Posts by Scott Cruz4

shadowgardener10 said:I honestly have to jump in here and join the applause—the guy really earned it.

Lockheed Martin actually tries to stay neutral when moderating; he makes sure his own biases on certain topics or his past opinions about specific users don't bleed into how he handles a thread. Take his colleague, the edge, for example—he either fails at that or doesn't even bother trying. I’ve noticed plenty of warnings handed out by him on this exact same thread, mostly targeted at people who simply disagree with him. It’s pretty obvious.

👍
So, I'll go ahead and join the rest of you in congratulating Power on some solid moderation—and I mean in general, not just regarding the Pride Parade thread.
😉
And kudos to Cookie, too.

Raymond Rodriguez62 said:Do you think today's segment on NBC was spreading outright misinformation? According to that Hendel poll, only 40% of Americans are actually against the European Union. Isn't this just a blatant attempt at manipulating public opinion?

Yeah, it's a complete fabrication.

Rest in peace

The state is an absolute disgrace!

Eric Collins5 said:Let’s be honest here—there was absolutely nothing "civil" about it. Let's not try to sugarcoat history now.

🙂

We had two sides. One side was loyal to Hitler—the fascist side. The other side was devoted to the Great Son—the anti-fascist side.

There wasn't a shred of civil warfare involved; this was simply a battle of light (the anti-fascists) against the darkness (the fascists).

🙂

who ultimately proved himself to be the ultimate villain.

It’s honestly laughable—total chaos. At this point, nobody even knows who’s footing the bill or who’s actually calling the shots.

dustypuma5 said:And then you've got the moderator chiming in like, "Yeah, you're right, those people have a point." I've seen firsthand how people get pushed out or treated like trash.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

Sad, really sad.

You know, it really is tragic how there’s zero distinction between reality and the digital world—between the internet and this forum. Our country is so deeply fractured now; all that unity we managed to pull together back in the 90s? It’s completely crumbled.

I guess you could say the era of "brotherhood and unity" is dead and gone.😁

hollowtrucker77 said:Daniel Ward87, you’re totally missing the mark here.
If someone actually wants to be taken seriously instead of just shouting into the void, they have an obligation to back up their claims with actual evidence.
You can't just toss out theories without any foundation; if you don't ground your arguments in something real, people are perfectly justified in calling you out for trolling or straight-up lying.

Look, I’m going to ask you to do me a favor—could you please reach out to the mods and have them take a serious look at this "clone" account? This guy is just relentlessly trolling the thread, throwing out accusations left and right without providing a single shred of actual evidence to back any of it up. It's getting exhausting.

Edit: I just noticed they went ahead and banned him in the meantime. So, what’s left to say?

dustypuma5 said:Hold up, so you're basically saying the US Army came into America to protect Mexicans who just lost their jobs, and that was totally fine...

Did I read that right?

Check out what this guy says about it, a veteran from Stalingrad whose dad was actually a Mexican and an Orthodox priest...
Go ahead, try explaining that reality to him...

They’d probably interpret it like some troll showing up on a major US message board to claim that certain factions committed genocide against Mexicans in Stalingrad or Skabrnji... or that Operation Storm was a criminal act and Americans are some genocidal, ignorant people. Just more of the same nonsense.
Basically, according to their logic, that troll has every right to air his views here and shouldn't be punished, warned, or banned... because hey, we live in a democracy, right? It's just a classic debate where he shouts his "truth" and I shout mine.

Daniel Ward87 said:Sorry to jump into the middle of this thread, but I’m curious—what part of that post isn't true, in your eyes? Personally, I know for a fact that back in the early 90s here in the States, a lot of people lost their jobs just because they were Mexicans. I'm telling you, I know it happened. There are plenty of specifics, but we don't need to get bogged down in them right now. What's the move though? Someone will call me a liar, someone else will say I'm telling the truth.

Secondly, that post is a textbook example of how people argue on political forums. One side claims one thing, the other side claims another. Both sides swear they're right, throwing out evidence—sometimes even the exact same evidence—but interpreting it through totally different lenses. Obviously, not everyone does that.

