Posts by Susan Price30

So, you can request a partial or temporary ban. Got it.

(Though there’s no guarantee they’ll actually grant or lift it upon request)

I assumed that was an option from the start, even if it isn't always approved. 😁 But honestly, Michelle Evans explained everything so clearly that there's no confusion left now.

I'm not sure why you're asking when you already know the rule: bans aren't typically granted just because someone asks.😉

If you change your email to some fake, useless address, you won't be able to activate the account—since you can't verify an inbox that doesn't exist.

Your profile will look grayed out, almost like you've been banned, but you simply won't have the ability to post on Reddit anymore.

That is one way to achieve a self-imposed ban.

(And honestly, about 20-30%, if not more, of the new users here don't even have an active account anyway.)

stormytinker40 said:That’s wild! Haha, talk about a total train wreck. 😁 I mean, the internet really only started hitting the mainstream during that 2000 to 2005 window. Since then? It’s just been an endless explosion.

Passed away? Do we even have a "tombstone" section on this forum? Can anyone actually tell me which users we're talking about? It feels like we should have some kind of virtual monument—something "in memory" of them. After all, these were real people who helped build this whole viral community.

As for how played out these topics are... I’m suggesting that the admins just lock down most of these threads on the boards—especially those endless ones that go in circles day after day, talked about by every generation under the sun. We need to clear the slate and let some of these discussions start fresh from square one. Honestly, there's an obvious issue here that isn't going to fix itself easily. We just need to start recycling topics.

Is there anyone here who’s willing to step up? I’m looking for people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty—the ones who could act as initiators or drivers. Basically, we need some "entertainers" for the various sub-forums to keep things moving. Lately, the mods have been pretty quiet on a lot of the boards, like philosophy, the natural sciences, the arts, current events, you name it. We need some fresh energy to keep those sections alive.

For a long time, the moderators were essentially part of that inner circle.
(Meaning, those who became mods were simply the most active, popular, and articulate users within that specific subforum.)

Now, that isn't necessarily the case anymore, for several reasons...

We're currently in a situation where we have to recruit mods who will actually accept the role when everyone else declines. These people aren't always the "first choice," and even then, they clearly have to deal with an overwhelming amount of nonsense every single day. There just wasn't this level of stupidity in the threads before; now, you practically need nerves of steel and the patience of Mother Teresa.

Plus, I wouldn't say a moderator can change much in any given subforum in the long run if they don't have the right people around them—you know, high-quality members.

And that's about it, I guess...

Cheers

stormytinker40 said:I’m curious about something else entirely—it might be related to how mods are picked, or maybe it isn't. Why do some long-time users who aren't mods get to have colored text? Do they just color it themselves every time they post, or did the moderation team hand out colors because they noticed these guys being particularly sharp, smart, or helpful compared to everyone else? It feels like a way to signal that their posts actually deserve to be read, almost like an official moderator warning. Am I on the right track here?

+ Honestly, I don't think a mod can really rise through the ranks without spending at least a few hours a day on this site. They should be diving into discussions as much as possible; after all, we're talking about an authority figure recognized by other authorities under that authority (can that dynamic actually mess up a debate if things get heated?). Also, I want to know: how do you actually spot a high-quality user? What does a "good" forum member even look like? What traits are we looking for?

Back in the early days, how did sites like Reddit or similar big US forums pick those very first moderators?

In the beginning, there were these cliques, and there wasn't really any democracy per se 😁 once those cliques started shifting and—let's say—diluting that VIP status for the "legends of the forum," that was the start of a more democratic version (mostly because the number of active users suddenly spiked)

I wasn't around from the very start, obviously, but I became active around 2009. About a year or two after registering, I started posting here more often, fell in with a certain group, and then that crew from the most popular and beloved sub-forum went off to start another forum, where we hung out—parallel to this one, etc., etc.

BACK THEN you could hop onto Reddit or somewhere else and spend a few hours in the evening dying of laughter. There were actual "cliques" on every single sub-forum; they essentially kept their sections exactly how they were. These were the people who acted as a magnet for users—the ones who would start threads, offer advice, and basically just entertain and wow everyone.

It was a sort of "in" crowd; you were either in or you weren't. You had to earn your spot (and prove yourself) to be part of it. 😁 (Sort of like the popular groups at Beverly Hills High School, I guess 🙏 the geeks and such... except you knew you were in the top tier because you'd always win the little competitions we used to have, lol, while others were effectively getting "fan mail" and things like that.)

