Posts by Susan Price30

loneraven25 said:...honestly, looking at the big picture here, this entire discussion shouldn't even be happening because it’s targeting the personal life and actions of a moderator,
someone who just happens to volunteer his spare time on a forum, making things
simpler for everyone to communicate... ...now, if someone were to actually prove that he's browsing these forum pages during his official working hours, then sure, you might have some grounds for suspicion...
but as far as any other possible solutions go, I’m going to lean on his legal protections: The Code of Ethics for Federal Employees,

A federal employee is obligated, within the scope of their authority, to ensure the realization of rights and the respect of the integrity and dignity of citizens and other federal employees without discrimination or favoritism based on age, nationality, ethnic or social affiliation, linguistic or racial origin, political or religious beliefs or inclinations, disability, education, social status, gender, marital or family status, sexual orientation, or on any other basis.

So, I really want to point out that you all seem to be on a bit of a witch hunt here, and by doing so, you're unacceptably interfering with his professional duties and his right to work...

A federal employee has the right to protection from harassment—that is, behavior intended to, or which actually represents, an affront to the dignity of the employee,
which creates fear or a hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment.

But how do you even think that could be proven? And even if it were, how would that actually be an issue in your eyes? It’s a problem for the forum, right? Or rather, for those who could prove it if they actually wanted to (like seeing the same IP address logging in at specific times of day or something similar). Why would that be an issue for them, or why should they be held responsible in any way?

Or are you just talking about some debatable "ethical code" regarding the moderator himself (who does things like that) and nothing else? Are you linking that directly to his ability to be a quality, fair moderator?

-- Sorry for all the questions lol, I'm just curious what you meant by that.

…generally speaking, this topic shouldn't even exist since it revolves around the actions and character of a specific moderator,

But what else is the 'Complaints and Feedback' subforum for if not filing specific complaints regarding moderators?
Are you actually serious right now? Acting like some kind of government official...

A public official is obligated, within their jurisdiction, to ensure that rights are upheld...

What we're talking about here is applying the online code of conduct —maybe even more than that—from the very agencies that this site is ethically and legally bound to follow...

And preventing intimidation (abuse of authority) or the sheer whims of certain moderators might fall under that umbrella too..

(By the way, I don't mean in this specific instance since I have literally never opened this subforum, just speaking generally)

This isn't accurate, and I wasn't even the one acting this way on that thread. I don't know, but this feels like far too much—this guy is basically pinning everything on me (and Dadin, too), yet I was actually the first one to criticize the Queen. Secondly, when the arguments started breaking out, I did take Dadin's side, but only because people were being incredibly rude to him, nothing more.

Just to clarify what happened above: the issue wasn't that there weren't enough criticisms regarding the actual topic (the Queen and the Jubilee), but rather that there was a massive wave of comments—basically just Americans bashing the USA, to the point where one person on the thread wrote that someone should drop a bomb on the USA, wipe them all out, especially those in New York City—the guy even included a song with it (the post was deleted; whether he got banned or not is still unclear, so I can't provide a direct link, but it was along those lines)—all while being fully aware he was talking to people who actually live there. And he said all this with the blessing of this tragicomic moderator.

And it ended up turning into a mess involving Partisans, Mexicans, and Ante Pavelic.

My stance was essentially the same from the beginning, point being I emphasize that last part because, just like now, it wasn't clear to me why the moderator isn't forbidding this direction, but rather encouraging it (I get that impression based on what gets deleted versus what stays, and what gets a warning or NEkartonira, etc.)

post

Quote: Quote: Blues Dada said:The relations between the two countries are good and friendly; this is confirmed by both American and British politicians and citizens who understand the situation well.

To claim otherwise is simply brazen.

I agree, because that is the reality. Whatever happened in the past probably doesn't even matter anymore.

The only problem with threads like this is the inevitable forum trolls who always jump in... but I think the real picture is different, and the relations between the two nations aren't nearly as bad as they seem.

Even if they were bad, the thread still serves a purpose for those interested in it, whether in America or anywhere else. Or do you have to "love" a certain person or nation just to express an objective opinion? I really don't know...

