I think I speak for all the soccer mods when I say we were touched by your concern
but there really isn't much to it—the rule for opening a match thread is that it actually needs to gain traction and stay active. We aren't going to open threads for teams that only have three fans on this forum combined, just to end up with fourteen posts after the final whistle. We know which clubs and games get the most eyes—those are the ones that get threads, provided someone actually steps up to start them properly.
Isn't the whole point of trolling just being a well-packaged provocation—or straight-up an insult to the person you're talking to? You can't really troll someone if they already know you're doing it. 🤔
There are plenty of technical hurdles in this proposal.
Walter Brooks5 said:Here’s the spin: You’re trying to define "religious fanatic" through the lens of Bozanic’s devotion to God and his commitment to his flock, as if that has anything to do with how Unknown actually used the word "Taliban."
In my book, posts like yours are just straight-up trolling.
As for where this debate is heading—I haven't seen anyone bring up a single concrete example that would allow us to even start making a comparison between Bozanic and the derogatory meaning of "Taliban."
How is that possible?
It's obvious: there isn't a shred of evidence that could even attempt to defend such a blatant and disrespectful insult against his character.
So, the hypocrites here are everyone trying to derail this thread by losing sight of the forest for the trees. The "tree" in question is the shameless, baseless insult directed at the majority's religious leader. Using a cardinal's protection of free speech and one side's opinion in the ZO conflict as an excuse doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than a thinly veiled, massive insult to 87% of the American people!!!
By your logic, we shouldn't say a single word against Bozanic—otherwise, we'll offend 87% of Americans. Pure stupidity, really.
slybison8 said:I really do apologize for stepping back into this discussion when it doesn't directly pertain to my PDF, but I suppose I found this quite intriguing.
Do you happen to have an explanation as to why Ivo Sanders wasn't automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?
If I recall correctly, he even admitted recently on Stankicev's program that he was selling erotic material to the Messenger's House back in the late eighties, which I believe is a well-known part of his biography anyway?
And yet, he comes from a family where his brother is a priest and his sister is a nun... and he hasn't been excommunicated, nor is he today. He certainly promoted pornography—well, soft erotica, if you know what I mean?
Arthur Flores2 said:Is there a rule against posting jokes about the recent census results?
Can I tell jokes where this group is this or that group is that—assuming those census stats provide the setup? I mean just using them as a punchline foundation, not making actual claims.
Like a joke about the high concentration of Catholics in rural Midwest towns , or atheists among certain groups of Americans , etc.?
Knowing your sense of humor—or lack thereof—I’d say it’s probably best to just ban you from telling any "jokes" at all.😉
I can't help but chuckle just thinking about how that would actually play out. 🤣
What was the state of Primera before that month? 🤷
David Anderson72 said:True, we provide plenty of clicks here—which I'm sure the owner wants—but the moderators won't allow it. 🤷 Maybe we should just send a private message to Anderson.🤷
Actually, just send him a thread about a La Liga matchup—or better yet, an old El Clásico discussion—so he can see exactly how things go down firsthand.
restlesssurfer97 said:I honestly don't get it, like, fundamentally, why won't they just let us stir the pot a little bit, even in the off-topic sections—well, not totally off-topic, more like the general sports lounge? Think about the engagement, man. More clicks, please. Isn't that basically the whole philosophy behind those big media conglomerates like Disney or something?
At the end of the day, you guys should just spin up two separate threads for La Liga, right? Make one of them feel like those intense 90-minute matchday discussions on ESPN, and then make the other one a total free-for-all where nothing gets deleted except the actual insults. Then we can just sit back and see which one actually pulls more traffic, and we'll see how much weight that excuse "some users stay quiet because others are just trolling too hard" really carries.
Honestly, I’ve got a feeling if you actually opened a legit thread for La Liga, the only person who would bother posting anything is Taylor Thompson4.
David Anderson72 said:I agree with restlesssurfer97. If we put together a freestyle example, it should surpass the current one by spring 🙂
Alright, now you're just exaggerating—throwing around claims of moderator bias without a formal complaint feels like a cheap attempt at discrediting people.
There’s an actual appeals thread on the forum, and if you truly believe a penalty was unfair, either the mod or the admin will look into it. It’s literally three clicks of a mouse—hardly a monumental task. Besides, managing this stuff is their job and they get paid for it, so the whole "they don't care and won't help" angle just doesn't fly.
So, let's end the bickering here. If anyone actually has constructive suggestions for improving the threads or the system, those are more than welcome.
Exactly—it's obvious to the people who actually need to see it (the mods and admins), unless you're arguing that others won't know where the line is drawn—but my sense is you all know fine well, you just choose not to follow it.
Regarding the Example, I’ve said this once and I’ll say it again: how that thread turns out is entirely up to you, specifically whether posts end up being nuked en masse or not. Even if a discussion eventually settles into something constructive, if the first 15 posts are nothing but pure trolling, I have no choice but to wipe the whole thing from the start.
So, please—just refrain from engaging with obvious trolls. If there's actually a point worth discussing buried in their nonsense, pull that point out (don't quote them!) and start a fresh thread on the actual topic.
Dabi, that's just your take—I've stated mine and I’m sticking to it.
Morgan Williams, your suggestion is interesting, and sounds good on paper—but it's just not doable. If a post stays on topic, whether it's flagged or not, I can't stop people from replying to it—and if they give a solid response, I can't just ban them for it. One decent reply usually triggers thirty off-topic posts, and if I started banning everyone for that, I wouldn't have anyone left to write the damn reports.
As for you, Richard Morales79, you know perfectly well how the reporting process works. When I hand out bans, I don't just target insults—I clear everything. Honestly, if I were handing out bans like candy, you'd probably be grayed out by now—so I don't see the point in complaining. Besides, I'm not a fan of calling out specific names as examples, even when you're right. But hey, that's just my view.
Basically—just so there’s no confusion—I closed it so I could clean things up in peace. If I try to delete three posts here, five more pop up that need deleting. Not interested in doing Sisyphus's job.