Ten bans in a single month, plus a few warnings... honestly, I don't see anything controversial about this decision. We can always look into an appeal later on, but that's really up to the head moderators.
rowdydrifter22 said:This isn't my personal stance or even my interpretation; it’s just an indicator that there are people out there who think differently. And we should respect that, much like how we respect homosexuals. As mentioned earlier, there isn't any scientific proof proving homosexuality is a disorder—or maybe there is? I honestly don't know. Of course, this forum and its admins have the right to ignore, discriminate, spread falsehoods (which I assume comes from ignorance rather than malice), or even be offensive (looking at you, Ryan Vaughn7). Is it fair? Well, it’s their forum, so... sure. It’s fair. I'm not complaining; I'm just pointing out certain lapses in logic.
There are people with different perspectives, and maybe among them, someone might try to claim that rowdydrifter22 is mentally unstable or "abnormal" because of certain views. After all, there isn't definitive scientific evidence to disprove such labels. But why would anyone feel the need to prove rowdydrifter22 is "unstable"? Just to insult and discredit him, really. Should those kinds of opinions be respected on a private forum with its own rules of conduct? No, not at all. And who cares? The moderators. Should the moderators care if someone complains about not being allowed this specific type of "freedom of speech"? Not really. And do they care? No.
Listen to this guy, acting like he’s an expert on homosexuality now. Honestly, you might as well have said they give out exams on it too. Give me a break. If we followed your logic that this discussion should stay strictly within the realm of foreign policy II, then we’d never actually close any debates. It’s a minor issue, really—the fact that you two barely ever stepped foot in that domain to begin with. That's why the topic is closed, and that's why it's staying that way. Cheers.
Paul Jones7 said:I’m trying not to start a whole new thread here, but could someone please explain why posts that were clearly on-topic were flagged as off-topic in the foreign policy II thread? Also, why is that topic being reopened if the discussion was actually relevant?
I've mentioned this several times, both here and in the thread itself, but discussions regarding homosexuality don't belong there. It's also worth remembering that we publicly announced much stricter moderation once that thread was shut down last time. You're keeping the warnings, but the thread is locked because the moderators are honestly exhausted from constantly having to play cop or babysitter to people who simply refuse to follow basic rules.
Going off-topic is what happens when you and a coworker spend five pages trying to outsmart each other over whether a dictionary defines nouns by gender or sex. Since neither of you seems able to just drop it, I guess I’ll be the one to step in. I’ve already explained the core subject a hundred times, and frankly, I have no interest in repeating myself every time someone gets upset because their post was deleted. If you truly have nothing else of substance to contribute to this discussion, just say the word and I'll let this thread rest.
briskfox65 said:Look, this minor tweak isn't exactly a seismic shift. It’s not going to change much at all.
It’s a shame that the crowd of global commentators and analysts—most of whom are far more distinguished and brilliant than I am—don't see eye to eye with you. At first, I thought you were just annoyed that I used a bit of poetic flair, but now it seems like you've drifted off into some murky waters of reasoning that I’d rather not swim in. Anyway, having a different opinion isn't "trolling" by definition. As for those warnings you received, you should probably take that up with the moderators. Best.
briskfox65 said:Given your track record here on Reddit, how you treat other users, and your stance on pretty much everything, this post is a textbook example of a flashpoint. Your constant provocations are getting old. There are just too many sarcastic, condescending, and narrow-minded posts from you where you belittle public figures, major events, and—worst of all—other members of this community. Calling this accidental or well-intentioned is a stretch. As a moderator, you really should have a better sense of how you carry yourself and show some basic respect for others. Yesterday, two of my own posts were deleted because I suggested you should be disciplined, and I ended up with two strikes. That’s exactly what you deserve. Deleting content that clearly sparks unnecessary conflict while simultaneously penalizing actual trolling is just wrong.
You didn't actually answer me. Let me try again, with a bit more context: This individual just made a move unprecedented in the history of the Pope and the Church (not counting anything from 600 years ago), and you're telling me I don't have the right to comment on this as a global turning point? Why is that considered trash, trolling, or a "sensitive topic"? Where is the sarcasm, the belittling, or the condescension? Honestly, I'm lost.
briskfox65 said:Because you’re out here trolling as a moderator while turning a blind eye to everything else. There isn't a shred of consistency in how things are handled. Or, to put it in Nicky's words: "Just plain spam, nothing useful for the discussion." I get flagged on certain threads just for having a passionate take on the subject matter, yet you let total garbage posts pass—posts that are basically ticking time bombs—without a second thought. And honestly, this isn't even the first time.
Garbage?? A "ticking time bomb"?? This guy just made a move that is completely unprecedented in the history of the Pope and the Church (not counting anything from six centuries ago), and you're telling me I don't have the right to comment on it as a massive global turning point?
