CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › wiredangler5 › Posts

Posts by wiredangler5

179 posts shown.

Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Michael Doyle5 said:As far as I'm concerned, we have a deal. It would be helpful if the other users were aware of this condition too. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.

Well, we'll see what comes of it eventually. Just remember, the heavy lifting always falls on you guys, the community.
I've restored the thread back to the part we agreed on—the part that actually fits the topic—so feel free to pick up where you left off.
Closing this thread here since we've settled everything.

Best,
wiredangler5
Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Michael Doyle5 said:Sure, population genetics falls under anthropology, but it’s not true that it isn't used in official history or archaeology. For years now, it’s been used to back up previous historical assumptions and theories regarding the history of the human species and so on. Because of that, those few topics on this sub-forum aren't completely off the mark since they are being discussed within a historical context rather than just an anthropological or genetic one.

Right now, I don't see us having people from both sides represented here, because most users' comments seem more focused on their own ideological worldviews rather than addressing what was actually written in the complaint.

Closing the thread isn't the answer. Up until page 9, the discussion was at a decent level and centered on the maps created by Andrew. He started this thread, and his work is genuinely great news for the forum. In my opinion, you should do what I suggested in comment #58—meaning, save the specific comments and replies that are meaningfully connected to the debate, while deleting everything else entirely. As for behavior, I think some moderator authority needs to be shown; at the very least, issue a warning to the specific users or everyone involved for breaking the rules. There’s plenty of material there to justify a penalty (!). Use your comment on the thread as a timestamp and a reminder of this situation; try to pick the discussion back up where it left off (which would be around pages 9 or 10 if the relevant comments are saved). If we can't do that, we'll likely need more intervention or stricter moderation.

It is used, but it's all still pretty tentative. Population genetics is relatively new, so "history" tends to take a cautious approach until everything is fully fleshed out. Historians have always played it safe, building history only on solid evidence and hard traces. 🙂

Anyway, let's get back to the point. I know closing the thread isn't the solution—that would be the easiest thing for me to do. That’s why I offered options, hoping you'd choose to let the thread live on by just deleting posts back to page 9.

That's fine; we'll reopen the thread and you can pick up where you left off. But I have one small condition: you guys will be the creators and moderators of this thread. Don't engage with potential trolls; just one troll post is enough to trigger a hundred replies and send the whole topic off the rails again.
Avoid off-topic chatter. If someone posts something that derails the conversation, just ignore them. Report any insults. It’s actually pretty simple and will keep the thread alive. You can see how much things went sideways on page 9 and what it looks like now, which really shouldn't have happened. Keeping things on track is on you as the thread creators, not on the moderators.

Do we have a deal?
Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Michael Doyle5 said:I'm honestly just tired of the constant, intentional disrespect. The regulations. A few users (Philosophy, croat22, pilot program, Ludwig), along with the moderators themselves (wiredangler5, Uncle Strile), have all weighed in on the topic...Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA.subforumhistory and historical themesHonestly, by not stepping in despite warnings and requests from several users to penalize and remove posts, they’re indirectly allowing and supporting violations of the rules. The handbook clearly states that moderators are...Moderators have the authority to remove any content that violates our Forum rules. If you break the rules, you might receive a warning, while more serious violations could lead to a temporary or permanent ban from specific sub-forums or the entire Forum.And honestly, so far, nothing from what was mentioned has actually happened.

The main rule for this subforum is pretty simple: we’re all here to learn and swap knowledge, so please keep your arguments grounded and respectful.

Yeah, those subforum rules are correct. I actually wrote them myself, so you quoted me perfectly. But regarding this thread and the appeal, let's just be honest and keep things open.

Michael Doyle5 said:From page 9 to where we are now on page 22, this thread has become a textbook case of manipulation. People aren't actually trying to learn; they're just pushing misinformation, fake arguments, and blatant ignorance. It’s frustrating because whenever someone tries to be responsible or seeks common ground, they just get mocked. I've tried explaining things and correcting errors, but it feels useless. We've hit a point of total intellectual decay. Between the constant trolling that derails the discussion (11 instances), people acting like idiots (15), repetitive spamming (4), and everyone ignoring warnings to stay on topic (12), the whole conversation has just fallen apart.Dear moderators,(via private messages), regarding the last two users mentioned (pilot program and Ludwig)—it’s pretty clear they support this behavior for purely political and ideological reasons. They’re basically manipulating scientific facts through a lens of extreme nationalism and chauvinism. In short, there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public here. You can see this with pilot program, who lacks the necessary expertise but has blindly accepted croat22's false claims as absolute truth.

