Benjamin Reyes52 said:Why on earth aren't the users in the politics section allowed to elect at least one moderator? Just one single, solitary moderator.
This whole setup is completely nonsensical. We have a community of people who drive the traffic, keep the discussions lively, and essentially generate the revenue through their engagement. And yet, we aren't even granted the democratic right to choose just one representative to moderate our space?
Honestly, this blatant bias is starting to get under my skin. It used to be that they at least attempted to mask it, sugarcoat it, or pretend it didn't exist. But now? Now they’re just openly mocking the political sub-community.
I am 100% behind your suggestion!👍
They appoint moderators who haven't even dropped ten posts in the politics section, and then we wonder why the moderation sucks.
lonebadger6 said:@Drew Brooks8 6,634 comments, yet there were only 230 today. A discussion completely suffocated... By the way, if you actually have grievances, you handle them by providing links and examples of what you consider "pointless and unfair," rather than just making sweeping, baseless claims—that’s how you follow the rules on this sub...
So now I'm supposed to go hunting for archived or deleted posts just to provide an "argumentative" example? Am I really expected to prove myself to you?😵 Look, you haven't managed to suffocate us yet—if that makes you feel good—but you've definitely gone overboard with the bans and deletions. It’s too much. I've seen enough. And clearly, I'm not the only one seeing the posts Bradley Sanders4 has been banning. Honestly, I haven't even noticed you around; you don't post about politics or moderate anything. You probably just drifted over from some other subforum.
Look, everyone here complaining about how certain mods handle things—most of us have been on this forum for years. Do you honestly think we can't tell the difference between actual trolling, hate speech, and everything else? Like, do you really think we don't know what good moderation looks like versus bad?
Don't insult our intelligence. Maybe we aren't right 100% of the time, but when certain moderators shut down a perfectly fine debate with random, unfair bans? Yeah, they definitely did that.
Charles Fox10 said:We aren't the ones writing these things; we're the ones moderating. We don't act superior or goad people into posting hateful content just to flag them.
William Kim9, the answer is in these posts
Personally, I don't have an issue with you, nor with unknown, rowdytiger13, or DJTcro. No problem there. You guys need to moderate hate speech—absolutely. The problem is that Bradley Sanders4 just can't seem to recognize what actually counts.
I’m jumping on the bandwagon here—this shouldn't be called a complaint about the immigration thread; it should be a formal complaint regarding how Bradley Sanders4 is moderating it.
Honestly, I haven't seen political thread moderation this disastrous since I first joined this forum.
We’ve already got several solid, long-time members getting banned. Now, I'll leave it to the admins to decide if losing veteran users just because Bradley Sanders4 can't handle differing opinions or wants to play fast-and-loose with the rules is actually worth it.
The bottom line? It's a mess. Every decent discussion gets killed off by bans triggered by accusations of xenophobia or hate speech, along with constant post deletions and all that nonsense.
Daniel Cooper40 said:The Mexicans basically handed them the game on a silver platter. Their keepers were useless—couldn't save a thing—and they blew wide-open shots and penalties left and right. Honestly, finishing within two points is a miracle for them given how badly they played. As for Canada, they're headed straight for elimination once the French show up, especially if the Mexicans are playing at half strength.
Nine breakaway chances and four penalties. It’s a damn miracle it wasn't a blowout by ten points.😵
George Ward7 said:I agree, but there's a big difference between hoping for a win and spending days acting all arrogant, typing away about how you're definitely going to crush us or how your national team is top-tier compared to ours. In reality, maybe only Kirk could actually break into our roster.
We were shaky, sure, but we pretty much controlled the tempo of the whole game. You managed to pull ahead slightly at the start, but we shut that down pretty quickly.
By halftime, it was already obvious we’d take this despite playing poorly, because you guys have some glaring issues. You're getting old, and your bench depth is non-existent...
We're elite, and you know it—world-class stuff. But we aren't perfect either; we have our own baggage, from a coach who relies way too heavily on "Plan A" and leaves us stranded when things go south, to Alilovic choking in big moments, and just generally sloppy defense...
