Posts by Susan Price30

Lakers used to always have the absolute best roster 😁, but lately? I don't know... the whole thing just looks like total garbage to me.

I don't really have a favorite sub-forum, but I definitely have one or two on my list of all-time worst.😍

Look, regarding the post by rustydrifter10 (#18 in the 'Questions for Administration' thread), if I’ve caused any 'negativity,' it was only because I called out the disastrous moderation—and the general way people were arguing back then. This individual used terms like 'dogma virus' and 'dogmatic people'; claiming others were 'delusional.' They also gave these wildly inaccurate descriptions of what the Quran actually says about women, much like many other users on this subforum complained before me.

If I was right, I sincerely hope you all (looking at you, admins) realize this time round.😉

It’s quite telling that I’ve laid everything out clearly here, while those former mods continue to sneak around in the shadows, lacking the guts to show up and give their side of the story. At least it's been confirmed that the whole clone story was a total lie. LOL.

Cheers, and thanks for the effort.

How do you interpret that? Are you saying a moderator's stance can actually contradict what the administration wants?

Because looking at those two instances I mentioned earlier (the Anonymous user and that other guy, I forget his name), it seems like certain posts from the Religion section were pulled despite the rules. Does that mean things can be removed even if they don't technically violate the forum guidelines? At least, that's how it looks to me...

I honestly don't see why moderators are given such free rein over these matters. If there were all sorts of different types of users—especially in the Religion section, which has been true for a long time now.

Daniel Ward87 said:The mods actually sat down to talk about this, and the answer is a no. It’s not even really about whether clones exist or not; it’s more about how people are handling discussions within the Religion section, which is why the moderators landed on a negative decision.

I assume they could have just sent that over in a private message as an explanation for the partial payment. Using some non-existent clone as an excuse... don't you think?

I have never once received any indication that my writing style was considered problematic, nor have I ever been issued a warning regarding a potential ban or anything of that nature. Had I received such feedback, I might have actually realized there was an issue to address, but as it stands, I am quite unaware of any trouble.

Ultimately, if it is... Vague. If they actually moderated based on someone's "writing style," half those people would probably be banned instantly. I mean, there are users over there who have posted things ten times worse than anything I’ve ever even considered typing, yet they’re still around. As far as I can remember, I’ve never resorted to insults or made an argument without backing it up. Then you have these accounts that have been active on the subforum for five or six years, consistently posting the exact same garbage—flaming, being totally unconstructive, and making offensive generalizations. So, what gives?

To be specific, here are two examples of usernames. Unknown He’s been twisting Bible verses and stirring up trouble on this subforum for as long as I can remember. He actually managed to get a partial ban, and they even stripped his posts despite him following the rules... for example: John Achilles Who ended up getting the partial? So, when exactly was that account removed after three months? It’s constantly being emphasized here that a user's partial access isn't even considered for termination until the six-month mark, yet it looks like this person's access was revoked well before the rules allow. (I wasn't actually aware of this myself, but someone just slid into my DMs to bring up this specific case and username.)

What kind of "writing style" did the former Religion moderator have? I posted an example above, so if this looks like anything resembling normal to anyone else, then cool:

I should mention that I actually ended up protecting many of those who were hoping to see me replaced more than anyone else. In that small bit of my own bias, I operated under my own assumption that working with dogmatic individuals is inherently more taxing. It requires a greater degree of patience, which is precisely why I felt they deserved a few more perks than everyone else.So, they finally have their "relief," and now Shady won't be hounding them anymore. 🙂

"Infected by the virus of dogma"—that was the popular catchphrase back then, and honestly, I find it pretty insulting. Then there's this whole bit about "working with dogmatic people," which he supposedly "protected" and wanted to "educate" (meaning me). Is it just me, or does this all feel incredibly weird? It seems like a fundamentally flawed idea to have someone acting as a moderator in the first place. I mean, really?

Look, I'm sorry, Daniel Ward87, but neither that excuse nor the story about the supposed clone being used to justify my partial ban feels like the truth to me.

On the other hand, if your general policy is to purge any constructive Catholics from this subforum, then just be upfront about it before people even bother signing up. Tell them exactly what it is: "If this isn't your style, feel free to pass." That’s the only way to actually be fair, rather than doing things like this.