This thread basically fell apart once Philosophy showed up on page 9, and then again when croat22 arrived on page 14. We've added 13 pages of mostly useless filler in just a few days. Honestly, most of this would make more sense if it were moved to its own discussion on interpreting historical migrations using population genetics, since it barely touches on the actual Y-DNA maps we were talking about. Even after suggesting that Philosophy start a separate thread—maybe something like "African origin of Illyrians"—to move the conversation there, nothing happened. croat22 hasn't even tried to admit he's off-track or change his approach; if anything, things have just escalated.

How long is this kind of behavior and thread-wrecking going to be allowed on this forum?

The reason I haven't jumped into this thread—even though I've tried to review the reported posts as much as I could—is simply because this isn't my area of expertise.

Haplogroups and genetics aren't really my thing. I've never been interested in them, never studied them, and definitely haven't read dozens of different papers where everyone seems to have their own conflicting theory.
This field is actually pretty new. It doesn't even really fall under history or official historical record; it’s more of a social science thing. I remember these topics being categorized differently once, but I can't recall whose call it was to move them over to History, or why we let that happen. Honestly, dealing with this mess feels harder than trying to juggle nitroglycerin while jumping rope. It would be easiest if I just moved these topics back up to the Nice section and let her deal with it. Luckily for Nica, I won't do that. At least not yet. :P

But back to your complaint. By the time the flood of reports started hitting after page 9, things were already spiraling. I finally caught up around page 15, by which point everyone had already thrown out their arguments, links, and evidence, and most people had already dug their heels in.

To be completely honest, with how little I know about this subject, I couldn't tell who was trolling, who was pushing fake arguments, or which studies were legitimate and which weren't. When every post is just a massive wall of text that requires intense concentration just to process, I realized I was totally lost and felt like just sitting down and crying.

Then I stepped away from the forum for a bit, and by the time I came back, you guys were already on page 22. To moderate this fairly and correctly, I’d basically have to read the entire thread from the very beginning while simultaneously doing some side research on Google.

Since I don't know the material, it’s genuinely tough for me to figure out who is right and who is trolling, whether they're doing it on purpose or just out of ignorance.
Looking at this complaint, I see people from both sides represented. So, try to be objective and tell me what the best move is: should I delete everything back to page 9 so you can start fresh? Or should I just close this thread entirely and have you start a new one?

I'm really no expert on this topic. Between the subject matter itself and the constant reports and finger-pointing, I'm stuck. I'll give you all a little bit of the moderator role now—give me your most objective opinion on how to proceed.

If you actually care about this discussion—and judging by the posts, you do—look at it objectively. Tell me: is the best option for everyone to stop the bickering and let me reset the thread back to page 9, where things were still civil? You're the ones who built this thread, so you're the judges now.
Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Michael Doyle5 said:I have to say, I'm feeling pretty discouraged by this constant, intentional lack of respect. The rules. It was brought up by several users (Philosophy, croat22, pilot program, and Ludwig), along with some of the moderators (wiredangler5 and Uncle Strile).


bluecyclist64 said:The moderators rarely show up on the PDF, and when they do, they seem strangely lenient.


I accept the complaint against myself. You're both right, and honestly, that's just the reality of things right now.
I’ll be straight with you about why things are the way they are right now. I’m not trying to dodge responsibility—you're right about how things stand—but I want you to know it isn't because we don't care. There are just a lot of different reasons behind this.

I’ve been away from the forum for quite a while. I needed to take a break after moderating for several years—it was getting to be a bit much—so I decided to focus on other parts of my life for a bit.

If I didn't feel like diving back into the history subforum, I wouldn't bother at all. Honestly, why put myself through those intense debates? They just end up being a massive headache.
Life hasn't been this boring in a long time. It would be masochistic of me to complain, but I'm not quite crazy enough to miss all the constant fighting we used to have on here.

Honestly, things were exactly like that right before I left for my military service and summer vacation. As soon as I got back home, I jumped straight back into work. I ended up spending quite a few days out at the farm helping my parents get enough firewood ready for the winter.

To top it all off, I walked into a nasty surprise at work today. For some reason, our server admins blocked our access to Index, Morning, Daily.hr, and a bunch of other sites. They even cut off Forum.hr, which wasn't an issue before.
Every time I try to log in here, I just get hit with a message saying that... Siemens' safety protocols. They won't let me access this site. Now I'm losing a good chunk of time I could've spent on the forum during work, since my job actually lets me get away with it.

That’s eight more hours shaved off, plus the eight I spend half-asleep. That only leaves the eight hours I have to deal with real-life stuff. As it happens, my brother is getting married tomorrow, so I've spent most of my free time over the last two weeks helping him get ready.

Look, like I said, what I wrote isn't meant to be an excuse for what you guys pointed out. You're absolutely right, and there’s no point in lying to ourselves about that. I just wanted to be upfront and say it's not because we're being sensitive or anything.

