re doing. Let's get real so we actually know what we're talking about here...

Susan Price30 said:maybe, who knows. either you think it's your job to nitpick and wipe my posts while letting other off-topic crap or trolls slide... or you just don't care about giving a massive insult and a personal attack on Blue Dada.

yeah, you handled everything perfectly... just flawless...

Look lady, the admins can see all three of your posts that I nuked from this thread. They're free to weigh in, or even bring them back if they actually deserve to be read.

Glad you're so happy with how I handled things. 👍

Susan Price30 said:Yeah, thanks! Now I’m just waiting on the admin to actually deal with those reported posts where this clone was being straight-up abusive.

Well, that's literally their job, isn't it?! 🤷

Susan Price30 said:... looks like the mods are nuking this one...

Visited, deleted, locked!

👋

You clearly have no clue I just spared you from being hit with 18 different violations by the FBI when I wiped your posts today. And if I didn't hand you a red card, don't expect me to hand him one either.

But hey, no biggie. If you want to keep pushing it, I can easily reverse this and start handing out red cards left and right...

At the end of the day, it’s looking more and more likely that this mess you guys are making over there won't be fixed without some serious political shakeups.

First example:

- This guy is getting screwed over twice... 🤷
- He thinks some website is just posting garbage and harassing people with it.
- Thinks those TBF-men would lose their minds if they knew who was actually defending them.
- Telling you to stop lying—which is true, though he could've sugarcoated it a bit instead of being so blunt, but hey, he's got a right to his opinion if you aren't telling the truth.
- And then there's Čovičnjak, which isn't a violation since it was just a reaction to your provocation about that local news site, which also wasn't a violation.

Second example:

Yeah, fine, maybe I missed that one, but I didn't delete that specific post solely because most of it stayed on topic with what we were debating at the time. Just like how I wiped two of yours—the one with the nonsense () and that other one about Berlin () that were nothing but pure trolling.

All those repetitive, baseless accusations from the start about relatives, supporters, or non-supporters? Not worth my time. Same goes for that random guessing at the end and all those insinuations about people being crazy or aggressive... I'm not even gonna go there. Let the admins deal with that stuff.

Later.

Christian Taylor3 said:The real blunder here was how the ban was justified, because an admin should probably refrain from trying to lecture everyone on history lessons. If they wanted to be blunt, they could have just told him to go hit the books and actually study American history from the 1940s, but I guess that didn't happen. Regardless, we shouldn't be getting into these "ideological" debates on the KZB, especially not with the admins involved; just state the actual reason for the ban and let's move on with our lives in peace. If things had been handled properly from the jump, this whole thread wouldn't even exist, so hopefully, we've all learned something today.

I have to disagree with Henry Hernandez7 regarding the administration being in total shambles—that's just not true. Generally speaking, the admins do a solid job. A mistake was made, and then it was corrected.

:facebook: Like 😍

I think we can wrap this discussion up now. 🤷

Henry Hernandez7 said:Look, if I’m being totally real with you, I wasn't exactly expecting a genius breakdown from your side anyway, since you don't even really get why he got Banned.

And you think anyone actually bothered explaining things to you?... 😕

You don't even know why he got Banned...

You already know... 🙂

Nicholas King said:Look, you can certainly speak for yourself—and please, by all means, go ahead and do so—but don't expect me to just nod along with whatever opinion you decide to throw out there. I have my own perspective on this, which, granted, might be a bit more nuanced than yours, but that's hardly the point. I suppose some people just prefer to live in a bubble of their own making, ignoring the broader context of the situation, but I can't say I'm surprised. It's just... well, it's how things are, isn't it? You see it all the time in these online discussions—people making sweeping generalizations without a second thought for the actual facts at hand. I’m not saying you’re wrong, per se, but I am saying that your view is far from the only one worth considering.