So, what actually counts as "historical truth"? For you, truth is whatever YOU say based on the evidence you have, while the opposing side has their own version of truth based on the evidence they hold. On these boards, "evidence" is pretty subjective since most of it boils down to opinions, interpretations, hearsay, or just straight-up nonsense. It usually ends up being the classic historical trope: the winners write the history books, so whatever the victors claim becomes the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned, if that's how it works, fine by me. We might as well ask Anderlon to draft that into the official rulebook.

Daniel Ward87

And the other part?
You claim you know it's the truth, and I claim I know it isn't. So where does that leave us?

Why should your "truth" carry more weight than mine? Is it just because you're a moderator and you get to decide which version of reality we're allowed to post on this forum?

And where, exactly, is the proof from Predator or your own stash of evidence regarding this supposed "truth" about Mexicans being fired?
Does that mean anyone can just post whatever nonsense they want without any actual proof or logic?

By that logic, some provocateur could show up and claim that Nazi Germany committed genocide in Vietnam against unarmed Mexicans, and that would be considered his "democratic right to an opinion"—just another classic debate.

And if that kind of debate is a "classic example" to you, then discussions about Grandfather Pusic or Uncle Anđelinović are also classic examples where both sides claim to be right, yet one side ends up getting penalized or having their posts deleted simply because their version of the truth doesn't align with one particular moderator.

It’s a textbook case of bias.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s because that "historical fact" of yours isn't even true. Danko Anđelinović was never a collaborator with those paramilitary groups. It’s been debunked a million times, but nobody seems to care.

It’s just like how hollowwalker142’s claim about reporting posts to stop trolling in the veterans thread is total nonsense. He didn't report anything until after he got his own warning. Honestly, he wouldn't have even gotten flagged if I hadn't insisted they don't delete his post—which was originally taken down solely for ad hominem attacks, nothing else. He knows that perfectly well, of course, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion, which was started purely out of personal spite. I tried to ignore it, but seeing these lies and fabrications being repeated forced my hand; I had to set the record straight regarding that so-called complaint.

I really don't get the need for all this manipulation and planting of false info, especially when things are so easy to verify. Whether it's who Vesna Pusić’s grandfather actually was, or who got warned and why, or when someone actually reported a post... it's all right there if you look.

And you honestly think this predator23 clone is out here telling us the historical truth?

So why hasn't he been punished then?

hollowwalker142 said:So, I just got back from the protest and jumped onto this thread: and found a massive mess regarding historical markers, crests, flags, and all that. Seeing as a moderator named "the edge" was actually participating in these tangents, I decided to post asking why everyone is obsessing over flags and old coats of arms instead of sticking to the point. Why is the thread being trolled? No one answered me, though some people just kept rambling about stuff that has nothing to do with the actual topic. So, I went ahead and reported every single off-topic post, including my own:

And here are the others;

I flagged several other posts too—probably didn't catch them all—but everything I submitted is visible to those with moderator or Microsoft authority.

The bottom line is I filed these reports, and as you can see, at least three of the flagged posts belong to moderators. Looking at the links, it’s obvious that instead of warning people about going off-topic or punishing the trolls, the moderator is actively helping tear the discussion apart. This thread is supposed to be about the veterans and their protest, but "the edge" trolls and encourages off-topic chatter in almost every single veteran-related thread. I rarely even touch the politics section anymore; when I do write, it's usually regarding veterans. I'm calling out "the edge" here because his constant participation and moderation style is literally destroying these threads. In my opinion, his behavior is tarnishing the reputation of this forum and he's trying to paint a fake picture of the veterans.

"the edge" lacks any sense of principle or morality, using his mod powers to sabotage any topic that bothers him for whatever reason, while also using those same powers to delete or punish anyone who dares to disagree with him.

I am requesting a formal response from Microsoft regarding this complaint.

Thanks

Look, you're just spinning your wheels here. I’ve tried reporting moderator bias and various trolls myself in the past—nothing ever happens. Just accept it. On the political boards, about 90% of the flagged posts don't even get a slap on the wrist.

Sarah Wilson95 said:I don't have the list, man, where on earth would I get it? 😕 The Democratic Party website that had the full names listed has been taken down, so I can't find it anywhere.

"Basically, you're either just making stuff up as you go or you're dodging the hard questions.