The same goes for Uncle Strile, who’s getting dragged on dozens of pages and is rushing to respond as fast as he can. Just keep in mind he also moderates Religion, which is an incredibly complex and massive subforum that requires him to spend hours monitoring it every single day, much like History.
I’d probably bet a hundred bucks that he’s actually a little pissed off and hurt because I showed up to take his job. ☕
All jokes aside, there really should be more people around here. But honestly, we'd probably just need to hire a bunch more moderators to actually cover everything.

That’s my honest take on it. I’ve voiced my concerns, so now it’s up to you guys—thumbs up or thumbs down on whether you actually get where we're coming from.
The same goes for the folks over at the Military History and Tech forum. That sub-forum is also a total mess, so we just drop in whenever we can.

Alright folks, I'm going to be completely open and honest here. No holding anything back.

bluecyclist64 said:We should probably mention that some users here openly push Nazi ideologies—take detector, for example. The mods rarely show up in this sub, and when they do, they seem strangely lenient. Honestly, those kinds of posts should have been moved to Politics a long time ago. See ya later.

When someone shamelessly brings up Hitler's... Second one. That book is pure fiction, painting Jews as monsters responsible for everything wrong with the world. Honestly, he should just go back to posting on Stormfront.

History has become a total joke lately. People just keep citing nonsense from shady neo-fascist sites, while actual, credible sources have become almost impossible to find.

I get what you’re saying, and I see why it’s so frustrating. I notice a lot of people on the forum romanticizing that era and trying to spin it as something vital for the nation. They always fall back on the same old excuse: "Yeah, but the other side did this too." It's just a classic way of shifting the blame—trying to justify one monster by pointing at another.

I get what you mean. A lot of people write on really slippery ground, hovering right on the edge where their ideology is obvious even if they don't say it outright. They just wrap everything up in this polished, sanitized way. I know you can see right through that to what they actually believe. I see it too.

You know what the issue is? It’s just really hard to actually enforce the kind of penalties you'd want to hand out for most of the stuff being reported. Or for a lot of others who are also holding back on their reports.
Look, we missed some things because we weren't around. I try to check every single post, even if I just skim through those massive walls of text, but it happens. Some stuff is clearly nonsense, but a lot of it actually deserves attention. You probably get most frustrated by that third type of thing—it makes you feel like we're being too soft, like we're letting people walk all over us or that we simply don't care.

It's not really any of that, bluecyclist64. To me, punishing certain opinions or viewpoints just because they don't align with ours feels a lot like introducing verbal crimes.
I’m never going to go there. I don't want to play games like those politicians who hunt down and punish anyone on Facebook just because they wrote something that doesn't align with their specific agenda.
There will always be different viewpoints and political parties. You'll always have people who think exactly like certain local leaders, but then you'll have those on the opposite side who would label anything that doesn't smell strictly like communism as being just as bad as Stalin—maybe even wanting to bring back something like the Red Guards to wipe out anyone who dares to disagree. There's just a bit of everything.

Is it illegal for people to think this way? It isn't. Just like how right-wing groups in Germany can march through the streets, regardless of what we think about those rallies. Then Antifa shows up with a counter-protest in response—both sides have that right.
Look, if someone starts waving a Nazi flag or shouting "Sieg heil," then yeah, they deserve to be shut down immediately. But until that point, everyone has a right to their own opinion, even if we hate what they have to say. Suppressing views just because they're unpopular isn't the answer. Romanticizing history based on which side you root for isn't a crime, either—you just beat stupidity with better arguments. You see this perfectly in how Zoran Oštrić handles debates; he lays out his case with every argument he's got, always keeping an ace up his sleeve to land the final blow exactly when it counts. Your other options are pretty limited: either jump in and deal with the headache of arguing against someone's romanticized nonsense, or don't engage at all. There really isn't a third way.

What the detector posted about that book you mentioned smells like revisionism to both of us. If he thinks Jews are monsters, I’ll just let him think that. I feel the same way about Americans sometimes—there isn't a worse group. But when someone starts glorifying Nazism, denying the Holocaust or Jasenovac, that's a whole different story. You tend to dance on that line too, on the other side. You don't deny Bleiburg, but you often push the limit by suggesting those people didn't deserve better because they were all criminals. You've even said they probably got what was coming to them. Look, I don't support that view either, but you're entitled to your opinion. If someone denies Bleiburg actually happened, then we have a problem, just like denying Jasenovac.

That's the point, bluecyclist64, we can't punish everything. I know some people are right on the edge and I know how they think. But if I start doing that, we'll end up banning everyone, because radical distortions exist on both sides—left and right, in local and global history.

