Posts by steeleagle70

hollowtrucker77 said:...which also pass through various servers, different layers...
🙂
Seriously though, private messages on this forum are only as secure as everything else sitting on these servers.
And since there’s basically no way to actually prove that to the general public—just stay smart and watch what you type.
😁

Man, you really started off strong just to fuel even more paranoia among the forum crowd, didn't you? 😍

i know you are watching [IMAGE DELETED]

🙂Gotta go clear out my inbox real quick, gotta hide all this subversive activity.

[IMAGE DELETED]

Should we really be using rules to police what people think? Even if someone’s take is totally off base or just plain weird, you can't touch their opinion with the rulebook. If you do, the whole point of having a public forum just evaporates, right?

I mean, if you decide to 🙂 someone just because you disagree with them—even when it’s blindingly obvious they're wrong—then you’re the one breaking the rules here.

That’s exactly why we have mods. Their job is to step in only when an opinion crosses the line into straight-up spamming or being a troll just to bait people into an argument.

But honestly, you can't really write a rule for that because the line is always moving. It’s super blurry sometimes.

As for the post being quoted, I personally think it's nonsense, but I don't see anything in there that actually breaks the rules or counts as trolling.

Bottom line? You shouldn't be punished for having an opinion. Of course, that goes as long as that "opinion" isn't breaking any US laws or calling for illegal stuff to happen.

Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it..."

just my two cents

The Rock
So, I stumbled onto a total goldmine with this thread 🤣🤣

lock

Kevin Williams56 said:I think most mods use that kind of method. The thing is, there isn't a set color for "official" posts; it’s just left up to whatever each person feels like using.

Look, the whole thing about an official color was just a suggestion.

They might use it, but here are a few examples—not to be negative, just to show what I mean.

Blue text—does that count as moderating?—what do you guys think?

Black text—is this moderation too?

Black text

I pulled these from the exact same mod on the same thread during the same timeframe.
If there's some unwritten rule in play, then the first one is a mod post and the other two aren't... even though, honestly, I don't see much difference. At least between the first two, where the mod seems to be giving the OP a heads-up rather than actually joining the chat. That's just how I see it, anyway. Maybe I'm off base? But the line is super thin. I don't think making a formal rule saying "colored text = moderation and black text = regular talk" would actually help anyone understand things better, and it'd probably just feel like unnecessary red tape.

Mods basically wear two different hats on their subforums. They act as official authority figures, but they’re also just regular users jumping into the mix. Those two roles are totally separate, and honestly, they’re worlds apart in terms of what they actually mean.

I’ve definitely run into situations where I couldn't tell if a mod was actually moderating or just chiming in as another person on the board.

Hypothetically speaking—say a mod gets sucked into a debate as a regular user, sharing their take on a topic, and then suddenly drops a line like, "Man, you guys are being boring." Are they acting as a user who thinks the conversation is circling the drain? Or are they stepping in as a mod warning people that the thread is turning into a flame war or just getting too tedious and needs to be shut down before someone starts handing out bans?

That's happened to me personally, and honestly, I usually just bail on the thread rather than trying to guess what the mod actually intended. Pretty sure I'm not the only one who's felt that way either.

My suggestion would be this: when mods are just hanging out as users, they should stick to the default black text. Then, when they’re officially performing mod duties in a thread, they could use a specific color.

I know some mods currently use a colored font even when they're just making casual comments, which can get pretty confusing.

Is it possible to implement an OFFICIAL moderating color?

That way we’d know exactly which posts are just a user chatting and which ones are an actual moderator stepping in, because sometimes that line is super thin.

Does anyone think this idea makes sense?

Matthew Anderson4 said:Nobody wandered in. But nobody showed up intending to cause chaos like you're making it out to be (except for those Clinton types already mentioned). The people who showed up were there to discuss the actual subject laid out in the OPENING POST. They stayed on topic.

The thread opened at 1:54 PM. Ryan Vaughn7’s warning (which was also his first) telling everyone not to draw parallels to fans—even though the whole reason the thread exists is because you guys keep ignoring that—didn't come until 5:21 PM. Nothing happened before then; the conversation had already moved in its direction. For three hours, people were posting stuff that was perfectly on topic, and then they got banned. Brilliant work by the mods.