That crew eventually moved on (two or three of them even passed away, unfortunately, one recently, as far as I know, along with many younger people or those in their prime, not retirees)—so now, even years after everything that happened... I suppose the only option left is for moderators to have fun by sparking discussions in the sub-forums they manage, rolling up their sleeves, and getting maniacally busy opening threads to attract new clientele.

Because the old guard (the sub-forum motivators) won't be coming back, or aren't as active as they used to be... and it's been that way for quite some time.

True, and regarding a "successful business," someone's general attitude might be just as vital as their experience when they step into a moderator role—especially if they're being picked for a subforum where they haven't actually been an active participant.

Could those types of moderators end up feeling like outsiders? If the community doesn't take them seriously, won't they eventually start enforcing rules with draconian measures just to compensate for that chip on their shoulder?

We've seen several examples of this lately...

Someone with the right experience builds trust with the rest of the site administration, but wouldn't a friendly approach also be the ideal?

Because without that last part, everything else seems to fall apart...

Take Politics, for example; Uncle Strile is viewed as one of those people, or perhaps Cuka—why not activate them on the main forum to give them some accountability, while letting others have a bit of a free hand on some of the smaller subforums?

We should push forward the ones who can actually drive discussions rather than stifling or outright killing them.

(Otherwise, they might just butcher a thread and then lock it, even when the topic is as hot as a "hot potato.")

cosmicmoose2 said:.......

"Jews are to blame for the Holocaust"; "Black people are an inferior race"; "Women are only good for breeding"; "Mexicans are a genocidal people"; "All Muslims are terrorists"

I provided examples of hate speech targeting different groups based on various criteria. When you compare them, it’s obvious that what you mentioned above isn't even close to actual hate speech. It might be offensive to some, but it certainly isn't to me.

Are you brain-damaged or something?

Between directly or indirectly implying "all Muslims are terrorists" versus "all Americans are complete idiots"—what exactly is the difference?

Fine, if you say so... let's hear it then.

Plus, looking at the previous example, Chucky thinks claiming "San Francisco is a fascist city" counts as hate speech because it insults everyone involved (to emphasize again: all —every resident of a single city—and he's right about that, because in that post, every San Franciscan is clearly being insulted. Just because one person from San Francisco might not "feel" insulted while another does doesn't change the fact that publicly writing something like that is classic hate speech.

crimsonhound80 said:Would saying something like I don't like Mexicans or I don't like Americans be considered hate speech?!

NO.

The moderator team discussed this a long time ago, and the consensus is that it doesn't qualify as hate speech.
Why on earth would I have to like an entire nation?!

I wouldn't classify that as hate speech either.

We are talking about blunt, negative generalizations here—which, as far as I know, aren't tolerated on the Politics subforum. Those can be flagged as heavy trolling, which carries a 100-point penalty and an automatic ban, or they could be categorized as classic hate speech, which I believe is a 500-point penalty and a seven-day ban, depending on the context.

If you want to see what actually gets flagged as hate speech (unjustified, harsh, and negative generalizations regarding ethnic, religious, or national groups), maybe take a look at the thread about Syrian immigrants over on the Politics subforum.

Charles Fox10 said:Then even Einstein used hate speech. 🤔

To me, they clearly aren't the same thing.

By the way, you actually wrote this exact same thing on the KzB forums just about ten days ago—specifically regarding the policy on PDFs and how broad, negative generalizations about any group of people fall under hate speech.

You're right; this isn't trolling. It seems to be bordering on hate speech directed at the residents of a specific city. Even I have my moments where I press the wrong button on my card..

You were lucky.

I can find several more instances of hate speech being boxed up—just looking at the last few weeks, for example—in the PDF archives of the New York Times. (The user mentioned above, whose signature I have an issue with, posts on the Times regularly, if not every single day, by the way.)

rustydrifter10 said:My mistake, apologies. 🙈 It still doesn't qualify as hate speech.

rustydrifter10, 🙂 just to illustrate my point: if someone replaced 'Americans' in that exact same statement with, say, 'Jews'... they'd be saying things like this and that (just an example)—would that not also not be hate speech, or wouldn't it be offensive to Jews in general? Because I think it easily could be.

The text above literally suggests that Americans, as a nation/national group, are worse than fools.

rustydrifter10 said:It isn't hate speech, and we need a link to the actual post, not just a profile.