I agree that a lot of it is borderline, but I don't intend to radically punish personal opinions; everyone has a right to their views. Even you, since you think we're being too soft. It's your absolute right to feel that way, and I don't mind if you call me out a hundred times for not reacting enough on the sub-forum because you see Nazism everywhere and get allergic to even a hint of it, reporting posts at the first sign.
You're free to face people like that with solid arguments, or even be a bit more aggressive if you stay within the rules.

I'm not planning any purges over opinions or borderline views, no matter how much they differ from mine. Everyone gets the same treatment. That's how I handle your views too, even when they're borderline and could earn a bigger penalty. But you don't get one; you have the right to your opinion, no matter how much it raises people's blood pressure or how much I personally dislike certain posts of yours.

There, once again, being honest and without holding back. This response is a bit long, but it's my general answer to all the reports you've filed and why you've called us out for tolerating extremists.
Military History & Tech in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I’ve been cleaning up some threads on this subforum. I ended up deleting about 50 posts and banning a few users. It's my first day back after summer vacation and getting settled, so please bear with me while I catch up and tidy everything up. The "History" section is a bit more complicated, so that might take me a little longer to get through.

Hi, wiredangler5
Trolling and spamming PDF history quotes in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I’ve received your appeal. I'm at work right now, but I'll go through all the reported posts by tomorrow at the latest. If they deserve a strike, they'll get one. Regarding your complaint about how people are arguing—like when someone dismisses a source or makes sweeping claims about an entire nation—I'll send a private message to Far personally. I'll let him know to watch his tone, because that kind of thing won't be tolerated. Same goes for everyone else.
Give me a little time to catch up. I'm just getting back into the swing of things after being away for months, so I still have hundreds of pages of discussions to read through. 😁
The Ukraine discussion: Is this supporting terrorism? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
When someone complains and asks for changes, I expect them to actually see what’s broken and offer a vision, an idea, or some advice on how to fix it. If you just list grievances and demand solutions without any direction, I could keep writing complaints all day too.
If you spend enough time on this forum, I assume you understand the rhythm of the moderators' work and the reality of what they can actually control versus what they can't. Just asking you—would you be complaining if the points you're quoting below (your post) were coming from the Ukrainian side, or would you still speak up if things weren't right? Honestly, answer that to yourself first, then tell us here.

If you want to change things, you probably already know how you'd change them. Since my last response didn't sit well with you, why don't you give me some specific advice? Tell me exactly what the moderators need to do regarding this issue:

hiddenrider66 said:How I figured out the admin's mindset:
- People are active; who's going to complain? There's nothing we can do about it.;
- They outnumber us; whose fault is that? We can't change the math.;
- Discussion quality is low, but even the pro-Ukrainian crowd (by the way, is it okay to call them that? 😕) posts fanboyish stuff, so there's nothing we can do there either. (As if Practice is the only one left from the Ukrainians)
- If we actually touched anything, we'd be smothered by complaints from Russians or pro-Russians 😕 (see reason above) and the thread would die, though honestly, it's already dead to the public in its current state.

So, I'm really asking you now: what exactly should the moderators do here? If you don't have a concrete answer, please don't blame the moderators for things that are outside their control. How am I supposed to reduce activity from the other side? Should we just nag them until they get tired and give up? What's the plan?

Second, of course the quality of discussion is pretty low. You even pointed that out yourself by quoting the post from the division. But seriously, what am I supposed to do specifically with that fanboy post from the division? And why didn't you provide a post from the "Ukrainian" side so I could see what we should actually try to ban? It feels a little unfair to publicly put the division on blast without providing
examples from your own side. Then act surprised when I say that if we call out those kinds of posts, we have to apply it to everyone or no one at all.

Do you—or do you all—have the will to write posts that make the topic more meaningful and pleasant? If you don't have that drive, and most users over there don't either, how do you expect the moderators to force that change on you? We could make a deal: meaningful, analytical posts of at least 500 words without the fanboy zeal are allowed. Anyone posting below that criteria gets a 10-day cooling-off period. Look, obviously the moderators aren't going to run a crackdown like that. I just want to show you that you guys are the ones responsible for the quality.

Third—what do you expect? If we let one side have a bit more leeway, shouldn't we expect a wave of complaints from the other side? What, do you think they'll send us telegrams and flowers? I don't get why you're surprised or why this is confusing. And I noticed that smiley 🙄 in the last point; reading between the lines, you think it's illogical not to give the "Ukrainian side" softer criteria just because "Russians" might complain. To you, that's not how it should work.
It's not about being polite to one side of the debate, it's just that you seem to think we don't have any empathy because you're worried about people "whining." Once you start reacting like that, I can see how biased you actually are regarding this appeal.

Look, I politely asked for everyone's input, and I stand by that. If my suggestion to look at things together to improve the discussion only gets a response like yours—just questioning everything with 🙄 nonsense—then please just skip this appeal. It's clear you don't even know what you'd change if the whole topic were actually improved.