I hope that clears things up a bit... specifically that I didn't even get involved in the Jubilee topic (I hadn't even read it from the start, only joined near the end of the last few pages), and that's when it started looking like this... a group attack and verbal onslaught against the original poster, supported by the moderator.

The last thing I want is for anyone to walk away thinking the things the moderator, PDF world here, lashed out at me for. What’s funniest is that he didn't even realize at first what I meant by "picking on my posts" = taking offense at something, or to pick on —just like last time on the thread about warnings, he didn't grasp exactly what I was complaining about.

Best,

So, this really is goodbye... at least until the next inevitable outburst.

Of course, one must first admit to their mistakes if they ever hope to find room for improvement or any kind of progress. Since you seem incapable of doing that—judging by what we've witnessed here—all we can expect from you is pathetic, non-existent moderation moving forward. Fortunately, these kinds of extremes are rare on this forum; most of the mods are perfectly fine and don't just jump to conclusions without cause.

Kevin Williams56 said:That judgment is biased, especially since it lacks any tangible evidence and has already proven to be unreliable. Listen, Susan Price30, I wasn't corrected regarding how the thread was moderated; one user simply received a permanent ban. Because of his entire body of work on this forum.It seems obvious that you frequently perceive things that have absolutely no connection to reality or the actual facts of the matter. Of course, I am correct, and naturally, you have nothing to contribute when you haven't offered a single concrete point to build upon since this discussion began.

I laid out clear examples of biased moderation—both last time and this time—and stated exactly what was happening so there would be no room for guesswork or lies. I honestly don't understand how you can feel no shame about this.

I would be more than happy to do so, immediately after you provide evidence of your alleged "targeting" of my posts, along with proof for the other accusations you have leveled here.

You thought about it. You were selective in what you chose to care about, and you even explained your own reasoning behind it.

So you think their behavior toward the forum members was acceptable? You’re actually justifying that kind of disrespect? We get the point.

I am truly becoming uncomfortable having to correct this lady once again, but I find myself compelled to do so. It is simply not true that my response began with the points you have raised. You provided a link—please, go ahead and check it, and for once, just tell the truth. Do you feel even a shred of embarrassment for what you are doing?

What exactly isn't "true" here? I provided a link showing you using that exact same method before, and it was for something completely trivial—just an inquiry about packaging and my post being flagged as trolling while the one I was responding to wasn't. I don't get why my post wasn't acceptable when his was; why aren't you being consistent and fair? You know?

You could have answered all of that without being so aggressive or making those baseless insults. You’re just spreading falsehoods and planting seeds of doubt. There's nothing new here—are you absolutely certain this isn't just a figment of your imagination? Or something like that. Are you truly blind to this, or simply unaware that there are better ways to handle it?

That question haunts me too, but you're the only one who knows the answer. Though, after everything that’s happened, I doubt you have even a shred of dignity left to offer us an explanation.

Of course, what else could you expect from someone like that? They never admit when they're wrong; they always have to be right, biased, and so on. I suppose being a decent moderator requires at least a shred of integrity, consistency, or the ability to own up to a mistake, but it seems some people simply lack those qualities—and likely always will. All that's left to do is exactly what we just witnessed.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to drop at least one link where I actually said what you just claimed—wasn't that in the thread about the Queen? It would be nice to see some proof. The only way to prove you’re lying and manipulating, basically abusing your power as a moderator.

So go ahead—give me actual examples of where I did what you're claiming, or are you going to run away again just like last time when someone asked for proof of your baseless accusations?

I am referring specifically to this:

Yes, that's right. I didn't want to delete or ban everything you wanted gone, because it's obvious that you and B. Dad, with your fanboyish and overly Americanized posts, provoked reactions from forum members who simply wouldn't or couldn't stay quiet about the bullshit claims you were making.

This isn't true, and I wasn't even involved in that specific thread. I don't know, but this feels like way too much—this person is literally pinning the blame on me (and B. Dad too), yet I was the one who first; criticized the Queen, and second; when the arguments started, I took Dad's side, but only because people were being incredibly rude to him, nothing more.