That wasn't a line from a post; it was someone's profile signature.
A signature that shows up at the bottom of every single post they make.

crimsonhound80 said:That doesn't count. 😵

Sorry, this isn't a general chat thread; it's specifically for reporting hate speech in signatures. (Though I admit, that question mark in the title might be a bit confusing—it was added by mistake)

Rachel Martin19 said:I have to admit, that’s a pretty interesting point.
I like it.
I’m an American woman, and I’m not offended.

King Zvonimir and Francek gave us much harsher lessons.

The issue isn't whether you feel insulted or not—or even if you identify as an American woman, which doesn't really matter since there's no way to verify that on a forum.🙂 The point is that this constitutes hate speech. And if it were coming from, say, a minority group in the US directed at the majority population, wouldn't it be interpreted even more clearly as such?

Test: to better grasp the concept of 'hate speech,' try replacing "Americans" in the text with groups like Jews, Black people, or Romani—and see what you get.

here

Smart people learn from others' mistakes, fools learn from their own, and Americans don't even bother learning from their own mistakes.

profile

Doesn't that count as hate speech?

It's a pretty harsh/negative/hateful generalization aimed at an entire nation (and then people argue about who it's directed toward, but honestly, even that shouldn't matter when defining what 'hate speech' actually is).

William Bennett53 said:The controversial post had already been archived, but after a quick consultation, I pulled it back and expanded the scope slightly.
Ultimately, there shouldn't be any untouchable topics, and everything is fair game for criticism—but there is a massive difference between offering critique and resorting to crude, vulgar insults.

Exactly that. I agree—constructive feedback is welcome, whereas random outbursts fueled by pure intolerance toward any group of people are something else entirely.

So, I suppose the moderator's job is to judge when we're dealing with religious or nationalistic intolerance versus just someone playing around with a topic because they think they can get away with it.

Those kinds of posts used to vanish in a heartbeat, 😁 often before the user could even finish typing them, especially if one of the more experienced mods like edge or Cuka caught wind of it.

Plus, on the Politics board, you have to account for how incredibly sensitive people get regarding certain issues, like religion or heritage—which is why we have specific community guidelines in place to begin with.

The controversial post had already been archived, but after a quick consultation, I pulled it back and expanded the scope slightly.

Thanks, Dorian, for being so responsive and willing to adjust.

northernsailor8 said:Religion occupies a bit of a gray area when you look at the conflict between free speech and hate speech.

Generally speaking, any critique directed at religion itself (ideologically), its structures, or its leadership is permitted, provided one maintains a basic level of decency.

However, if it shifts into direct insults against a group because of their faith, then the penalties become much stricter.

But, public insult (fueled by hatred or intolerance, since that's what the laws clearly state) isn't a gray area; wherever you look, the law specifies exactly what "public insult" covers and how it applies.

(And it doesn't just apply to minorities, by the way. 🙂What kind of "free speech" are we even talking about here? As a moderator, isn't your job—according to the policy PDF, specifically—to maintain a civil discussion, regardless of the legalities or statutes for a moment?

So, we are discussing even the acceptable level that allows someone to engage in any debate at all...

A few days ago, there were several people participating in that discussion about the role of KC in America, though it hasn't been more than about a week. Some were reported yesterday and banned shortly after—though they weren't actually removed from the thread itself—but now, here we are again this morning.

On a different note, regarding similar topics—there are certain types of posts where publishing such content could actually lead to legal action against whoever shares it or even keeps it posted.

Just a completely random post, totally off-topic and unrelated to anything else.

In America—well, at least under the laws governing it across all fifty states—all of that falls squarely under the category of "public insult."

"Is there anything more undignified than public insults? It seems we have lost all sense of decorum. Based on where they come from. Is faith a matter of conviction, or simply a habit of tradition? Affiliation, race, or ethnicity.". The offenses carried a maximum sentence of six months in jail. If prosecutors elect to seek prison sentences for offenders...

If you ask me, this isn't just some nonsense; it’s actually strictly legal. I am currently filing a lawsuit. Regarding the material at hand—since the aforementioned "public insult" is driven by hate or intolerance—is the maximum penalty limited to six months in jail? Or would one instead pursue a formal apology and monetary damages for such offenses? (Plus, there is always the matter of that individual being fired from their position.)

Like I mentioned earlier, I reported that this morning. I also flagged two posts yesterday regarding the role of KC in America over on the Politics and Sol On forum, and they’re still up—even though one hasn't even been moderated yet.

Beyond just complaining about the "forum rules," shouldn't we be addressing the fundamental necessity for a certain level of civility in discussions over on Politics and such? One could easily argue for legal recourse here—perhaps seeking monetary damages for public insults or demanding a formal public apology.