I really don't want to waste my time writing ten more posts just to answer your endless questions about what falls under a Moderator's jurisdiction.

hiddenrider66 said:To sum it up—those supporting Ukraine should just leave this current thread about Ukraine entirely and start a new one with a different moderator, someone who would set actual guidelines for a normal discussion where a wider variety of views could exist without the current atmosphere. That way, "pro-Russia" users would still have their own thread, so there wouldn't be any reason to jump over to a second one.


That's fine. I’d rather you just work on the existing thread properly. Don't forget that the vibe of a thread is mostly what you all make of it, not the moderators. 😉 Put that energy into the discussion instead, and you might actually change something.
The Ukraine discussion: Is this supporting terrorism? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
granitefalcon26 said:Is there even any point in talking about Ukraine if we aren't actually allowed to share our own thoughts here?
A couple of Russia enthusiasts are talking about nothing but orgies, while the rest of us aren't exactly itching to join that conversation under these conditions.

It makes sense, honestly. Nobody's actually being silenced when they want to speak up. It’s just that certain restrictions make it harder to describe the situation or draw comparisons when we're told to avoid specific topics. It isn't because anyone is picking sides or playing defense for those clinging to border treaties. I just think the Moderator guidelines make it tougher to have the kind of deep discussion we could be having.
The point isn't that anyone is taking sides. It’s just that people have repeatedly crossed the line during decent discussions, throwing insults around and comparing everything to some kind of modern-day civil war.
It’s impossible to moderate at that point. When everyone—literally everyone—starts crossing the line in every single one of those tens of thousands of posts, the trolling and insults just never stop. It becomes an endless loop.

It feels like everyone is busy reporting the other side, yet they don't seem to care when their own language gets heated. People file complaints over even the tiniest descriptive terms used against the opposition, making it impossible to moderate the thread or keep the discussion on track. It just spirals out of control.

A lot of these moderator guidelines aren't actually meant to shut down one political side. It's more that people here haven't quite mastered how to have a mature, analytical debate without immediately launching a verbal artillery strike at anyone "across the border," only to have the other side launch an immediate counteroffensive full of insults. It just goes on like that forever.

These decisions weren't made for political reasons. It’s just that everyone approaches this topic like a die-hard sports fan, which is basically all I see here. It’s like you all think you’re actually on the front lines in Lugano, when really you're just sitting back in your armchairs in some small town in the US, scrolling through Reddit.

Look, if you really want me to step back and ignore all the discussion guidelines, I can do that. But just fair warning: don't expect the Moderators to be able to keep things under control. It’s going to become an absolute mess, and you'll end up reading some pretty nasty stuff. Just don't come complaining to me when the thread becomes unreadable and toxic.

We can't just ban people for supporting Russian policy. Personally, I might think they're dead wrong, but that's my take. The Moderators are supposed to stay neutral and recognize that there’s a side out there with its own right to support a different option. Even if their views seem totally off to me because they lean toward aggression, that shouldn't matter for this thread. It's more important to allow both sides to exist and respect everyone's right to an opinion.

granitefalcon26 said:Rename the thread to "Messages" and send my regards to Russia and Putin.

Don't be like that. Look, we can't change the fact that those pushing the Russian side are incredibly loud. They flood the place with hundreds of posts and seem dominant just because they act so unified (they aren't, but that's how it looks from the outside). What are we supposed to do? Should Reddit just assign a squad of pro-Ukraine supporters to create some balance? Or should we build a bot program to spam technical, random posts for the Ukrainian side?

The reason this thread often feels like an online corner for a "Russia Today" style outlet isn't because of the site admins. As long as the posts follow the rules and don't cross the line into needing a warning or deletion (and honestly, a ton of them get deleted), the moderation team stays out of it. Unless we decide to go for preemptive strikes—like picking 15 random users who support Russia every few days and banning them overnight just for fun. I really don't know any other way to establish a balance that should really be handled by the users themselves.

granitefalcon26 said:I’d like to ask the administration (wiredangler5) to revise the rules on the first page of the Ukraine thread, because they're preventing us from having normal discussions and participating properly.

I’d ask you to give me an example first—show us how you would edit things so we can all see if it's actually doable. You need to provide guidelines that make the discussion better for both sides and allow moderators to remain as neutral as they need to be. Those guidelines shouldn't favor one side while leaving the other at a disadvantage, otherwise, the moderators will just end up getting harassed with complaints. So, please, give us an example of what and how the discussion could be improved. Then we can all decide together if it works or not.

hiddenrider66 said:Here's an example of the kind of post we constantly see in this thread. Let the admin decide how they would classify it.

