Posts by steeleagle70

Why even bother arguing with a mod about how they handle a specific topic? It’s barely even off-topic, honestly—I'd give this a solid 10/10. This sub exists specifically so we can talk about the mods' calls rather than just the thread itself, right?

Henry Cox78 said:hollowtrucker77 and Tindal, please stop blowing up my inbox. I am not going to be a moderator, period. Thanks! 🙂

so you upped the offer 😠

Gotta sweeten my deal though, ill be back 🙂

Henry Evans3 said:Is this still open?

I mean, obviously, all you candidates can start sliding into my DMs now with your best bribe offers for hollowtrucker77 and the rest of the admin crew. We all know how this works—highest bidder wins, right? 😍

Personally, I’ve already put my cards on the table. Besides cold hard cash, I'm offering services... you know, things like dog walking, taking out the trash, doing people's grocery shopping, stuff like that. 🙂

cosmicskipper39 said:I heard about this one popular fund. I think it’s called ZB Pasiv or something like that 😉

ZB Depresiv 😉

boldjackal10 said:hahahaahah wannabe mods, I don't buy it for a second

Why not? Everyone says the pay is solid, and if you listen to the reliable sources, you even get that seniority bump at a 1.25 multiplier... just look into it.

If I don't land that holding company director gig, I'm definitely going for moderator. Once I've scraped together enough bribe money, I'll be riding high...... bulletproof plan 😉

cosmicskipper39 said:Who even is this ZgSash guy? And is he actually going to share some table specs to make up for the mediocre job he did?

Forget Pollo or Tyrolia—not happening. I’ve got actual taste when it comes to food, unlike some people.😉

Maybe we should actually define what an "exemplary forum member" even means, huh?😳

Zgsash hands out those red cutting mats for cured meats. After you snag three of them, you get some top-tier artisanal jerky or maybe some aged bacon after a week or so.🙂

boldgardener93 said:Just so I'm not just talking to thin air here...

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=904

Nobody even bothered to reply, and I was literally begging for an answer.
☕

Maybe it’s not too late yet:

I just have to ask—where in the site rules does it say you get slapped with a 500-point penalty just for denying someone's Jewish identity?

Hate speech?
I mean, that usually depends entirely on the context of the whole post. Whether it's about nationality, religion, or both... you can frame a question in a way that doesn't sound like hate speech, or it could totally fall under that umbrella. It all comes down to how it's phrased.

But hey, at the end of the day, that's the mods' and admins' call, and I shouldn't really meddle in that. What I do want to point out is that I think we users tend to overreact sometimes. Personally, I actually love that in the politics section, there's a mod who wants to jump into the fray and clearly state their political views. Even when they're the complete opposite of me! It’s good to have them around, expressing themselves like any other regular user, as long as they stay objective when they're acting as moderators.

On the flip side, we've all seen it happen where a mod gets attacked by the "lefties" one minute and then the "righties" the next for being biased... which usually just means they're doing a great job.🙂
The truth is, whenever we mess up, we love to blame the mod. We claim it's personal vendetta or just because they hold a different view than ours... mods become everything from partisans to communists to atheists depending on who's complaining about a penalty.

Mods are chosen because they contribute something meaningful to the community, which naturally means they're active and have opinions. In the politics section, it's totally normal for them to clash with others, but we can't forget that in those moments, they're just users, not mods. They follow the same rules we do—total free-for-all battles of logic and arguments. But when they step up as mods? Then you listen.

If we honestly feel like we've been treated unfairly, instead of running around shouting that "this mod hates me because they're a liberal/conservative/atheist/activist," we should put together a smart, solid appeal. Point out exactly where the mod's reasoning went wrong. From my own experience, I know the admins and even the mods themselves will review and change their decisions if you make sense.

Personally, I've gone head-to-head with that specific mod 🙂, and others in the politics section, and even the admin too... but those same people have neatly cleared my penalties before when I managed to show that wasn't what I intended, or that my post wasn't just trolling, off-topic, or whatever else.