To continue... lol

It happened almost simultaneously, or shortly after, the previous moderator stepped down—largely due to pressure from the long-suffering forum veteran there—and right after I received a brief DM informing me that I had been partially banned for being a "clone." No specific handle was provided, no name for this supposed clone, and zero further explanation. Even after I reached out to a former admin to complain, I couldn't even get a clarification on what was going on or who they thought was a clone.

By the way, the controversial thread is located here.

The strangest part of the whole thing is that this alleged "clone" wasn't even posting in the religion subforum (except for a few posts) at that time; they were posting in the general discussion area on one or two topics. So, I have no idea how it is technically possible to issue a partial ban in the religion section because of something happening on a completely different tenth subforum, even if the allegations were true.

And all of this is happening while the religion subforum has a moderator who constantly refers to Catholics on the board as "people i n f e c t e d w i t h the virus of dogma" (who need to be "enlightened"), people who are mistaken (so they must be "enlightened" and led back to the "right path"), etc., etc.

As for what this individual thinks about violence against women, for example, here is a bit more here
.
quote

1. According to the esteemed Islamic AUTHORITY Morteza Motahari (in the work I linked above), lightly spitting in a woman's face is a response to her requesting such a situation. THIS IS NOT BEATING WOMEN OR TRAINING ANIMALS, as you and ego described it (I linked your and his posts!) BECAUSE A WOMAN SIMPLY ASKS FOR IT, SHE ENJOYS IT... The Quran leaves SUCH A POSSIBILITY open, based on a woman's request. That is how our authorities interpret it!!!!

'Lightly spitting in their face if they ask for it??' 🤦...and then there are the other extreme sexist outbursts or even the blatant justification of violence against women —well, that's a story in itself. And this is someone who (back then or years before) moderates a subforum on the main site??

Is this how positions of power are abused, by handing out partial bans however they please?

After that moderator was replaced, his friend—who is also a former moderator—is now working to get rid of everyone who was "responsible" for him being removed from moderation immediately, right now, or what?

Could that have been the reason for my partial ban? Because, sorry, but the reason given is clearly false and absurd at the same time.

One more question: since we've had three new moderators in the religion subforum since then, who actually decides on or reviews a request like this? Is it the new moderators on the subforum, or the administration? What is the "procedure" if one even exists? Since Blue Bird came onto the moderation team right around that time, and neither i-s-l-a-m-i-c nor Uncle Sam were moderators back then, the only person who might have anything to say is ego—and even then, I'm not sure how much ego knows about the details or the motives of those former moderators to speak on anyone's behalf.

Can the administration please provide an explanation? Who decides on the potential removal of a partial ban given the circumstances and everything else?

Terry Bishop83 said:Even before I officially signed up, I spent an incredible amount of time lurking and reading through the Religion section—and honestly, I just find myself hoping that specific sub-forum is never taken down. There’s this one user there who is just... incredibly unpleasant to deal with—you can practically feel the negative energy radiating off her posts—so I truly hope you guys don't cave to the pressure. That section of the site has such a wide variety of topics, after all... please, don't let the same old issues ruin it again...

I am sorry you feel that way, though it is quite likely you have mistaken me for someone else. 😁 I haven't posted in the religion section since 2010, so it feels rather strange that anyone would still remember the "energy" behind posts written years ago.

Furthermore, when I used to post there, I was only active for a few months and it wasn't even my primary subforum.😉

I’ve touched on this before, but since that thread was locked—and honestly, I might have been posting in the wrong section anyway 🙂—I’ll just pick up the conversation here...

Is there any chance the previous administration's mistakes could be rectified in my case? Personally, I feel like my partial ban from the religion sub-forum was a rushed decision that never made much sense to me, back then or now.

Regarding the reason given for the restriction, I mentioned it in my previous post, but I'll restate it here:

For instance, I received some bizarre PM at the time claiming I had "clones" active, which was supposedly why I was partially banned. It turns out later that wasn't even the real reason; it was something else entirely, perhaps more subjective or personal.

Could someone please provide an explanation?