I’d also like to hear your take: what exactly should a moderator, supermoderator, or admin do with a post like this? What should the reaction be? What kind of penalty? A post can be deleted, or it doesn't have to be. That's for the moderator to judge. If the post is unreadable, biased, or purely propaganda, it stays. There are heaps of posts like that from the same user and plenty of others too. On both sides. You see the same thing from the Ukrainian side. But tell us, what's your proposal for handling this? Just keep in mind that if we apply that logic, it would affect about 80% of the tens of thousands of posts everyone has written there.

Honestly, this post is a perfect snapshot of the level of discussion happening among all the drama enthusiasts. It's a clear example of why the thread is so hard to read, and I'm not surprised many people avoid it entirely. Not even to read, let alone join the debate, because coherent discussion is rare compared to posts like this.

So, tell me: what exactly should moderators do with posts like these? How would you judge them?
What are the new standards at Politika? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
No problem, hope you have a good one too.
What are the new standards at Politika? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
crimsonjackal63 said:The post right before the controversial one was immediately kartonirati for being offensive, which any regular user could see.
That's why I didn't call it out specifically here.

But since the problematic post was deleted instantly, users aren't sure if it actually got a warning or not...
Charles Fox10, you're saying that deleted post was also kartonirati, so I'll take your word for it....

Charles Fox10 told the truth—that post definitely got kartonirati. Personally, I upgraded that warning to a 7-day ban. It was just too disrespectful to let slide.

crimsonjackal63 said:But that's not really the point.
Let me restate the post in question:

I'm wondering if there are any measurable criteria used to decide how much punishment a post like this deserves...?

In the real world, a report like this would bring the police straight to your door... but in a virtual forum setting, is a physical threat punished by deleting the post, a simple warning, a month-long ban, or a permanent ban...?

Thanks in advance.

I gave his post a warning, and McA is also under a 7-day ban for that specific post. Ideally, policy should have zero tolerance for both types of posts that showed up. I agree with your take, and that's exactly how I handled it.
Politics/Ukraine Discussion Thread #5 in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Jack Cook7 said:I wasn't questioning that. I actually agree with the sentiment.

I'm just asking: what are the moderation criteria?

In the thread about Ukraine, despite literally a thousand instances where people label things with "Chetnik" rhetoric that has nothing to do with Mexicans or the war itself, why are only two posts being flagged—those expressing extreme views regarding combat unit readiness?

So:

Why isn't someone punished for calling a soldier or a supporter of current government policy a "Chetnik," yet they are strictly and immediately penalized for calling someone a cannibal, a pedophile, or a drug addict? Even a Nazi.

And that's even though there's already plenty of evidence out there regarding those other claims for certain groups.

I just want to understand the rules. If someone labels another person a follower of Chetnik ideology, do the moderators treat that the same as labeling them a follower of a cannibalistic ideology?

There shouldn't be any debate over whether different criteria exist or what is allowed. Generally speaking, none of what you mentioned should pass. But I'd say this looks more like an unintentional oversight rather than double standards. Either way, it shouldn't be tolerated. There's no question there.
Politics/Ukraine Discussion Thread #5 in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Charles Fox10 said:If you call someone a pedophile or imply it, expect to be banned within three days. Just don't throw those accusations around.

If you start calling people involved in this conflict in Ukraine names like thugs, fascists, or Nazis... you're looking at a minimum ban for breaking the rules.

Inciting war, violence, or murder—or justifying any of that—will get you banned just like disrespecting victims will.

Insulting any nation is an automatic strike because insults aren't allowed here.

A lot depends on context, but these are the ground rules. You've been warned in the intro post, and this is already the sixth part of this thread.

Most importantly, please just report the post and ignore it. One of us will step in. If you reply to a flagged post, you're technically breaking the rules yourself, and honestly, it's better to just follow the "don't feed the trolls" advice.

The topic is complicated and posts are flying in every minute. It’s hard to catch everything even with all of us moderators on duty, so if we miss something, please let us know via a report or a DM.

Amen.

Avoid labeling anyone. No matter which side they're on, stay away from terms like thugs, fascists, cannibals, or pedophiles. Any such name-calling will result in a warning, regardless of your actual stance or how polite the rest of your post is.


Jack Cook7 said:I get all that, but my questions have been pretty straightforward since this thread started.

For instance, if a country, government, or culture is lenient toward drug users or promotes drug production—officially or otherwise—can I label that culture as "drug-addicted"? Or at least "pro-drug"?

Can I say on this forum that Western culture is drug-addicted? Whatever "Western culture" implies in this context.

And by extension, can I say that everyone representing that culture represents drug addiction?

No, because that's hard to define accurately and usually leads to overgeneralizing. Just because a government pursues a certain policy doesn't mean every single person follows or supports it.
Unfair moderation/Power tripping/Banning for personal reasons in Feedback & Suggestions ·
jadeorca42 said:Why is this post still hanging around without any sanctions after three reports?

