Posts by Susan Price30

Edward Fisher86 said:It’s not that I don't fully grasp you 🤷.

Are you trying to say that calling a country's tax policy a quasi-Nazi system of control is "criticism," or that labeling SA members as fascists, Nazis, or SA units is just "criticism"? 😕

Fine, if that's how it works, let me know so I can play along too.

Regardless, it’s not like you’re part of the administration anyway.

There's something new here 😲

And once again, you'll probably insist that you aren't using Nazi, Goebbel's-style propaganda, yet you stigmatize all entrepreneurs with a few choice examples.
Just like your predecessors did with their Nazi ways.
If one Jew scams someone, everyone starts stigmatizing all Jews as thieves.

🤷 This is a critique of my position, of my post 🤷

slybison8, and actually Robert Hall7 as well, are participating steadily in this topic.
Maybe this is just standard practice in Politics 🤷 🙂

And who actually wrote that post? Was it slybison8?

Or are you complaining about posts from various users that none of the Politics moderators banned, even though you (and the thread starter) think they should have been? And then you specifically call out slybison8 and Robert Hall7, blaming them for not banning those posts simply because they happened to be active in the thread at the time.

To me, that seems illogical. Just because someone participates in a thread as a forum user doesn't mean they are acting as moderators for that specific discussion. Objectively speaking, if there's any responsibility to be had, it would fall on the entire Politics moderation team collectively, not just the two people you're targeting here, right?

(Especially when someone is a solid moderator like Robert Hall7 and slybison8; dragging them through a thread or singling them out for something that isn't necessarily their fault feels a bit extreme. That's essentially what I was getting at...😉

And what was the motivation for all this? One single deserved penalty point for a rightfully banned post? Give me a break...

'The thread is closed,' says Robert Hall7, 'let someone else (another one) take over from here'...🤣

.

slycrane94 said:Not really. I just enjoy watching fanatics lose their minds when they get called out for being fanatics. Just declare feminism a religion and watch the sparks fly. Then you could start collecting taxes, too. 🙂

Spot on. 👍 🙂

But I don't think it’s primarily their fault. Once you burn through the quota of top-tier mods, the interesting ones, or even the actual institutions—like the "forum moderators"—what you’re left with is pure mediocrity. You end up in a space where people barely grasp what free speech means or where the boundaries lie. Eventually, it starts feeling less like a community and more like a precinct where the cops are just hunting down petty criminals 😁), rather than the high-quality forum we used to have. 😉

Edward Fisher86 said:

Susan Price30 As specified by:
That’s just standard etiquette, really. If you disagree with someone, you should be able to dismantle their point using actual arguments right there in the discussion. You shouldn't be filing complaints against a Moderator just because someone holds an opinion you don't like; everyone has an absolute right to their own perspective. After all, isn't the whole purpose of this Forum to engage in debate and present different viewpoints through reasoned argument? That’s what it's meant to be, not the alternative.😉

It’s about... labeling The communists, the old-school intelligence agents, the Nostalgics, and all that other crowd.
On the topic/topics.

The latest news is that they're calling you a tax collector. 🤣 Seriously.

(I hadn't read your post yet, but now that I have) you also listed examples of criticizing someone's speech, opinions, or public stances (whether official or unofficial)—specifically regarding things said by the government, Minister Linić, and others.

An appeal is just an appeal—not my business, obviously, but since we're already in a dialogue...—that was the idea.😉

Does this forum, as a legal entity, hold the official position that the Democratic Party is trying to bring Communism back to America? Or is having such a view just a matter of political opinion? Would you all agree with me that these kinds of claims are just trolling? And if we agree it's trolling, then I think I'm asking a perfectly reasonable question: by what criteria did you decide that slybison8 has what it takes to be a Moderator?

That’s something that should be handled through arguments—either debunking or supporting them within the discussion itself—rather than filing a complaint against someone's work just because of their personal views and their absolute right to an opinion. Surely, the whole point of a forum is to debate and present different perspectives through reasoned arguments; it shouldn't be the exact opposite.😉

@ And just a quick note for Moderator Cuki from another thread, if possible: that topic wasn't closed "one hour and 45 minutes" ago like you claimed. It was actually only opened last night around 7 or 8 PM, so it was essentially closed for almost the entire afternoon during the heat of the debate. Basically, it stayed closed until someone noticed and a Moderator decided to step in. Just for the record.