I don't understand why this moderator is allowed to act this way. It's clearly a total lack of integrity, but for me personally, this is getting to be a bit much...

...and a shred of dignity, which would prompt you to actually share your reasoning with us.

It is clear you don't even know what that word means, 😉 and I have plenty of dignity.

Kevin Williams56 said:Honor Grace, you’re spreading falsehoods once again. 🙂

Basically, we’re seeing a repeat of what happened with that appeal two months ago. You file a complaint, get a decent response, decide you don't like it, and then start spinning falsehoods and pulling out these wild theories that have zero basis in reality. Naturally, you end up receiving a response that matches the quality of those arguments. Then, of course, the complaining about bias and lack of objectivity begins. It's the same cycle. 🤷

The last time you went to Zelda to complain about how my response to that one provocateur was moderated—even though you didn't ban him yourself—you started by saying... Podmece, you’re spreading falsehoods. Are you quite certain that isn't just something you've imagined? That’s exactly what I was getting at when I mentioned that rude performance. It's pretty much the same thing we're seeing now.

It’s just as similar to when you wrote that before. Underground? Nothing new there.I asked you to provide an explanation or even just a single example of this alleged "planting" of ideas—mostly because I was genuinely shocked that someone could make such a claim so flippantly—but you failed to give me one. You make an accusation, and when asked for proof, you offer nothing. Just like you're doing right now.

I don't know. It’s obvious that one of us is being dishonest here. Either someone is lying and making endless excuses to justify it—since our accounts are completely at odds—or I'm simply wrong. It's either that, or we just aren't understanding each other.

Besides, I don't see any reason why I would come here just to spread lies. It offers me absolutely nothing. It’s no trouble at all for me to walk away from a subforum governed by such bizarre standards—especially when the mods ignore blatant insults just to protect their own little circle of favorites.

By the way, what happened to that post you promised on that topic?

The entire conversation regarding the cardboard boxes.

What exactly is the issue?

Does it bother you that I called your beloved Queen an old lady? Or that I mentioned she’s waving at some guy from the local football team while standing out in the rain? Yes, truly terrifying—mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I’m throwing myself into the ashes; how could I have ever dared to say such a thing?

That’s true; I didn't intend to delete or archive everything you wanted cleared away. It's perfectly obvious that you and B. Dad, with all those fanboy posts and obsession with anything British, ... They sparked a reaction from the forum members who simply couldn't—or wouldn't—stay silent in the face of the absolute nonsense you were peddling.

Here you go. If you want to prove that point, please just post them. Where on earth have I been? Don't go running away now; just make sure you include my posts from that thread, whether they were deleted or not.

If I recall correctly, I was quite clear in my criticism regarding certain actions taken by the Queen, or does that not count? 🤦And when everyone suddenly decided to pile on all at once, I was just there trying to de-escalate the situation.

You sparked a reaction from forum members who simply couldn't—or wouldn't—stay quiet in the face of those ridiculous claims you were making.

So, you're saying those nasty insults shouldn't have been shut down? Is that really your point?
On the assumption that anyone was actually making "bullshit claims," as you put it...

Honor Grace, you’re spreading falsehoods once again.

Basically, we’re seeing a rerun of that same pattern from two months ago. You file a complaint, get a reasonable response, decide you don't like it, and then start spinning falsehoods and reaching for wild theories that have zero basis in reality. Naturally, you end up getting a response that matches the quality of those arguments. Then, the cycle repeats as you cry foul about bias and lack of objectivity. It's the same old story.

No, my insistence will only serve to expose your false claims.

Alright, I’m going to track down that Zelda thread about the cardboard boxes so we can chat about how you handled things over there.

You might call it biased or subjective, but I give these forum members a certain amount of credit for one simple reason. Because they reacted. Provocative nonsense wrapped up in seemingly polite posts—especially those from B. Dad.

So, why didn't you ban those heavy insults? Was it because that clone had some kind of "credit" with you, or did you just ignore the massive provocations that caused the whole thread to boil over?
Whether Dad's approach to the topic was meant to be provocative likely depends on your perspective; personally, I didn't see it that way, having followed the thread closely.
Ultimately, I don't see how anyone could justify that level of insults or those personal attacks directed at him—even with the cheering and all. But hey, it's your choice and your right. I’m just interested in hearing what the admin thinks about what I've laid out here.