This is pure racism, spreading national hatred and downplaying genocide against certain people. To illustrate what I mean, it’s just like denying slavery by saying something like—

"well, a good portion of African Americans came to the New World voluntarily, just like they flee to the European Union today because they heard life is better there than in Africa..."

....or....

"well, a good portion of German Jews voluntarily sold their shops and factories to Germans, just so it would be easier for them to play the victim and get an American green card..."

...or...

"well, a good portion of Americans from the Midwest and California voluntarily sold their property to Mexicans, and now they've decided to declare those sales invalid and take back what is 'theirs'..."

Specifically, there is nothing punishable in that post, even if I don't agree with it. But I can't label it hate speech because that wasn't the intent behind the writing, and the post mentions this is just one part of everything happening there, not a characteristic of an entire nation. I can't call it spreading national hatred, especially since there is evidence that certain parts of the country were indeed sold or bought.

jadeorca42 said:Opposing the Russian invasion of sovereign Ukraine is a legitimate idea.
This is chauvinism:
Brenda Cook4 said:They should have done that during WWII, and half of Europe wouldn't be in mourning because of those primitive losers. (Russians - ed.)

I agree with this. Blue should really stay away from expressions like that, and posts like this are subject to a warning she will receive. Blue, please avoid using this kind of language in discussions on Politics in the future.

jadeorca42 said:It feels hypocritical to call Ukraine sovereign right after a US-backed coup, especially when foreign spies and vice presidents are flying into their capital to hand out orders.


Whether you find that hypocritical is up to you. For now, the interim government (not trying to debate how they got there) is the recognized authority (except by Russia) until the next election. Just something to keep in mind during these debates.
Reporting inappropriate posts in Feedback & Suggestions ·
darkhawk said:Dear Administrators,
On politics. The Department of Homeland Security just launched a new national campaign called "No Hate Speech Online." One of my posts got taken down. I can't really pin down why, other than my own gut feeling that the moderator was being a bit negative toward me.

None of that really matters. What counts is that we're actually talking about hate speech, and in my opinion, statements like:

I can't believe I'm even typing this, but someone's out there making death threats against Jewish people and calling them Zionist filth. It’s just wrong.
I can't believe someone would say that. I'm going to find you and make you pay for being such a hateful, bigoted piece of trash.
I'm going to find you and settle this once and for all. You've really crossed the line.

It’s just classic hate speech, though the moderator is denying it. He claims that:

So, I proved to the mod that his analysis was off, backed up my points with Wikipedia citations, and called out his sweeping generalizations about Americans being either strictly pro-fascist or strictly anti-fascist as being a bit negative. He ended up deleting my post anyway.

So, if I could just ask the admin why my post was taken down? I’d also love to hear their take on whether those specific sentences actually count as hate speech.

The post was taken down because it strayed from the respectful, productive tone we aim for here. You usually do a great job keeping things civil, which I really appreciate, but this one veered a bit off course.

I have to say, I don't really see the point of posts like this. When someone suggests that Marasovac’s arguments about hate speech versus simple insults imply he has some underlying bias against Americans, it just feels like an ad hominem attack. It’s a way to discredit his points by claiming they come from hidden motives rather than addressing what he actually said. That’s how it comes across to me.

In the end, Marasovac really did participate in the discussion as a fellow forum member. Looking back at how people addressed him during that thread, I don't see much point in talking to Marasovac like that in front of everyone, using phrases such as...The moderator doesn't seem to get certain terms.", "The moderator just can't seem to tell those two concepts apart....and so on.

Attacking Marasovac like that is pointless since he’s just a regular forum member here. It honestly just makes things look bad and unfairly undermines his role as a moderator in front of everyone.

As you can see, none of your other posts on this topic have been flagged or deleted. It was just that one specific post, which was removed because the tone was a bit too much for the thread.

Since you're asking the mods and admins for their take, I can only offer my own perspective. That controversial sentence Marasovac mentioned seems to sit right on the fence between both sides. Right now, the definition of hate speech feels pretty broad, or maybe just too blurry. Usually, we see it when someone starts making sweeping generalizations about an entire nationality, a minority group, or a religious community.
I’d agree with you to an extent, provided she can be expressed on an individual basis—like if she's targeted at someone specifically because of their background or faith, regardless of what that is.

I can't say I blame Marasovac's perspective for seeing this as a threat or a blatant insult. That line is pretty subjective, which is why we need a million different arguments from both sides just to define it. And honestly, that’s exactly what you all have been doing.

That post was taken down for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Mentioning Marasovac in that thread was unnecessary, and bringing him up in this appeal doesn't help either. He wasn't acting as a moderator here, and he certainly wasn't being unfair to you.