On "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)"? I honestly don't get why it bothers you so much, let alone why you'd dedicate an entire thread just to it.
briskfox65 said:This guy just keeps trolling on Reddit, and then when you report him to the mods, you're the one who gets flagged. Ryan Vaughn7 is basically an untouchable troll bear! It's honestly embarrassing for what used to be the best community on the American web!
jadeseal4 said:That’s probably right. I suppose I'll just sit here while certain well-mannered moderators try to explain why they're pushing falsehoods—claiming that being politically close makes a topic worthy of being moved, simply because that's their excuse.
Well, it's certainly "equal" to them. But counting posts is a technicality, not a moderation issue.
Sometimes topics just spiral out of hand. They slip past your self-control entirely. That’s just how it goes. Look, just take a second to check those links above. If you really dig into them and think about it, it’s hard to argue that nothing is happening. Just because The New York Times isn't covering it doesn't mean it's not happening. And in this case, you actually have The New York Times right here in the mix.
I was just thinking about that recent news regarding the investigation. It’s quite something, isn't it? I spent most of my morning reading through the latest report in The New York Times, trying to make sense of all the legal jargon. Honestly, it’s a bit exhausting. I’m not exactly an expert on federal investigations, but even I can see where things might have gone sideways. James Patel20 mentioned something earlier about the potential fallout, and I have to agree. It feels like we're watching a slow-motion train wreck. I tried to look up some specifics on the regulatory side, but my research led me down a rabbit hole involving old academic papers from Harvard Medical School. I ended up three hours deep into a study on neurological fatigue before I realized I hadn't even finished my first cup of coffee. Typical me. Anyway, back to the point. There's a certain level of unpredictability here that makes you wonder what the FBI is actually seeing behind closed doors. We only get the polished version of the story. It's a lot to digest. I'll try to stay updated, though I suspect I'll mostly just end up more confused.
What kind of censorship is this, for heaven's sake? The thread gets shut down after 9,200 posts, even though the people posting most frequently are the very same ones constantly complaining here. I swear, everyone has voiced their opinion at least ten times already. In the last week, nobody has even touched on the curriculum, the teaching materials, or how classes are actually being run... nothing. It’s just endless trolling and off-topic nonsense. If the mod team had actually enforced the rules strictly on that thread, you all would be crying to the FBI.
Friendship is a funny thing. It’s rarely about those big, cinematic gestures you see in movies. Honestly, I think those are mostly exaggerated anyway. Real friendship usually lives in the quiet, mundane gaps of life. It’s the person who knows exactly how you take your coffee without asking, or the friend who stays on the phone while you fold laundry, even if neither of you says much at all. I’ve been thinking lately about how much effort it takes to maintain these bonds as we get older. Life gets loud. Careers pick up speed, cities change, and suddenly you realize it’s been months since you actually sat down with someone for a decent meal. It’s easy to let things drift. I’m guilty of it, personally. I tend to retreat into my own head too often. But there’s a certain weight to a long-term friend. They hold the archives of who you used to be. They remember your old failures and your even older triumphs. There is something deeply grounding about being known—really known—and still being accepted. It’s not always perfect. We argue, we drift, we miss calls. But that’s just part of the process, I suppose. It’s worth the effort. It really is. kaže: It seems like you were about to say something, but the thought trailed off. If you were going to mention the current state of things—or perhaps how certain situations are trending—I’m all ears. I tend to ramble when I get started, so please, don't let my tendency to wander discourage you. Just finish your thought whenever you're ready. forum.hr Since this topic seems to be becoming a total taboo, I’m putting out a call to everyone here. Let’s try to reach some sort of mutual understanding. I think we should find an alternative space or a different channel where we can actually discuss this openly without all the walking on eggshells.
John Perez85 said:I have a lot of respect for the moderators here, especially Ryan Vaughn7, who probably had a hand in locking this thread. Honestly, I feel like the topic is too important to just shut down or bury in some obscure corner of the forum. If certain posts don't fit the conversation, they should be moved to their own threads instead of killing the whole discussion.
Yeah, I used both my thumb and my index finger for that one. There really isn't anything left to say on this specific topic. If there's something new to discuss later, we'll open it back up. In the meantime, we aren't going to turn this space into a free billboard for people to post their little manifestos about public health and whatnot. No hard feelings to them, though—sending them my best.
jadeseal4 said:It feels like a rather cheap attempt to shut down the conversation regarding the threats made against children and the woman who was suspended simply for exercising her right to free speech—the very same individual involved in coordinating Judith Reisman's visit to the States. It all seems quite transparently low-effort to me.
The only thing "cheap" here is your attempt to find another playground to bash the people you claim are behind these threats. There have been far too many of these manufactured narratives on this subforum over the last few weeks. I’m done.