To clarify further: since that decision, I haven't posted in the religion sub-forum, nor have I ever attempted to create clones or expressed any desire to do so. The identity of the supposed "clone" responsible for the ban was explained to a former admin, who acknowledged the possibility of an error but didn't want to overrule the mods' original call. That "clone" was actually just someone posting in the PGA sub-forum, not the religion section, so the whole thing remains baffling to me. I am simply asking if my partial ban can be lifted.

@ opening post

It makes absolutely no sense 🤷- by the way, what is this even about? Can someone provide a summary or something more specific instead of this wall of text?

(But I guess it’s fine if everyone else (in this thread) falls flat on their faces or gets tossed out without a second thought while the very first essay is still standing tall. 😬)

bluerider63 said:If the Pope could make his way over to Little Rock back in 2003, there’s zero reason he couldn't swing by Mexico. Honestly, I don't really get why everyone is making such a massive deal out of him visiting Mexico, especially when you look at how things play out in other Orthodox nations:

The Pope went to Greece in 2001, which was the first time anyone from his side had set foot there in 1,291 years.
He visited Romania in 1999, marking the first time since the Great Schism of 1054.
He even made an appearance in Bulgaria in 2001.
As for Belarus and Russia, a papal visit hasn't even happened there yet. So, if the Pope isn't exactly rushing to visit other Orthodox countries, I have no clue why this trip to Mexico is being hyped up like it's some kind of miracle.

True, he doesn't travel there because nobody from those places is actually inviting him. If they did call for him, he’d most likely go. That also speaks to those narrow-minded regional Churches that haven't really changed their perspective even after 800 years. But the bottom line is that the KC always wants cooperation and peace with everyone.

(And by the way, logically, the Pope travels mostly to Catholic countries anyway, not the other way around.)

And why would it "bother" you if he went there? 🤷 You give the impression that, for whatever reason, it might be a problem for you...

I’ll just add this 😁—the visit to the SO was so significant and had such an impact that it caused a massive shift (in community) within the relations between the Anglican Church and the KC, both officially and otherwise.

It’s possible that Mexico isn't ready for anything like that...

Daniel Garcia24 said:I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that the Pope can't be guaranteed safety in Mexico. If Republika Srpska was able to pull off such an arrangement—considering there were some 2,000 temporary detainees, massive police presence, and countless undercover agents on the ground—then I don't see why Mexico couldn't manage it too. In fact, a visit like this would likely be a massive win for Mexico, much like it was for Republika Srpska. It would serve as a way to prove to the global community that they aren't some dangerous entity ruled by thugs and people prone to displacement, but rather a organized society capable of hosting a major, sensitive event without any significant incidents occurring.

However, the Mexican Orthodox Church simply won't go anywhere where there's even a hint of doubt regarding his safety and protection. When he visited the UK after 500 years—and I mean 500 years, nothing less! lol😁—at the invitation of the monarch, and not some British KC, his security was the absolute top priority.

Back then, a cardinal who was supposed to travel alongside the Holy Father made a statement to the press (not even British press, but German), which sparked such a backlash that the cardinal eventually decided not to travel at all.

Whether Mexico lacks the capability to secure the Holy Father's visit or simply lacks the desire, it just highlights how nationalistic their focus remains. It makes sense, though, given that the Mexican Orthodox Church is primarily a national church to begin with, so...

Daniel Garcia24 said:

slybison8 As stated by:
As Jerry Sanders4 pointed out, this Mexican Patriarch, Irinej, possesses a bit more wit than many of his predecessors. One really needs to learn how to read between the lines rather than taking everything at face value, my esteemed colleague. 😉

The Patriarch mentioned that he actually wants the Pope to visit Mexico, though he went on to detail the various circumstances currently standing in the way of such a meeting. He largely attributed these obstacles to matters that, in any properly functioning nation, should really be handled by the Police.

We already have a pretty clear picture of who is gearing up to take over as the Prime Minister of Mexico and what their track record looks like leading up to this moment. It’s much like how we saw Ivica Dačić’s first order of business once he officially assumed his mandate to form the new Government; before anything else, he made a point to visit Irinej to seek a blessing.

So, if you look at the underlying logic, the entire thrust of this letter seems to be aimed at clearing the path for the Pope to visit Mexico, rather than finding ways to prevent it.