He wasn't even banned that quickly—he’s just out here trolling at this point. Honestly, jumping straight to a permanent ban would feel a bit excessive right now. I mean, imagine the absolute chaos and uproar we'd see erupting across the PŽK if they actually pulled the trigger on a permanent ban over some guy mimicking Marshall Party with nothing more than three posts to his name. It would be a total circus. 😁 (just kidding)

First off—and I’m not even suggesting otherwise, since you mentioned it yourself—these little drive-by provocations and the inevitable bans that follow them are just par for the course on Politics. It's practically a daily occurrence. Honestly, I can't recall a single instance where one of those bans actually caused a massive uproar or triggered some kind of investigation—so, if anyone is claiming otherwise, I'd say that argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever.

Secondly—and I really feel this needs to be clarified—when that first ban on the Marshall Party occurred, the issue wasn't actually about the appropriateness of their username, nor was it some grand statement regarding American history between 1945 and 1990. It was much simpler than that: they were just banned. Period. And as for any sort of external reaction to that specific ban—who actually stepped in? Who voiced an opinion? Honestly, nobody.

Based on that, I suppose I have to respect all the little spins being thrown around in an attempt to construct a more polished, more "historical" timeline of this whole mess—not to mention the sudden, rather convenient pivots in the logic and... It’s an ad hominem attack—pure and simple. Just when the actual arguments start getting interesting, someone decides to take a cheap shot at the person instead of addressing the point being made. It's such a lazy way to dodge a difficult conversation, I guess. Instead of engaging with the logic, they just go straight for the character assassination. Honestly, it's a pathetic tactic, though I suppose we shouldn't be surprised given the current state of discourse online. Sarcasm—honestly, it’s just not working for you guys. I mean, seriously.

I have to say—and I mean this sincerely, without a hint of sarcasm—it’s actually a relief that such a controversial topic didn't just vanish from the KZB overnight. There used to be a certain level of... let's call it "spirited debate" happening around these things, and honestly, we could probably use a bit more of that kind of discussion again.

I don't see any reason why this thread should be gone. There's nothing wrong with the ban, and I've got absolutely nothing to hide...

Nicholas King said:Look, I really don't see any point in diving into a sea of sarcasm right now—honestly, it just feels incredibly childish. Shifting the focus toward... It’s always the same old story—when someone actually brings up a valid point or presents some hard evidence that can't be ignored, the opposition immediately retreats into the gutter. Instead of addressing the actual substance of the argument, they pivot to an ad hominem attack. It’s a lazy, transparent tactic—really, it is—designed to discredit the person rather than the idea. I guess it's just easier to insult someone's character than it is to actually engage with their logic, isn't it? It’s a pathetic way to dodge a debate, and frankly, it makes the whole discussion feel incredibly shallow. It’s that classic, tired little tactic used whenever someone needs to pivot the conversation away from the actual point—but I wasn't born yesterday, you know.

By the time you actually manage to stumble upon a moderation "oversight" that holds any real interest for you—if you even can—you’ll probably have already moved on to something else entirely. I guess that's just how it goes. 😉

You’ve got too many quotation marks in there.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt that we’re dealing with a total troll—someone who’s likely just some clone of an existing user, probably registering through a proxy to hide their tracks—but the real kicker here is how the admin handled it. For the longest time, the moderator treated this person like a legitimate member of the community, as if their only "crime" was having an inappropriate username. It’s honestly baffling. I mean, when the user actually asked, "Can I just open a second account since I won't be posting under this one anymore because Daniel Ward87 isn't in a good mood?" the response they got was simply, "You cannot post on the Forum using that nickname." It’s such a strange, measured way to handle someone who clearly doesn't belong here. Find a better option first—then maybe everything will finally fall into place.".

As far as I can see—and I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am—until this thread actually caught fire, the only real issue was that controversial username. I mean, the guy was quite clearly and loudly told that if he just found a better handle, everything would be fine. As far back as I can remember, nobody had officially declared this some sort of "day kindness to troll."