That’s how it looks in this digital space—it's like when a group of people starts mobbing someone without having the slightest clue why they're doing it; they just want to keep the momentum going."☕

Sarah Wilson95 said:just give me a few specific posts showing who’s out here claiming Harmon was crooked, or calling Kosorica some local lightweight or just a plain old Mexican woman, or labeling Mason a total clown, a Steven, or a cigo—or if people want to be extra petty, calling him a Gitano☕

Come on, just do it...🙂 🙂))) It’s about time someone brought some actual order to these discussions instead of letting them spiral like a bunch of drunks at a dive bar or arguing aimlessly at home...🙂

Just hand them over.

That’s none of your business, and I’m not hunting them down for you.
The mods can find all of this easily enough by checking the reported messages in their inboxes.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:That’s just not how it went down. This whole uproar didn't even start until I mentioned that Mason's move regarding the retirement of those twelve people was actually a brilliant call. Was that supposed to be the main topic? Apparently so. Then, I found myself stuck trying to defend my position while dealing with this massive amount of peer pressure from the group. If I had just shut the conversation down right then, I would've been crucified by everyone here for "not letting you guys respond."

Of course—it's always someone else's fault, but never the moderator's.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s honestly exhausting that after all this time, we still have to spell out the absolute basics. Look, everyone is entitled to their own take on Mason—just like they’re entitled to whatever opinion they hold regarding Gotovina—but we actually need to respect those views without turning this into a playground brawl. That’s really the bottom line. There aren't any penalties for having a different opinion (unless we're talking about hate speech, racism, incitement to violence, or just plain disgusting gutter vulgarity), but there *are* penalties for descending into ad hominem attacks among users. And yeah, that includes attacks against moderators. Personally, I won't hesitate to issue a penalty if an insult is thrown my way during a debate. I know some of the loudmouths here are just waiting for a reason to complain about the PŽK, but frankly, I don't care—I'm always ready to stand by my calls.
And while we're at it, thanks to tyndall for being so public about this, wasting his time cleaning up these incredibly basic messes yet again.

This isn't about a difference of opinion; the reality is it was your job as a mod to steer the conversation back onto the right track , especially since the topic is about Mason.
Instead, you got sucked into our bickering and basically encouraged off-topic rambling and trolling by bringing up Harmon, KROQ, and Gotovina in a thread meant for Mason.
And you practically admitted to it yourself.
The problem is, when a moderator needs to be penalized for ignoring the rules, nobody steps up! That’s exactly why these complaint threads get started in the first place.

Daniel Ward87 said:Regarding this ban, I’m asking you nicely to actually go over the Policy PDF—specifically Article 5, Section 1—or if you prefer, just check the latest post.

Once you’ve done that, pay close attention to how the word "Jugosipović" is used... then everything should hopefully click for you.

cika Strile

And yet, when someone starts throwing around insults like "crooked-mouth" or "vlaislavjevicka" regarding Kosorica, suddenly nobody sees a thing. In that case, I'm the one asking you to take a look at Article 5, Section 1.

Jerry Sanders4 said:You sure about that?
It wasn't some classic hit job, but someone definitely went through the trouble of making sure they got sick...
Which, if you ask me, is basically just a different way of liquidating them.

Franjo Harmon was already dealing with health issues back in '94 and '95.

steelskipper5 said:Fortunately for Christianity, the cross hasn't stood for death or destruction for quite some time now.

*In hoc signo vinces.* And so on.

😉

Adam Collins4 said:In the very beginning, Christians were being crucified—so you're still missing the mark a bit here...

And let's be honest, when it comes to other types of cross symbolism that don't fit their narrative, Christians tend to look the other way through history...

You're totally missing the point. We are talking about the cross as a symbol of Christianity itself—not what it represented before Jesus Christ came along.

bluecyclist64 said:Kris is just some tiny municipality in Los Angeles County. It’s a stretch to call it a national symbol, let alone a representation of Catholic identity.

Look, nobody is claiming it’s an official state symbol, okay?
But it absolutely represents the Catholic identity held by the vast majority of Americans—we're talking 90% here. Or if you look at Christian identity more broadly, you're looking at about 95% of this country's population.