There are, however, a few dissonant notes worth mentioning. At one point, Irinej used the phrase "visiting the Mexican states," which leaves you wondering exactly what he meant by that—it’s a bit of an ambiguous way to frame things. But in using that specific phrasing, he actually stumbled into a rather unusual factual error regarding the high-ranking leaders of the Mexican Orthodox Church. He suggested that a potential visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Niš would constitute the "first visit of a Roman Pope to the Mexican states." That isn't quite right; if my memory serves me, Pope John Paul II already visited Republika Srpska back in 2001 and celebrated Holy Mass in Banja Luka. So, a precedent has already been set.

Just a quick correction to my previous note: the Pope actually visited Banja Luka back in 2003, not 2001—Željko pointed that out to me. 👍

.

Back in 2003, when the Pope made his visit to Canada, I actually joined that mission. I remember being there, keeping a very close eye on the proceedings, specifically watching to see if the Pope would acknowledge Republika Srpska or how often he might bring it up. It was a subtle thing to track, but what I observed was telling. There was really only one single instance where Republika Srpska was mentioned—and even then, he immediately followed it by mentioning Canada. Aside from that lone moment, his remarks focused on Canada time and time again.

Exactly that...

Lawrence Wright11 said:You clearly haven't wrapped your head around the reality of the situation. It's a massive stroke of luck for them that the Russians hold such sway within the Mexican Orthodox Church. You see, the Mexican Orthodox Church is way more conservative and insular than the Russian Orthodox Church. Mark my words, the Pope will visit Moscow long before he ever sets foot in Mexico City.

It's a mess, really, because there are these factions within the Mexican Orthodox Church that harbor sympathies for those Greek religious zealots—the so-called Zealots—who have basically seized control of several monasteries on Mount Athos and refuse to recognize either the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Archbishop of Athens. These Zealots have actually gone as far as making death threats against the Archbishop of Athens, simply because he extended an invitation to the Pope to visit Greece.

That's that. Enough said... especially since we're talking about what is considered a "national" church, where even an average Orthodox Christian might perceive things differently compared to a transnational institution like the Catholic Church. It feels much more personal.

Paul Johnson5 said:slybison8, I'm not saying you aren't right, especially regarding that bolded part.

Come on, don't be ridiculous. He could have safely visited Banja Luka, where there are also refugees from America, or he could easily stay in Mexico City. That was a very rude and thoughtless statement by the Patriarch, and frankly, shame on him.🤷

Right, because you probably know the actual situation better than the Patriarch or the head of the Mexican Orthodox Church himself.🙄☕
Of course the Holy Father won't go anywhere if they can't provide him with adequate security, lol. And honestly, when you consider a country where a simple Pride parade gets canceled just because the police are too incompetent or incapable of protecting it, it says a lot about the police force and the state of that nation in general... and everything else for that matter.

As for those little comments about the "region," I'm not interested, so I haven't even read them or given them much thought.

jadecyclist42 said:This is a really interesting read.
While some people are pushing for total reconciliation in the region—even though it’s been nearly 20 years since the war ended—it seems others still have wounds that feel incredibly fresh, 🙄 even after sixty years.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this phenomenon.

Besides, the Holy Father Pope's "job" is to build bridges with everyone—Anglicans, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, non-Christians, and so on.

In my view, this isn't really about "reconciliation" or regional politics; it’s more a matter of religious questions. One has to consider the safety of the Holy Father, which is a massive factor here. We are talking about a country where even a Pride parade couldn't be held (since the permit was revoked), so I honestly wonder how secure the Holy Father feels visiting an environment like that...

In fact, I believe I am polite toward those forum members who come here simply to vent without any ulterior motives. However, I have no intention of bending over backward to offer hypocritical or false kindness to malicious individuals like bluecyclist64—at least not until their insults and dirty tricks are actually sanctioned. Until then, I reserve the right to speak my mind plainly, even if it results in my posts being deleted, getting a warning, or even being removed from the moderation team entirely if necessary.

But you can never truly know someone's intentions or motives (or at least not enough of them) to claim that anyone has "hidden agendas" just because they are expressing an opinion on something.