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't really seem like much of an issue to me. Besides, everything involved is quite easy to see and verify...

Maybe the issue is that you simply don't. I see. What exactly is the issue here: your absolute lack of any right to censor, or just your sheer arrogance in trying to control the most trending topic on the busiest subforum?

The discussion proceeded without any major issues or excessive moderator intervention. There were hardly any bans issued over the last ten pages, which makes me wonder—given how abruptly everything was shut down—if the debate itself wasn't actually controversial, but rather something else entirely.

One has to question your ability to moderate, especially regarding something like the Politics PDF, given this isn't the first occurrence. Every time you've done this—locking up a heated topic for no reason—it ends up being reopened shortly after, if not the very same day. This suggests that your decisions in all these instances have been incorrect; at the very least, in this case, it feels like an exercise in pure ego rather than acting in the interest of the Forum or its users.

Do you really think the reason you gave for the shutdown still holds water?

And this was how it looked.

So much noise over a drunk arrest. Now even the President has to deal with some offended alcoholics. 1.33 BAC...
The link.

My exhausted response to that— You're right, there's really no point in even bringing it up, Lock!

Unseen!😁

First, they moved it to the Politics section and then locked it.

Classic.

So now we have to continue the discussion here.

It’s been moved a few times.🙂 It went from Close Politics to the main subforum, back to Close Politics, then back to the main one—or something like that (I'm honestly not sure if it was three times or even more over the last two days since people started talking about it).

And Charles Fox10 actually posted something this morning and then deleted it (I happened to be on the thread right at that moment, which is why it felt so strange)... there was a comment-warning on the thread that looked like they were going to lock it even earlier this morning.

(At least that's how it appeared to me—reading it as some kind of 'warning,' a comment or whatever that had nothing to do with the topic or the users, but rather felt like a news report about the whole situation—and the admins can see everything, obviously, what was deleted, what was written, etc.).

This has truly crossed the line. 🤷 He was told one last time not to lock threads for no reason, but apparently, forum members need to come to the site every single day to harass the admins over his mistakes, or perhaps because it looks like intentional mockery.

(Or maybe just making fools out of the admins through someone's sheer stubbornness, regardless of the reason).

Charles Fox10 said:Hold on a second. That guy was intoxicated, shouting, whistling, and being generally abusive. Why are we acting surprised that the police stepped in?

A 61-year-old man from Knoxville, Luke Kozin, was intoxicated this Monday in Knoxville, where he whistled at Zoran Milanović and hurled insults his way.

Of course they reacted, and of course he was detained. What else were they supposed to do? Take him out for coffee or send him to a spa until he sobers up?

According to some people, the police should have just looked the other way since he was drunk at a gathering—that would be "correct" behavior. But when an intoxicated individual is detained for disturbing the peace, suddenly it’s "wrongful conduct" ordered by those "higher up."

What fascinating theories we come up with.

Drunk individuals need to be removed from public spaces for everyone's safety.

Is it illegal to walk down the street or just stand there—to attend a public protest and whistle (or find any other legitimate way to dissent)—just because someone happens to be drunk? (Whether they are walking, standing in a crowd, whistling, or just fidgeting...)

Or is it only against the law to be intoxicated if you're operating a vehicle, since that clearly endangers your life and everyone around you?

Unfortunately, this topic hit its peak right as I was typing this reply, so I hope it's okay to ask here.

Link: Pay attention to the last few posts, for instance. Or the logic behind them... though it's easy to follow someone's logic, the real issue is that because of this kind of reasoning, someone might decide to lock the thread.

I don't know, but maybe Chuck should have been let go a long time ago. People were calling for his resignation on MK due to massive moderation failures, let alone errors in a much more serious document like Politics.

What kind of Moderator is this who calls other users' posts pathetic, miserable, cheap, and shameless demagoguery? Who labels America a totalitarian, despotic dictatorship? Someone who can't go one post without bringing up communism, neo-communism, or secret police tactics. Someone who uses their authority just to settle scores with anyone who disagrees.