Credibility? We never had any credibility with people like you to begin with. And it wasn't our fault.

Once you realize that just because people were following what the OP intended (who also got banned) doesn't mean they weren't breaking the forum rules, you'll see how useless it is to use that as a defense.

The reality is this: the thread has a specific title describing a concrete event, but a group of people wanted to use it to keep rehashing a previous topic. Most of them were openly saying things like, "I don't care about Horvatinčić or the Warsaw game, that's all old news, I want to talk about fans and double standards..." which isn't even remotely the point of the thread.

Imagine if someone comes onto the Soccer forum and opens a thread called "Dinamo - Hajduk" (a game happening right now), but instead of wanting to talk soccer, they just want to rant about how all fans are addicts. Then 20 people jump in and start talking about addiction, claiming the OP intended for the thread to go that way, while others are trying to talk about the match play-by-play. The soccer mods would definitely flag those posts as trolling.

You can't seriously expect that you won't get a card when you say you don't even care about the Warsaw game during a thread about it. ☕

Also, take a look at who fight is quoting in the 4:45 PM post—hollowtrucker77

who, back at 3:16 PM, is guiding and warning everyone

Stop with the fairy tales.

Adam Collins4 said:The mods can verify that themselves...

And you said it yourself—a few people took Clinton's names and jumped over to Politics... I'm just wondering where exactly you're getting your intel from...☕

I’m honestly starting to worry that once they get banned over there, they'll just migrate right back here to the Soccer forum...

If you're posting while one of your accounts is banned, it doesn't matter which sub-forum you're in; you're still violating the rule against using an alternative account while one is under suspension.

Oh, some people definitely did. Even YELLOW ANT actually bragged about it himself.

Michelle Palmer6 said:So, what we actually have here is one single post and a handful of people who probably know whose clones they are—likely just the crowd from the Tavern—surrounded by about a hundred posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It’s a textbook call to arms, really. Honestly, just ban everyone!

Look, I said about 90% were from the Tavern and the rest came from BBB and Offside.
And I gave you the link to Offside, which is exactly what you asked for.
I didn't say the bulk of them were on Offside, just that there was some presence there, and I proved it to you.

Hand out cards to whoever deserves them. Honestly, I was the first one to get a yellow card on that thread—totally deserved it myself.

Michelle Palmer6 said:People were simply posting about the very subject the thread was created for! They were protesting the fact that folks were being banned for doing exactly that. And if you look closely, it was entirely their own initiative, as

everything would have been fine if two different chats on the Soccer board hadn't been actively encouraging everyone to jump onto a specific thread and cause a ruckus since noon.

You've got two whole pages of "Clinton's" stuff on Offside. Seems like plenty to me, even though I mentioned earlier that like 90% of the action was happening over at the tavern.

And come on, you know as well as I do that you don't protest red cards or bans inside the specific thread—you take it to the main board. And let's be real, don't go expecting any "legal defense" to work here.

But hey, when it's time to pull out the receipts

We gotta stick together on this one. All of us.

I mean, they basically nuked half the PDF. Plus, there were at least that many fans involved.

Michelle Palmer6 said:Seriously, where exactly are you seeing any trolling or chaos going on here?

Nobody’s actually calling for it in their quotes, but it’s pretty obvious everyone knew what was going down. You can't listen to that one guy on this forum who claimed people were totally out of the loop—you know, the one who said folks were heading over to the Politics section and getting banned just because they didn't realize the mods there were unhappy with the direction the thread was taking. Plus, if you check page 4635, you can see exactly how long people had been aware of the situation.

Most of those "chaos" complaints were coming straight from the tavern, anyway.

Michelle Palmer6 said:Over on Offside, nothing ever gets deleted.

Check it out—this is a post from Offside by Jimi Hendrix. It just goes to show that even in that thread, people were getting inappropriate, picking fights with the mods and trashing the topic itself. Even Clinton's crowd was jumping in. If you check page 4635, you can see them debating the whole thing and how the mods are handling stuff over on Politics.

If you head over to page 4635, there's a thread in Politics where you can clearly see people intentionally posting stuff they knew would get them banned. Pretty wild, right?

The whole thing just proves they weren't clueless about what was going down.