So, that's my plea: let's support our mods in participating actively as users, even if our views are worlds apart. And before we file an appeal based on "they have a different opinion than mine, so they punished me," let's take a second to look in the mirror and see if our post was actually out of line. If it wasn't, then write a constructive appeal explaining things—ask questions, prove your point, and show that your statement wasn't meant to be offensive, but was trying to highlight something else entirely.

boldgardener93 said:I honestly don't get how a moderator can stay objective when they're clearly picking sides. We're talking about Power Lock, who is "moderating" the Israel-Palestine thread in a way that's just straight-up shameful. I've pointed this out before, but nothing changes. It’s obvious from miles away that this moderator is trying to push out anyone who actually knows what they're talking about if they happen to disagree with him. For instance, the user flumen day got slapped with 500 penalty points just for questioning the Jewish people. 500! 😲😲😲
I mean, even Hitler wouldn't have gotten hit that hard for a single post. Sadly, I haven't seen flumen day around here since then, and it's probably because he's fed up with the double standards. Meanwhile, Marian only got a harsh 10 points for denying the Canadian people.
If anyone actually cares about keeping people coming back to this forum, I think it would be great if something was actually done about it.

Look, a mod can totally be objective even if they have an opinion. I always judge by what I see, and I've sent plenty of PMs myself because the report button isn't doing much. I've reported certain users—who are leftists just like me, by the way—because they were relentlessly trolling and making fun of everyone. Just because someone technically agrees with my side doesn't mean anything; you can still tell when someone is being insulting, trolling, or going off-topic, even if they're "on your team."

By that logic, if a mod isn't allowed to have a viewpoint, then nobody with a political stance could moderate the politics section, and no one with specific tastes in music or sports could moderate the music or sports subforums... and honestly, isn't it in all our interests to have mods who actually love their subforum? People who understand the topic and live it? Of course those people are going to have opinions.

But the real question isn't whether a mod has a stance on the topic they're handling, it's whether they apply the rules EQUALLY to everyone. That's what matters. Can they be OBJECTIVE? Because you can definitely achieve objectivity even if you have a personal opinion on the subject.

P.S.
Sorry for any typos!

Terry Bennett3 said:I don't post all that much, but man, do I lurk. I'm always reading and keeping up with the threads. Honestly? It feels like half the time people just use steeleagle70 as a punching bag for their trolling.

The real issue with how we're talking to each other lately? It’s that things have been veering way too far into ad hominem territory. Honestly, both you and a few others have been getting a bit too personal with the attacks. Just look at a couple of these examples—I actually had to delete a handful of them already.

Wait, are you actually a Mexican?

And then there's your posts—none of them were officially flagged, by the way. I didn't bother reporting any of them because, honestly, it felt like everyone was just caught up in the heat of the moment. Even though if you look at the definitions, it’s definitely some ad hominem trolling and even a little bit of straight-up insulting, you know? But whatever.

Your posts make it pretty obvious you're just one person. Just plain old politically illiterate? Or maybe just straight-up ignorant?I can't even begin to explain how much I love this. Seriously. Just thinking about it makes me grin. Who else feels this way? It's just one of those things that hits different, you know? Everything about it is just... perfect. Honestly, why does anyone ever complain? Life's too short for that kind of negativity. Anyway, just wanted to share that little thought. Catch you guys later!

You got anything constructive to add to this thread, or what? Ugh, here we go again. Someone’s back at it with the mindless questions just to derail the whole thread. Honestly, is it even worth it? Just pure trolling at this point.?

Honestly, that whole theory? It’s just pure, unadulterated stupidity. Total nonsense. It’s just typical for people who try to generalize everything to mask the fact that they aren't exactly playing with a full deck, you know? Since you're the only one who even brought this up in the thread, it's pretty obvious you just can't wrap your head around what I actually said..

Honestly, there’s only one question I can ask the geniuses behind this nonsense. Who on earth could actually put a sentence like that together?

You’d totally get it if you actually knew what was going on. If you're being blocked from doing that, just ask someone to translate it for you. Easy, right?.

You just don't get it. Seriously, you haven't got the bandwidth for something like this..

So after everything that’s gone down, you’re still calling me a troll? Seriously? You can go ahead and scroll through my entire history on Reddit if you want, but you won't find a single post where I ever directed that kind of attitude toward you. Not one.

Honestly, from what I’ve seen, nothing gets punished—people just slide by. This whole thing felt like straight-up bullying to me. I flagged a problematic post, my own post got nuked instantly, and then when I tried to reply to the guy, I got sanctioned. I don't know, just my take, but it felt like they were basically telling me, "Leave steeleagle70 alone, or you're getting another strike."

If I had really pushed for those posts directed at me to be protected, I would've racked up way more points than I did with this one post—which I still stand by, since it was mostly based on the discussion we were having at the time.