A moderator with an opinion, maybe. 😁

I don't think having a right to a personal opinion (which would be even worse, obviously) defines whether a moderator is good or bad—I think you missed the mark there. A good mod should probably be someone who understands the essence of democracy, the spirit of debate, or where the line for free speech lies, and then actually implements that here.

And if anyone is actually grasping or practicing that in the Politics section, it’s still slybison8. By all accounts, PL is an above-average and fair moderator.

(Sorry to jump in, but what you wrote above just isn't true)

Alex Watson said:Look, maybe this administration isn't perfect.

But at least they don't go around handing out permanent bans just because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Especially when someone actually dares to criticize how they handle things.

If people were treating Nica and Strilet the way they used to treat the former admin... man, they would have been kicked off this site a long time ago.

You received a permanent ban because you were incredibly blunt and openly threatening the former admin and the then-moderator of the US forum—and everything else besides. If we are being honest, you should NEVER have had your ban lifted given the atrocities you wrote back then, which everyone can still see on the Archive if that thread hasn't been deleted yet. It sounded truly sick, and that is why you were permanently removed from the forum.

So... the question might actually be why you were unbanned, while someone like N'Dugi, a former mod, wasn't for something far less significant. Or someone who used to run an entire sub-forum alongside us, but has now dwindled to nothing (plus this new deleted our 'Miss Spirituality of the Year' thread after it had been active for months and N'dugi supported it 🤣 — unbelievable, though I suppose that's meant as a compliment). I wonder if it is because he didn't spend years begging and pestering the new administration to lift his permanent ban after being deliberately provoked on the Archive—he called a moderator a "slur" and that earned him an eternal ban, while certain sick threats from random users go unnoticed? Hallooo?

*I am horrified to think that a user like this can write here freely after everything. Honestly, if I were to ask the administration why, I would do it there. Forgive my intrusion, but for someone like this to come back and write something like this instead of apologizing to the super-mod and the former administration, if any exist, and covering their ears.

ambermason16 said:We've officially reached the stage where the "colleague" moderators are just trading jabs behind the scenes instead of keeping things professional here. Honestly, if any users actually had a question or an issue during these past few days, they would have voiced it.

But nobody dares to say a word, because the Executioner is just waiting for a chance to target his favorite colleague in such an inappropriate setting. He’d practically blow a fuse if he didn't take the opportunity to tear her down. Purely "collegial," of course.

Well, you folks on this sub-forum finally got what you wanted—you can finally feel that famous moderator vibe...

My poor, dear Forum... 🍿

Either he's making a joke out of this entire sub-forum and everyone in it—acting like some mod "nobody's ever heard of"—or he's just being disrespectful to those who actually put in the effort to moderate this place.😉

If only it were even remotely funny or charming, but alas...

It's just completely pointless...

Gary Diaz3 said:Why is there a "men's corner" being tolerated when most of those posts are just sexist and insulting toward women? In that section, it’s apparently okay to claim women are unintelligent or incompetent. What makes that specific sub-forum different, considering insults based on nationality, race, or gender are banned everywhere else on this site? If that exists, why couldn't we have a racist corner or a homophobic one too?

That sub-forum is just where the absolute best crowd hangs out.😁

A long, long time ago... even that pathetic LIES board was better—funnier than Benny Hill and crazier than Charlie Chaplin combined, all thanks to an incredible group of people posting every single day and tackling the weirdest topics imaginable lol. Even if the UN changes, what's actually left? 🤷

Just total grayness and misery... depressing.

Sam Green73 said:Cuka explained quite logically how there isn't actually a political issue at play here.
One simply needs to read with a bit of comprehension.

The whole thing might have gone differently if the opening post had been framed properly—you know, organized or restructured. Even though the music itself carries a political slant, it seems easier to just jump to conclusions like there's no tomorrow. 🙏

Maybe you’d prefer to check the admin guidelines before closing out on politics abstinence like this.

Since this also falls under Music, you’re more than welcome to post about it on the Music board instead. The last update there was just 15 days ago . Is it not as much fun to write there???

Is Thomson’s concert in San Francisco some sort of rebellion or protest against the celebration of joining the European Union in Washington, D.C.??????? It's quite interesting, but certainly not substantial enough for a thread on Politics why then topic.

If it doesn't belong in the main Politics subforum, why didn't you move the topic over to BP?