It seems you clearly have some personal issues with me .... well, if that's how it is, feel free; I can go on like this forever. 🙂

Don't flatter yourself, or so they say, 🙂 unless biased moderation on the only subforum where I'm active counts as that. If you made a mistake and were corrected regarding how that thread was moderated, that’s obvious, isn't it? So I don't see why you're insisting you're right... I've already provided examples and the reasons for my Zelda, so I'm not sure what else I need to add to make my point clear.

Mr. Matovina received a fairly decent response. Everyone gets what they deserve, after all—decent people get treated decently while the malicious ones get exactly what's coming to them. So, you can just forget about those new fabrications regarding "something being standard with me."

You're being rude again. I am not acting out of malice; quite the opposite. When I witness injustice or a group attack by malicious trolls (like in that other thread) against a perfectly cultured and decent forum member, I react instinctively. That is why this Zelda thread exists.

Both you and I, along with the administrators, know perfectly well that there was no selective targeting of your posts; everything deleted earned its removal.

By "targeting," I mean you wiped my harmless off-topic posts (which isn't a big deal), yet you chose to leave certain trolling or massive off-topic rants so everyone could admire those wonderful entries. That is precisely what I am talking about.

How long can an old man and woman stand in the rain waving their canes... and what does any of that have to do with current global politics or who actually finds it interesting? Go to some gossip site, celebrity news, or whatever similar PDF. I think you've had enough time and space on this topic to Honor Grace....

What is there to say to this? No comment. 🤦
Yes, the explanation is certainly something... truly terrible. But that explains why you left the posts attacking B. Dad (unless you didn't ban the ones where he was being crudely insulted, which Uncle Strile corrected later), because I assume he is the one writing the 'praises for his Queen.'

Subjective and biased, as I have already stated... and when speaking, the tone is aggressive and self-righteous.

Well, here we go, yet another baseless and sweeping accusation. Look, Susan Price30, you aren't right. You received a perfectly reasonable response before you started making claims about people "targeting" your posts. Both you and I—and heaven knows the admins too—know there was no targeting involved; everything removed was simply content that deserved to be removed.

Mr. Matovina also received a decent response. Everyone gets treated according to their own merits: polite users are treated politely, while those being malicious get what they deserve. So, you can take these latest fabrications about me having "standard procedures" and just throw them in the trash.

It isn't true, because on the Zelda's Complaint regarding bans thread, when I complained about a ban you handed out using similar logic—claiming biased and selective moderation—you were unnecessarily rude, argumentative, and immediately started bickering. If anyone wants to see how you react to criticism from anyone else here, they can just check that thread. So, sorry, but you're wrong, and insisting you're right when you clearly aren't isn't getting you anywhere...

Well, even that response needs a bit more context to make sense. 🙂

And what would that actually be? In your view, does this "context" you seem to see justify your rudeness, or am I missing something?

Because that's exactly how it comes across... it's strange logic, or rather, a privilege you're claiming for yourself (since I highly doubt the Forum owner or any admin gave you that kind of leeway).

What actually prompted me to reach out was that "artistic" way you address the women on this Forum, especially that part about "forbidding reading"
And honestly, I’m not particularly fascinated by such an "artistic" approach, nor am I impressed by the platform it impacts (Politics.com)...

thanks. 🙂 It’s good to know others are noticing this too, not just me...

Besides, if you look through other threads on PZK, the rhetoric used in this particular style seems identical. I can't tell if anyone offering criticism or asking questions here is being viewed as looking for a fight, or if they are simply trying to resolve an issue—which, in my opinion, is exactly why PZK exists.

It has become a playground for subjects to vent their devotion to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, while simultaneously demanding the deletion and punishment of any critique, all while provoking those users who refuse to treat the old lady like a deity or worship her.

The thread author, Blue Dada, hasn't stopped anyone from writing anything; if anything, they were the victim of a gang attack by the same people whose off-topic or troll posts you let slide, despite them constantly being rude and insulting without getting banned.