So, if the initial response had just been, "You're a troll/clone—goodbye and good riddance"—which, let’s be honest, I believe is a frequent occurrence over on Politics, then it would have been a solid five out of five. But honestly? It feels like an insult to the common sense of any actual reader when, within a single thread, you go from...That being said—and I say this after looking closely at how recent investigations into communist atrocities have unfolded across the country—I honestly believe it might be wiser to head off any potential provocations before they even start. Perhaps it would be better to simply prevent certain individuals from posting on the Forum under their current handles altogether... wouldn't that be the more prudent way to handle things? I suppose I should probably get around to actually doing something—though, if I’m being honest, I’m still weighing all the variables first. It’s not as simple as just jumping in, you know? There are layers to consider—consequences, timing, the general atmosphere—and I’d rather not rush into a decision only to realize later that I missed a crucial detail. Maybe I will eventually, but for now, I think I'll just sit here and process everything.Yeah, he got Banned because he set up a burner account just to go around stirring the pot over in Politics. ".

Yeah, exactly. If you were a moderator in Politics, you'd get it. There is a MASSIVE difference between showing up with a trash nickname to drop political bombs and then switching over to the gardening section to geek out about pansies using that same handle.

So, until this thread actually blew up, the only issue was the controversial name. I mean, the guy was literally told to find a better handle "and everything will be okay," and as far as I recall, it wasn't exactly declared a "day kindness to troll."

We're just spinning our wheels here. They didn't even get banned immediately just for trolling, otherwise a permaban would have looked weird. If they had, everyone on the PŽK would have lost their minds over a cloned Marshall with like three posts... 😁(just kidding). The combo of the username and the actual posts made it obvious what the goal was, so removing that shady handle from Politics was the right call by the mods.

Henry Hernandez7 said:I’m honestly a little lost here. Did the Marshall Party get Banned because of the username or was it a clone issue? I could really use some clarification.

Seriously, I'm confused too. 😕

Christian Taylor3 said:Uncle Strile, with all due respect, this feels like a completely unnecessary blunder by the Admin. You’re opening a massive Pandora’s box here; there are hundreds of usernames just like this one floating around. Honestly, your arguments feel a bit thin—they don't really hold much water. Besides, the phrase "The Party" is likely just a nod to that old slogan from those community service projects back in the day: "Marshall, The Party, Youth League, Action!" You’d be surprised how many people earned enough money from those summer work programs to buy their first pair of Converse, get their first car, or make lifelong friends... Sure, we might have shouted that slogan back when we were just kids eating ice cream at the local park, but does that make us Titoists, communists, or potential criminals in your eyes?

In other words, if someone can shout that slogan right now in the middle of Times Square without fearing any kind of backlash, I don't see why we need to purge these kinds of nicknames from the Forum. It's like how some of the most iconic spots in NYC are named after historical figures. For example, back in 2012, here you provided a list of places in America named after Josip Broz Marshall.

If that specific nickname (which we've established is tied to a slogan, not a name) is actually causing trouble in certain threads, then go ahead and hit them with the standard trolling or harassment penalties. But doing this on the Forum without prior agreement from the Monitor editorial staff—and without clearly stating such things in the rules for creating new accounts—is going to cause a stir. All I would have to do is tweet about it once, and in a split second, ten thousand people would be onto it. Then you'll have Babic, the Vecernjakovac crowd, the Pavicev vultures over at JL, and the entire force of the American news cycle and Anderlon starting to poke fun at the Forum for acting like Tomislav Karamarko. 😬 There's really no need for that headache.

I also request that we hear from rustydrifter10.

p.s. This isn't personal; you know I'd stick my neck out for you as an Admin anytime. At least, that's how it's been until now, so this whole situation has caught us all off guard.

The Admin didn't screw up anything here... none at all.

This guy showed up on the politics board, merging over from Proxy—probably just some clone of one of those political trolls, using a fake handle just to stir the pot. It was obvious from his very first post in that sub-forum... he's just here to provoke. On the politics side, we’ve dealt with a million useless trolls like this before, no big deal. If Uncle Strile hadn't banned him, one of the politics mods would've eventually stepped in and handled him anyway...