If it's connected in any way—or even if it isn't—to the current news everyone is buzzing about regarding RHe joining the European Union,

then it seems there's plenty of material for a debate right here.

And you're asking what connection Thomson's music has to politics? If a certain artist's music and lyrics contain an unambiguous political component, why do you think that is?

Perhaps you should be banned from closing any single thread on politics abstinence🙏 (or anyone else who constantly does the same) to prevent you from using such forceful and constant thread-closing to bully users here.

A competent or well-meaning moderator would consider that a absolute last resort, not their first or only option, as it appears to be for you.

FLOP

Larry Walker24 said:but there's already a thread about him over at ExxonMobil:

Is that even possible?😁 And it's still open and hasn't been locked yet.

Sean Cooper65 said:You ignored the rest of the post. Why then all this talk about Thompson in the Politics PDF, to the point where he's one of the most mentioned figures in the entire document? If that's the case, why aren't you moving topics regarding his taxes over to Economy or Law?

Transparent, through and through.

Depending on how the topic was framed, this could have been posted in the Politics subforum instead. They usually include much more trivial discussions there, which keeps the threads from being shut down so quickly.

But since some people here act like they're the moderators instead of... well, just being regular users. They start new threads to spark conversation, encouraging everyone on the forum to dive into deeper debates and discussions. It seems some people are making it their mission to shut down as many threads as possible in record time, effectively stifling any real discussion. It feels like a deliberate, conscious effort on their part.

If that's the case, you might as well just avoid that subforum altogether. 🤷 And that is exactly what I intend to do from here on out.

Could the original post not have been rephrased? Or perhaps the author could have been asked to align their wording with the specific theme of this subforum? Still, I suppose it's better to just draw a conclusion and leave it at that. Especially since everything else has been locked down, right?

It's truly unbelievable. And what's even more incredible is that they do this almost every single day, making it look like they actually care—even though some of them clearly have bad intentions rather than acting in the best interest of the forum members.

Even Nica and the other admins have been posting openly here on PZK for a long time now. Perhaps it’s just getting harder to find decent people willing to take on moderation duties these days—unlike back in the old days. So, I suppose this is what happens. People end up moderating for whatever reasons God sees fit.

Isn't locking a thread basically one of the most extreme ways to stifle free speech?

Then again, isn't the whole point of being a moderator to hand out warnings or kick trolls off a thread?

But you guys keep shutting down trending and controversial topics almost as if it were a hobby, and honestly, it feels totally unnecessary. If that isn't a blatant disregard for free expression, I don't know what is...

This new moderator doesn't seem fit for the job, unfortunately for everyone.

First, they shut down a thread in the Close Politics section for absolutely no reason at all.

Then, they closed the discussion regarding Mrs. Merkel's visit without any justification.

To top it off, yesterday they posted this on another thread:

right here

Instead of moving the thread over to the World News section—since the subject clearly doesn't belong in the main Politics forum (which I assume Ed did later once he saw it)

...they also failed to moderate or even react to people repeatedly posting links about news in California, the US. They ignored it across two or three different threads and the one regarding the referendum in America, yet they personally dropped a link/quote about US news here which had nothing to do with the actual topic. Meanwhile, another moderator stepped in shortly after to clean up that off-topic spin.

What is going on with this moderator, and who exactly appointed them to the Politics team? 🤷

hollowtrucker77 said:they act like little helpers if you belong to the group the moderation team considers their own.
if I report blatant lies and propaganda from northerntiger, nothing happens by some miracle, even when it's the kind of stuff Larry Walker24 would wear a gray suit for.

end signature.

She often starts a thread where the first post is just a pile of lies or an excerpt from a news article written by some journalist, and then the whole thread just serves that purpose. There's no call for discussion, and no indication of what the debate should even be about.

So, what does the topic boil down to? Just a mountain of lies followed by propaganda leaflets after propaganda leaflets from the author.

A recent example is this thread:

It starts with a lie in the opening post, followed by a bombardment of propaganda.😁 (who actually has the patience to follow that, specifically in this one thread?)

Henry Hernandez7 said:What's even the point of all this emotional venting on a thread that's honestly way too early anyway?

People just want to understand how upcoming legal shifts might change the rules of the subforum they hang out in.

And it’s not like any of this is happening overnight.

Anyway, gotta run.. catch ya later.