Regarding that post Cuka deleted while replying to KatarinaRi—it was removed because it referenced posts that were deemed unnecessary. This isn't some new rule here; it's just how we handle moderation on this forum. Basically, a post might get pulled if it’s responding to something already flagged as redundant or off-topic (kind of like being collateral damage).

Anyway, hopefully that clears things up for your future debates over on Politics.

Best,

wiredangler5
On what grounds was this post deleted? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
hollowtrucker77 said:thanks wiredangler5
🙂

Here’s a free suggestion for avatars: just let people use all of them.

Regarding the suggestion, personally, I wouldn't mind at all. Seriously. But that wouldn't stop the complaints—there will always be people complaining. Even someone who complains still has a right to their own avatar. 😁

No problem. 🙂
On what grounds was this post deleted? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
hollowtrucker77 said:I don't know, some avatars bother people while others don't.
Some get removed, while others seem to cause total confusion.

For example, I'm more bothered by stuff promoting Greater Mexico—it's just as much of a provocation as an SS officer's photo.

Do we actually have standards for this, or does it all just depend on someone's ideology?

To be honest, there are currently discussions happening at the forum level regarding avatar standards (what's allowed versus what isn't). It’s a tricky subject because it opens up a million different questions, so it's taking some time. We should see a decision soon, either through a set standard or by handling things case-by-case.

Regarding this specific avatar, I'd say the issue arises when an avatar is politically motivated—whether it's promoting a new Yugoslavia, Greater Mexico, Greater America, or anything like that. But this one isn't really that. It uses colors representing countries that were on equal footing during our recent referendum. The avatar itself isn't controversial; it’s just a user expressing an opinion, which isn't even incorrect.

At least not until we pass a Civil Union Act similar to what they have in Germany, Austria, Canada, and other places.
On what grounds was this post deleted? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Joshua Alvarez79 said:What part of that was untrue? Is factual accuracy even a requirement for keeping a post up? Of course not, but even by that standard, everything I said holds up. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, they can just debunk me—that's what this forum is for.

If being truthful isn't the reason posts get deleted, then what exactly was the reasoning behind removing mine?

If there wasn't a valid reason to pull my post, I'd really appreciate it if I could repost it in the referendum thread without getting penalized. Ideally, right away.

Which thread are we even talking about? You didn't include a link or even mention where you were posting.

hollowtrucker77 said:"doesn't make sense to start a whole thread over this, so I'll just vent here a little"
It's funny how nobody seems to care about this avatar or signature when it comes to political discussions.

Sash, why would it bother anyone? The avatar isn't some geopolitical statement or an attempt to promote a specific regime. It just shows the ranking the US gave our country regarding sexual minority rights after the referendum. Same goes for the signature. I honestly don't see what the issue is.
crimsonjackal63 said:Like the title says, there seems to be an unwritten rule on the Politics subforum where using the term 'leftist' gets you a warning.

On the other hand, I've asked the moderators and super-mods a simple question a few times now:
Why aren't terms like 'nationalist' or 'religious extremist' punished under that same standard?

The rules should be applied equally to everyone, right?
It’s either all of them or none of them.
That just seems logical and fair...

Any kind of labeling like that should definitely get a warning, regardless of which side it's coming from. If something slips past the mods, just report the post. There's no question about it—the stuff you mentioned needs to be penalized too.

Sam Green73 said:I issue warnings for derogatory labels whenever I see someone being characterized that way.

I'll try to coordinate with the super-mods to make sure we penalize all forms of labeling.

👍
Why was the "be all I can be" thread locked?! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Elizabeth Price2 said:Yeah, but that thread didn't even kick off until 7:13 PM (assuming my forum clock isn't totally wonky), whereas this whole "be all I can be" thing started up earlier this morning, if I remember right!
It’s totally possible someone just realized they messed up in the meantime, though. 😉

It doesn't really matter when a thread starts if the moderators decide the newer one is better for the conversation (maybe because the intro is actually decent, for example ). It’s just moderator policy, and since there's already a thread about this situation, there's no point in calling anyone out for closing one over the other.
Is a guy who trashes veteran memorabilia a total psycho? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sam Green73 said:Based on what she wrote in her opening post, I don't see any other way this could go.

It’s nice of you to be willing to explain everything that happened in Memphis to the FBI.
I have no intention of getting into political debates at the FBI.


By posting that excerpt from the law regarding authority, you basically opened up a debate at the FBI about what went down in Memphis, which effectively justifies the police officers' actions. I just added my own take on why I think coppermarlin13 is justified in calling the whole thing pure chaos.

Sam Green73 said:The real savages are the ones who ignore basic societal norms like the law.

Sure, because wearing a uniform automatically turns someone into a perfect gentleman, granting them a free pass to act out—even if they silence people or get violent—just because they claim to be acting on behalf of the law.😉