Michelle Palmer6 said:Come on, show me something from Offside!

Like, 99% of it got wiped, but the mods and admins can see everything. You should probably just hit them up and ask, since I can't grab a link for you right now—believe me, if I could, I would have earlier.

Most of it actually came from the Tavern.

Plus, you'll find plenty of Clinton fans over on Offside, and people were already buzzing about this topic in Politics by around 3 PM. You can totally see it starting from page 4635 and onwards. So, there's no way people didn't know where things were heading. It’s not like they all got banned because they were clueless about the mods cracking down on the thread's direction.

Michelle Palmer6 said:I'm talking about the Offside chat on the soccer forum—do you actually have any screenshots?

Yeah, I mean the soccer chat, the fan chat, and even over on the BBB thread, people were posting stuff just like that.

Michelle Palmer6 said:Do you actually have proof for that? I'm talking about the Offside section.

For what? For the fact that people knew exactly where they were headed and were dropping those kinds of messages in the chat?
Of course I have proof. I’m literally right here, and I’ve already dropped a few posts in this thread recently. Plus, everyone else sent their stuff straight to the Politics mods whenever they felt like it.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Do you realize those Clinton types were just trolling, opened up by guys who had already been banned? Basically, that "agreement" happened after a bunch of undeserved bans were already handed out.

But this generalization is what kills me. Like, everyone moving from the soccer forum over to politics is just here to cause trouble? 🤣 Get real. The only ones actually trying to stir the pot (🤣) and doing it just to mess around are the ones who were already unfairly banned. And you're sitting here telling me we've been plotting some conspiracy for two weeks and prepping for a showdown 🙄

Look, I’m not talking about the Clintons. I even gave you an example where they aren't involved in the game. The Clinton crowd swarmed in last night. Also, I wasn't really bringing up a specific timeline for when things were planned—that's not my business—but I am providing proof that most of these people didn't just wander into this thread by accident and get banned out of ignorance... most knew exactly where they were going and why. They knew the politics mods wouldn't let the topic head in that direction.

And obviously, it’s not like everyone from the soccer community came here to be troublemakers. It’s the ones being banned who are causing the mess, plus there are plenty of unbanned fans still posting in that thread today.

The saddest part is that you guys completely lost all credibility with this move. Up until now, some people actually believed that there was a widespread crackdown against the fans happening everywhere. But now? You're just telling the same old story. We don't even need to read the news to see it; we saw the pattern ourselves during the "protest" and how the moderators handled the discipline.

rustyangler16 said:hm... interesting...

the topic is 'protests in Warsaw', so why aren't we actually talking about the protests? ☕

Look, this thread isn't really about those Warsaw protests. It's about how people are totally wrecking the politics board. That’s how it was set up, and that’s what we're discussing here, right in the section meant for it.

Anonymous said:🤣 🤣...Northeast🙏 🙏

I feel like your theory is starting to fall apart—you know, that idea that people were just stumbling onto the topic without knowing anything and getting banned for it?

Classic example of someone announcing they're heading over to the politics board just to cause chaos after being told to back off

Post on the fan forum

To get to the point
I'm still in a pretty good mood, so I can laugh at this, but honestly? They should just totally screw them over, mods included

I'll be around by 11... too early for me to deal with a ban yet

As hollowtrucker77 says
who gives a damn anyway
just go ahead and mess everything up

A post on the politics board a little later that got red-carded and deleted

Did my colleagues just wander into the wrong thread by accident?

Come on, let's not act like kids in a preschool

Anonymous said:So, when does the first wave of useless bans start hitting? Or better yet, based on what you've seen, how many bans usually go out before then?🤣...
I'm bracing myself...

And the very first strike on this thread actually goes to me—for trolling by "calling people out for trolling" (which, yeah, is against the rules). So it didn't even start with the "fans," it started with me.

Anonymous said:You’re definitely going to be crying once this little universe of yours completely falls apart🙄....

Your reply is honestly hilarious. Like, caught red-handed and still trying to act tough with responses like that... you guys always call it the "center of the universe" right before you pull some destructive stunt like this.

And since I really hate being played for a fool, I actually took the time to look into what's going on here... I even know which banned clone you're running. Should I report it?