As for fascist ideologies, you literally asked me twice to list them out. That was a direct answer to your questions! I have no clue why you're claiming that bringing up Japan or Italy is trolling you when you were the one asking for answers twice.

Sorry, maybe just one more question; Define the term "fascist ideology."

And then there's the post after that.

But yeah, can you actually list those "fascist ideologies"?

I’m trying my hardest—purely for personal reasons—to avoid trolling or throwing out ad hominem attacks. You won't find much of that in my 2,500 posts.

In all those 2,500 posts, I’ve only caught one single troll strike, and that came directly from the Admin, and honestly? He was totally justified. I'm sure I get a pass every now and then, just like everyone else.

But then you say I write little and read a lot, labeling me as the main troll here... man, you're really going full ad hominem on me again.

Talk about favoritism! Maybe if half my strikes weren't coming straight from the Admin, things would look different.

To wrap it up, I don't think my post was even borderline trolling. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. It clearly hit the edge since the mod wasn't sure what to do and had to ask the Admin for help. If the ruling is a strike, fine, whatever.

But let's be real, you've been given way more leeway on this same thread despite posting tons of pure ad hominem trolls aimed at me. So I don't see why you're complaining about being bullied by anyone. If they were being strict, I'd be sitting at +35 strikes right now, but buddy, you'd be completely grayed out.

Scott Cruz4 said:It’s just like how some Islamic fundamentalists twist the words of the Quran to justify killing people, right? It's all about how they take something sacred and turn it into an excuse for violence. Isn't that wild? It doesn't even matter what those symbols actually mean. Honestly, who cares?
.

I'm totally with you on that.

Amanda Stewart11 said:Seriously? How can you even type something like that without feeling embarrassed?!

Just read the Bible and you'll see it's all right there. The cross was originally just a tool used for execution, right? And Jesus was sentenced that way. It only became that big religious symbol for Christians after the fact. But hey, let's not get too off-track here...

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, we aren't talking about some Eastern symbol or their culture here.
For Christians, the cross has one specific meaning, and you just can't link it to violence or evil.

Yeah, sure, but if you look at the numbers, way more people have died under the cross throughout history than under the swastika. For a lot of folks, seeing that cross on a conquistador meant certain death was coming.

So, that whole "peace and love" argument doesn't really hold up when you check the history books.

I’m not trying to play judge over fashion or whatever. But honestly, a lot of stuff in this thread hits the limit, and half the replies are just pure trolling.

Technically, he's got a point. But let's be real—if we applied these same strict rules to other topics, there wouldn't be anyone left talking about politics on here.

granitewolf6 said:So, you actually have some deep, profound reason for landing on that conclusion? Or are we just vibing?

Honestly, I feel like moderators should be legally barred from even having an open inbox. It’s just asking for trouble, right? You send them a message, and then boom—you're suddenly getting attacked out of nowhere. And let’s be real, in that tiny 7% of cases where they actually decide they don't give a damn and bother to reply, you end up feeling weirdly grateful just to get a response, even if they basically insulted your entire existence in the process. Our fine leaders, huh? 🙏

I gotta say, I’ve never had a day like this before. Not once have I gone a full twenty-four hours without getting a response from a mod or an admin. Like, seriously? A hundred percent response rate in under a day? Honestly, I think that’s more than fair. Isn't that just wild?

Either you have zero clue what the US Army was actually like, or you're just straight-up twisting the facts on purpose...🙄

Edward Morris46 said:I mean, look at it this way—the whole atheist ideology has basically been rejected by pretty much every civilized corner of the globe. It's just one of those things, right? Everyone seems to be on the same page about it. Man, when you start digging into how people used atheism and communist ideology as excuses to commit horrific crimes against innocent folks, it’s heavy stuff. Honestly? It’s almost on par with fascism. The only real difference is that one was done under the hammer and sickle instead of a different flag. Crazy, right?

Is atheism actually an ideology? Like, is it really on the same level as fascism or some other evil movement? Just curious what you guys think. 🙄🙄

Atheism, hammers, sickle imagery, communism... and they all claim to be about equality? Seriously?

Where are the mods hiding? Seriously, where are the guidelines when you actually need them? How does this kind of talk even get past the filters?

Post your appeal in this http://reddit.com/r/subredditlink subforum. That’s exactly what it’s there for. Once you post, it goes straight to the admins—they’re the ones sitting above the mods and have the final say on whether to uphold or toss a mod's decision.

