Your contribution to this thread was such that you deserved more than just a single warning for off-topic trolling. Beyond that, the way you managed to pick fights with everyone here is quite another matter. As for the thread starter, following my warning—which, mind you, wasn't even the only moderator intervention on this topic—they posted something that's been partially edited. Whether that warrants a formal strike given the context of the entire discussion will be left to the administration's discretion.
I wasn't online enough to catch your last PM before you went ahead and filed an appeal. Look, I have no issue with the process, but I haven't deleted a single conversation; your screenshots are from that very first thread about the gentleman in question.
A political moderator responded to your report, and I simply shared my perspective via PM after you reached out to me regarding the post.
The actual moderation of those two posts isn't what I was addressing; I just wanted to clarify my thoughts privately to avoid any misunderstanding.
I'm not quite sure why you dragged the men's corner into this, but it doesn't matter.
Edit: I just noticed your latest post while typing this. If anything I wrote made you feel insulted, please accept my public apology.
Gregory Anderson5 said:It might have been mutual under different circumstances. He just won't say why he's issuing the ban, though. He should make it an example.
P.S. I actually thought you were one of the good ones.
The rest of the team is out for a few days, so I'll just stick to the facts.
The post was flagged because quoting a banned introductory post violates the rules—that's a 30-point deduction. He’s only getting 5 this time, though I suspect the reasoning is obvious enough.
Sean Cook2 said:After ninety-two pages were filled up on the pdf near politics section regarding Pauletić's boycott initiative, is the discussion being shut down there simply because she doesn't technically belong in that subforum?😕
Where else would it go? Which subforum is actually going to take it?
Honestly, I have no clue where it belongs, but it certainly shouldn't be on Politics—we’re all a bit exhausted from that one. We cleared out the first topic for the usual reasons, and this second one was locked simply because the last few pages were just the same thing on repeat.
To be fair, I'm not even sure if there's anything left to say about this gentleman's life and work that hasn't been covered, but a headline framed around boycotting a major corporation's films isn't really what Politics is for.
If you try telling me this isn't political, I won't buy it. It’s politics when various federal agencies just spend their time passing the buck to one another.
And if there happens to be a similar discussion elsewhere, a little heads-up would have been polite.
A few actual links would go a long way here. Right now, it's all just hearsay.
Daniel Campbell5 said:Look, sweetheart, you’re the one who suggested I hit the triangle button the exact same way you're suggesting the PP now. And after I hit fifteen triangles, nothing happened on your end.
But honestly, it just feels better that way. 😢
Fine. I suggest the admin locks this thread. It’s a lost cause. 👋
Daniel Campbell5 said:slybison8, thanks for the reply.
I’m still waiting on an answer regarding those fifteen posts in the Tuđman thread that clearly violate the principles outlined here. The moderator actually advised me—well, more like scolded me for not doing it—to report them. I did exactly as instructed, and yet...
...nothing happens. It's all just smoke and mirrors. 🤷 If the logic is "what's allowed in the Tuđman thread isn't allowed in the Bajić/Josipović threads," then fine. No need to respond; I assume you won't say that explicitly.
🙂
So, it's far from over.
Just so we're clear, if everything reported goes unaddressed, it means someone looked at them—likely one of us, or even the admins—and decided they weren't worth deleting.
Take my case, for example. I didn't delete certain posts because we're talking about a father and son who were active in politics at the same time. That's fundamentally different from the situation with Bajić and his father, or Josipović and his, where there's a sixty-year gap between them.
Oh, please. Now we’re going to drag extended family into political debates just whenever it suits someone? Every individual is responsible for their own actions—not their parents, siblings, or relatives. That applies to voters and politicians alike.
Bringing up family ties isn't allowed here; it's considered a violation of the rules.
Dozens of posts deleted, several threads split, a few bans handed out... and if one single post gets missed (which has since been fixed), suddenly everyone is screaming about the CPUSA.
Believe it or not, the moderators actually have lives outside this place. They can't be online 24/7, and frankly, I don't have the energy or the desire to explain that to anyone.
No. We’ve had a few of those, and they turned into troll accounts before you could blink. Besides, people constantly bring up that label whenever there's a thread about the current administration or the previous one. It never ends well—just a mountain of useless reports.
Megan Flores42 said:I have a question, but I'm not sure which thread it belongs in... apologies if I've posted this in the wrong spot. Basically, there's a member here who constantly stalks everyone and seems to know everyone's business. I don't visit the Forum much, yet somehow he managed to find out I lost my job. I'm pretty shaken up and really don't want this guy contacting me—he's acting like a total creep. How do I block him?
Send a PM Tyndall or Sash, the Forum admins, and ask them what the procedure is for this kind of thing.