Nicholas King is bored out of his mind... ☕

Nicholas King said:So, let me get this straight—you actually think it’s a smart move, even though you clearly don't agree with it.

Given how Josip Broz Marshall showed up on this subforum and those first posts of his, the decision is more than just smart... it's a no-brainer.

Christian Taylor3 said:@rustydrifter10

You should probably just say it out loud at this point: you're basically using ideology as a convenient excuse to hand out bans. It’s a pretty massive blunder, honestly—even the folks over at ZgSash didn't see that coming. Like I mentioned before, if you're going to ban someone just for having a username like "Marshall forever," you really ought to require approval from the other admins and the editorial board of Monitor (since they actually own this forum), and then make sure that rule is explicitly laid out in the terms of service.

Thanks for listening. 🙂

That is straight up false. It's a total lie. Nobody's getting banned because of their politics.

Nicholas King said:The Admin made it perfectly clear—and I don't think there's any room for debate here—that Stane Dolanc is absolutely fine.

It really depends, I suppose. Where exactly is this all headed, and more importantly—how on earth are we actually going to pull it off? I honestly can't say for sure, but looking at the current trajectory, things seem incredibly uncertain. Maybe there's a way forward, or maybe we're just spinning our wheels, but I guess it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting. I suppose people will be posting under those handles, I guess. 🤷

What am I even supposed to make of this? It seems like Stane Dolanc is allowed to jump into a thread about planting pansies, yet he’s somehow barred from discussing Psychology? I guess it just doesn't add up—it feels completely arbitrary, if you ask me. 😕.

Why not? Honestly, I doubt anyone would even notice if Josip Broz Marshall, the Communist Party, or even Stane Dolanc were posting about gardening on some hobbyist forum.

Nicholas King said:The issue isn't actually the ban itself—it's the lack of a coherent argument used to justify it.

Nicholas King is just bored. ☕

It seems when an observer runs out of actual points to make, they inevitably resort to the standard, lazy mockery.

There’ve been plenty of cases like this before, nothing flashy, like I said. The arguments have already been laid out right here in this thread multiple times... I still think my point stands: you're just bored. As soon as you find some other "mistake" by the mods, you'll move on to that. 😉

Thanks for the attention. Catch you later when the next "massive crisis" hits.

The machine doesn't pick the top trending topics—that’s on the moderators—but it is hardcoded to sort those top threads using the exact same logic as the regular ones.

It’s all about politics first, then quality... raw numbers don't mean squat here.

Ethan Allen4 said:Look, just be an honest guy since you're clearly so smart and charming—put Demography Mexico at the very top of the Top Politics section. They earned it with all those posts and views ☕

Prika (thanks for the compliment 😁, and shame on you for questioning my integrity 😳), but I can't make that happen. It’s not about whether I want to or not... I literally don't have the technical tools to do what you're asking. That thread might deserve to be a top topic, but it can't stay pinned at the very top unless we unpin every other major topic too 🤷

And another thing—I can't just move the thread over to the World subforum either. It doesn't belong there, and I'm pretty sure I already told you that.

Ethan Allen4 said:What kind of interest...

Over 331,000 views, nearly 6,700 posts, and more than 170 different users chiming in on this thread. That’s plenty for me.

I don't see what patriotism has to do with banning talk about Demography Mexico. 🤷

It’s got nothing to do with logic or politics, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with being Yugoslav... it’s just about what people on this forum actually care about regarding a topic that isn't even strictly political, which is why we put it in the Close Politics subforum.

Alright, look, the issue is I can't force the top thread to be the one with the most posts or views. Not sure if there's even a way to do that unless I make it the only damn thread on the whole subforum.

As for the other stuff, those threads aren't going in World. They belong in Close Politics, where they should have been all along. Pretty sure I already made that clear...

Ethan Allen4 said:The top thread is pinned, it didn't just move there on its own. You think I'm blind or something...?☕

I didn't say you were blind. Hot topics just get pinned to the top... Just basic... The topics aren't even stuck in place. They just rotate based on whatever thread got the latest reply... total chaos...