From what I know, mods don't actually hand out partial bans themselves; they just suggest them, and then the admins step in to approve or deny the request. So, in your case, it's pretty likely the admins already saw it and gave the green light for that partial ban.

But hey, you can always file an appeal or just ask for some clarity over on the subforum I linked. One of the admins will eventually reach out and break down what happened for you.

A Keylogger will snatch your account in a heartbeat. I’ve wiped one out before so easily it was actually kind of funny. There was this huge, super popular subreddit, right? Not even on a shady domain, just clicked a link in a thread and boom—downloaded without even realizing it.

Did that happen to you, or maybe to a buddy of yours?

By the way, there’s no such thing as an antivirus that’ll warn you beforehand not to touch a link containing a Keylogger. That junk won't even flag itself later, and it won't show up when you scan your PC either.

My solution? I just nuked the whole drive and did a clean install of Windows.

Too bad, though.

Richard Wilson4 said:I could've just sent the link to the moderator, but I didn't feel like it...

Honestly, that wasn't the smartest move. The moderator clearly flagged himself (using blue text) saying he was stepping in as a mod to figure out if your post was just bait or if there was actually some substance to it.

Why should I have to answer to him if nobody else does, especially when they're on his side?

Well, since he’s holding that title, he has the right to judge whether posts are legit. And let's be real, your point was a bit of a stretch. Even that link you mentioned doesn't prove Americans don't know about [US site/event]; it just shows that high schoolers from that specific era aren't exactly experts on everything.

My opinions are my own. As long as I'm not naming names—unless they're public figures—I don't owe anyone an explanation. Otherwise, this whole forum becomes pointless...

That's partially true, but a moderator's actual job is to decide if you're making a valid argument or just trolling for attention.

Now that I've laid all that out, here's just my two cents on these kinds of claims that pop up everywhere. I'll even look at it from the opposite side of this debate. The truth is, there are hundreds of posts just like yours floating around—posts where someone makes a claim without providing a link or any hard data, and then acts like they don't need to back it up. If I happened to be a mod on this thread, I wouldn't even give you a warning strike; I'd just handle the "issue" via a private message. I mean, if you actually deserved a strike, there should probably be hundreds more handed out by now (to people both for and against Obama's policies). In my opinion, the mods were a little heavy-handed because the post didn't really "smell" like a troll post to me. I saw it, and I saw the moderator asking for confirmation. But hey, that's just my view, and it doesn't really matter, does it?

Anyway, since we're on the opposing side of this discussion, I thought it'd be good to weigh in on how we handle data and the need for everyone to back their stuff up with links.

And I don't think the mods are being biased just because of your stance; I think they were just being a bit too intense and not applying the same rules across the board.

But again, the moderator has every right to ask those questions if a post looks suspicious. Things could have been settled quickly if you'd just shared the link... I definitely would have.

Whatever, man. They're here to keep things orderly. When we think they mess up, we complain, but in my experience, the mods aren't being unfair. They've actually wiped a few of my strikes before once I managed to explain my side. So, just stay chill, bring the facts, and everything works out.

The bottom line is that there needs to be a consistent rule for when a link is required for certain info, and when failing to provide one is considered trolling.

So yeah, that's it.

P.S.
I've heard of [US location], but as for that other place, I haven't a clue where it is or anything about it.

A coalition like that at the national level wouldn't even crack 3%,

Jacob Foster11 said:Don't sweat it, they won't. 😉

See, mods have that custom warning option. If they catch someone playing games, they can just drop a massive penalty that sends them straight to a ban. No biggie.

I'm not a mod on any of those messy subreddits, but if I were, that’s exactly how I’d handle it.

They've gotta be 100% sure a new user is actually just a troll using an alt account first. You don't want to accidentally scare off a genuine newbie, right? 😉

Jose Barrett said:You’re basically just a walking clone at this point. Honestly, you should get permabanned immediately.
You act way too "in the know" for someone who's only made 9 posts. Most of your other nonsense is just noise.

Under the current rules, everyone can have clones—hell, they can have hundreds if they want. The only thing that's actually against the rules is using 99 different accounts while one of them is sitting under a ban. Once that ban expires? Boom, back to using all 100 accounts again.

I really think the rulebook needs a serious overhaul here. Right now, a real troll could just rack up 80 warnings, jump to a fresh account, grab another 80, hop to another one... it's an endless loop of trolling as long as none of their accounts actually hit the ban threshold. It's a total loophole.

The rules definitely need to be tightened up to fix this.