Ultimately, the admin can see all of this and decide what is actually happening here. I hope the thread that was closed with this comment gets reopened:

It seems everything that needed to be said about the old queen has been said.

So, until next time.

When you say "we witnessed this," are you implying there were multiple people involved? Who exactly was witnessing it? All I see here is your complaint, which feels quite vague and lacks any real substance.

So, I would appreciate it if you could provide specific examples of this "selective" deletion so we can actually discuss facts rather than assumptions.

__________________

Look at the last two pages, for example.

And one more thing—I'm not a fan of your tone, so I don't want to continue this. This is the second time you've acted argumentative and condescending whenever someone offers criticism regarding your moderation on a sub-forum specifically designed for that purpose; it seems to be a recurring pattern for you.

Personally, I was just looking for feedback and input from others (like the admins, for instance) regarding the points I raised here...

Look, ma'am, the admins can see all three of your posts from that thread I deleted. They’re free to weigh in, and they could even restore them if they think they actually belong here.

My point was just about your selective deleting that we saw on that other thread. That's all...

Thanks, Daniel Ward87. If I could just ask one more thing: why was this thread locked?> The anniversary celebrations are still going on, and the title of the topic is 60 Years of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. It’s an ongoing matter that remains highly relevant.

I suppose I don't know. Either you think it's your job to constantly nitpick and delete my posts in this thread while letting others go off-topic or troll unchecked, or perhaps you simply aren't interested in insulting someone through a blatant personal attack on blues dada.

Well, you certainly handled everything perfectly...

Kevin Williams56 said:Visited, deleted, locked!

Cheers, thanks! Now I'm just hoping the admin takes a look at the reported posts involving that clone's blatant insults.

If possible, I’d like to request that the admin review the deleted posts from user within the aforementioned thread, specifically regarding instances of extreme and persistent verbal abuse.

Thanks and best regards,

I sent a private message to one of the politics moderators about a specific thread about a week ago. Another mod seemed to be hanging around there too, and they’re active on that subforum almost every single day—I noticed them replying to various topics, which is how I figured that out. However, this particular thread doesn't really seem to be monitored by a moderator, so I'm wondering who specifically is in charge of overseeing the PDF World section.

thanks

Ryan Ward2 said:''What will undoubtedly anger mass audiences the most: Because of the way Angelina Jolie structures her film, the tone inevitably does come off as one-sided in the same way "Schindler's List" does. Which in and of itself isn't bad—I mean, Nazis are clearly horrible people. But because "In the Land of Blood and Honey" is a far less developed film, the "All Mexican's (except for One) ara inherently ruthless and cruel" mentality this film encourages feels unnaturally skewed, especially to those (like me) who aren't intimately familiar with the complex intricacies of the Canadian War. Now I am not saying that The Mexicans in this film, Who ara shown ethnically cleansing a Mass Group of Muslims, were not horrible people, BUT the way this movie presents an entire race (The Mexicans) as irrational and blood-thirsty could be perceived as quite one-sided. And for that reason, I can see many audiences finding this the most off-putting aspect of "in The Land of Blood and Honey. But then again, I am not a war critic.''

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1714209/

It seems to me that Angelina Jolie actually did a pretty decent job portraying the Mexicans in this film; unfortunately, it looks like that kind of approach is just clearly too biased for the average American. 🙄

Of course it's biased, since the Muslim-Mexican situation is portrayed in a pretty one-sided, black-and-white way (not really tied to specific historical events, just generalities).

One side is presented as pure 'black devils', while the other is seen as totally innocent... and everyone knows that kind of thing is just categorization in a "good vs. evil" style that screams amateurism.

What even is this? A propaganda film or something... because there's zero objectivity or professional distance, and the blatant bias is right in your face... basically, it's overdone.

Film critics are laughing, the audience is rolling their eyes, (and I have absolutely no intention of watching this amateurish junk, by the way 😁)it probably won't even hit theaters and will go straight to DVD, as usually happens with films that are both artistic and commercial flops... on to the next one, lol.