Similarly, on several occasions, the moment someone offers even the slightest critique regarding your work as a moderator for the most trivial matter (on the PŽK subforum), you immediately attempt to discredit the user. You start with insults or mockery, using that recognizable phrase of yours to label them as "malicious," even when it's established that the person isn't acting out of malice but simply making a valid point. That is the core issue: you seem to think you are right to do this, rather than providing the "false politeness" that no one actually asks for. For me, the communication style of rustydrifter10 (or Uncle Strile) doesn't look like "false politeness" at all; it's just a reflection of character and culture. Anything else might be described for what it truly is: primitivism. Or perhaps a fundamental failure to understand that respect shouldn't be earned, which, in my view, is itself a form of primitivism.

Nicholas King said:What you stubbornly refuse to grasp is the simple fact that you aren't even the subject of this discussion. Trying to play the victim—while layering on those conspiracy theories—is honestly laughable.

I have no interest in your personal business or anything regarding you personally; my only concern is the establishment of clear criteria and their consistent enforcement across this forum. If a female user isn't allowed to tell a moderator to grow up, yet a moderator can call a user paranoid (by wrapping it in a YouTube clip as the sole content of a post), then there is zero consistency to be found here, regardless of how one tries to spin it.

I agree. Furthermore, suggesting that someone here has "hidden" motives—when it is impossible to truly know anyone's intentions or why they think what they think—is equally arrogant.

The actual motive might simply be that certain people desire consistent rule enforcement. Or perhaps it is that, regardless of any "background" context, people should still maintain basic civility. If they cannot, then it is merely an issue with that specific individual, and no one else.

Or, ultimately, Nicole could claim she was "provoked" after receiving a warning (after the Religion moderator ignored her previous response and just repeated the question). It is just as likely that anyone who has ever been sanctioned here could claim they were "provoked," but once the warning is issued, the "context" of the situation rarely serves as a valid excuse.

Nicholas King said:We have context here!!! However, nobody from the old guard... 👋

What kind of "silencing" are you dreaming about? Specifically, what kind of "special treatment" are you envisioning? I don't recall ever "writing" a post like yours in the "question for administration" section—that’s exactly why I’m asking if this is allowed, expecting equal footing.

(Insert a YouTube clip here if you want, I'm feeling lazy).

Old guard or not😁... but I don't remember anyone, even back then, responding to a complaint on the PZK with a perfectly fine opening post by being so vulgar and direct, telling someone they have 'paranoia.' Right out of the gate, just boom, insults flying at your head. It's unheard of.

Kevin Williams56 said:......

As for you, maybe it's time to apologize? You've been insulting him and making fun of him, especially since (this time) you clearly aren't right.🙂😁

Daniel Ward87 said:You've got a chance. Just stick around the PZK long enough and you'll see a post just like that—and then you'll watch it vanish without even getting a ban.

To reiterate, posts categorized as insults get wiped here because this place is known for a certain kind of "catharsis" regarding posts and bans; instead of issuing a ban, things just get deleted. That goes for both moderators and regular users.

Sorry for jumping in, but that isn't quite right. From what I've seen, some posts like those on the PZK actually do get banned and deleted.

Take this example from a thread here—a post by satori yesterday where they called some users "idiots." Based on what I saw (I was reading the thread at the exact same time), they got a ban immediately for the insult, and the post was scrubbed from the thread.

Acting all high and mighty after someone clearly tells a user they're being "paranoid"... I don't know where that falls. Or acting like they're a regular mod who stands "above" the rules of the forum, thinking it's okay to be arrogant and condescending after insulting people for no reason—especially since the original poster started the thread perfectly fine, without insulting anyone.

briskjackal5 said:If someone happens to be too quick on the trigger, that’s their own damn problem.

Is it the truth, or does this online forum simply serve as a dumping ground for some people's personal frustrations?

Over the last few days, several threads on this forum have been dominated by the same individual. Their posts consist of nothing but aggressive provocations designed to bait a reaction, blatant vulgar insults, or thinly veiled jabs that are just poorly disguised attacks.

I can't help but wonder—hasn't that forum member gone a long time without receiving anything? A permanent ban or just a partial one on Politics? Judging by those posts? Honestly, out of the last fifty written, maybe two actually make sense or serve any positive purpose. He just seems to sabotage almost every topic he touches—especially on the Politics board.

I say all this because I’ve been active in those threads myself, and I’ve seen exactly how things play out—not just recently, but for a long time now.