If things keep going this way, I wouldn't even be surprised if someone actually decided to take action... or perhaps even pursue a lawsuit to shut the provider down entirely.

The radical right is sweeping across the continent, and they clearly view Viktor Orbán as their blueprint.

I’m not sure if you caught the news segments last night, but over here we saw footage of far-right groups in Germany showing him total support, even carrying signs in his honor...

They actually invited everyone with similar leanings to the meeting—including our local Anti-Defamation League types from Atlanta 🤣 (you know, those "far-right" extremists who are constantly getting picked up by the police)

rapidnomad512 said:Install an extension to view edit history, then you can argue all you want. Until then, nobody touches my posts without me knowing. We’ve seen enough nonsense on the politics board—editing after deleting, all that garbage.

There is a ban on moderators editing posts, and I can dig up proof if necessary. Bottom line: editing posts is prohibited!

There is zero reason to alter someone's post without their consent. A post is a person's own work; adding or changing content is unacceptable, especially when there's a shady intent to wipe out a topic or push an author off the forum.

You’ll probably claim I’m lying, but those of us who have lived through this for years know exactly what the truth is.

So, leave my posts alone. Write your own thoughts and edit those instead.

I’m sorry, but that part in bold is honestly a bit ridiculous; it's highly unlikely to be true. 😁

If you were writing this on a political blog under your actual name—or just posting generally on a blog or Facebook—your work would fall under the federal copyright law. But when it comes to anonymous posting on a forum? Well, that's a completely different story.

Once you hit "post" and it goes live on the forum, it effectively stops being yours. At that point, claiming or even maintaining any sort of copyright becomes a real uphill battle.

On the other hand, anything written on a blog or Facebook would constitute a new original work, even if someone occasionally incorporates snippets of others' copyrighted material like images or text. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding regarding this issue within the blogging community, mostly because bloggers and Facebook users haven't actually read the copyright law.

Regarding posts from various locations on the forum—the community will likely react preemptively if anything gets posted. Is there anything more exhausting than a flood of endless messages?So, essentially, if an aggrieved party wants to sue a poster, they can, provided that Forum.hr complies—but only upon receiving a valid court order or a police warrant. At that point, the site is obligated to hand over the data necessary to identify the author. That’s pretty much the extent of it. It's where your rights begin and end.

By the way, that last part follows the forum rules.

Especially when there are dishonest intentions to eliminate either the topic or the author from the forum.

Oh really? How can you claim that? Every single time you write one of those "farewell letters" on KZB, you cite the exact same excuses—things like being persecuted by moderators, censorship, or being silenced. But you’ve been around since 2002. Doesn't that suggest the reality isn't actually what you're claiming it is? 😉

Bradley White73 said:The actual content being removed matters too, not just the raw number of posts. Here is what Sam Green73 deleted:

He’s saying he doesn't see how this relates to the topic. And honestly, what else am I supposed to say to that? 🤷 If you look back to the beginning, you can't even count how many comments like these—analyzing daily politics—show up in the thread. That is largely WHAT the topic is. And after a few actions like these, even just three, self-censorship starts to set in. The veteran moderators of Politics (and later Charles Fox) should probably know that better than anyone.

Sam Green73 is known for being a strict moderator, and I guess that's just how it goes... whether something is directly relevant to the discussion or not probably depends on the context or the actual goal of the interview, right?

(Besides, I don't think users or thread authors get to pick who moderates what... or do they?)

Bradley White73 said:It seems like everything actually boilsotted down to the moment Sam Green73 spotted the potential for this topic and decided to dig back eighteen months just to finally get the conversation properly off the ground. 🐔
@Dorian, just one quick thought before I head out: please, just leave the election commentary alone over there. People are watching it; they might not be posting much, but they’re definitely keeping an eye on things because of it. My advice? Don't touch anything or try to fix problems that aren't even real. At best, you just end up looking like you don't know what you're doing, and at worst, it starts looking like soft censorship.

Wait, did Charles Fox10, the veteran moderator of the Politics section, actually look into this supposed "masking" and "fantasy" thread? He’s claiming three posts were deleted in just ten days.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of being banned or suspended, does it? Deleted.And here we have someone talking about "censorship," "ideological bias" in this or that, "massacres," and so on.

Charles Fox10 said:Continuing my tally of deleted posts... over the last ten days or so, three more posts have been wiped from this thread. Some users haven't even managed to write a single original thought before jumping in to weigh in on the massacre.