I think you're wrong about people being arrogant and claiming they'll beat you. At least not on this forum; even our own commentators were predicting a loss. Anyway, looking at our national squad, we really need to pull in some kids from Metallurg and Vardar. Our club scene is solid right now, and once this current group moves on, we'll have a great young core ready to go. Lin has built a hell of a generation for us!
George Ward7 said:Look, I'm not talking down to you. Before our game, your fans were all over the forums acting like you guys were some global superpower, like it wouldn't even be a shock if you beat us.
We’re a solid team, sure, but honestly? I don't see us walking away with a medal at this tournament.
Look, everyone's entitled to have hope and play to win, no matter how much they're underdogs...
But let's be real—it's not like you crushed us by some massive margin. Especially since our goalie didn't have to make a single save in the second half. If he actually had to step up, we might have actually pulled off an upset against you.🙂
George Ward7 said:Let's be real—we were absolute trash in the first half. We were down 9-5, just completely falling apart. But honestly? It doesn't even matter how bad we played early on, because we still walked away with the win.
We aren't exactly playing anything special here. We're basically just riding on pure momentum at this point. The coach is a mess, and honestly, I feel like we could stumble our way right into the quarterfinals if we're lucky—but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Against North Mexico, we’re still lightyears ahead.
Where exactly did I say you weren't? And honestly, why the attitude? You're talking down to me like you've already won a World Series title or something.☕ Whatever. Good luck to the Canadians, I guess. Our guys didn't deserve to move on anyway—it was a deserved loss.
George Ward7 said:If we played ten games, maybe we’d scrape together one win, but who knows?
Look, let's dial back the ego a bit. The first half was honestly pathetic. Once you run into a team actually better than us, it's over. To be fair, even this performance hasn't been anything to write home about.🙂
It’s honestly a miracle we aren't losing by five. No defense, zero presence in goal, Kiro is totally lost, and everyone else is just as bad. 🤦 This team doesn't deserve to move on. Congrats to Canada, they earned it.
Susan Lee said:What was so sneaky about it? They weren't swearing, they weren't insulting anyone, and they didn't make threats. They just told the Scots that things wouldn't go well for them if they left and advised them to stay put. And they stayed—mostly because those guys were being polite.
Spaniards are just blunt, whether it's with the Catalans or anyone else. It’s gonna come back to bite them one day.
That’s exactly the point—they used psychological warfare by implying things would go south for them.🙄 You call that anything other than underhanded? Doesn't matter. Honestly, I have more respect for a blunt, firm "NO" from the Spaniards than that subtle English persuasion and all that hidden pressure to stick by their side...
The English pulled the same stunt, just in a way that’s more underhanded, maybe even more cunning. At least the Spaniards have the decency to look you in the eye and say NO! 🤷
A referendum? What a joke,🤷 it’s either not going to happen at all, or if it does, it won't change a single damn thing. People are just wasting their breath hoping for a miracle!
Well, here we go again. Another identical thread has been opened.👍
And look, moderator Robert Hall7, maybe try actually reading what people are saying and using some common sense before you decide to shut down a thread next time!
Honestly, this whole topic can be locked right now.
Robert Hall7 said:Sure, but I really don't have the energy to debate male vulnerability with you all. I messed up by posting this in the women's corner. Go over to the politics section and write there; stop whining. It’s not like you wrote a doctoral dissertation—it was just a standard post. I'm going to go read some news where things actually happen. We don't spend twenty-four hours a day on this forum, you know. Male vulnerability? Please. My situation is anything but vulnerable. Just like most men out there.
That is such a rude response!
I haven't even replied to you yet, and you're already accusing me of whining? I'm not whining, I'm asking a question that you clearly aren't capable of answering.
The question was pretty straightforward for anyone who actually understands how these forums work. If there are a million threads about feminism in the politics section, then a thread like this should exist too.
William Clark86 said:There’s already plenty written about feminism, so this topic feels redundant. Though I agree that some kind of movement is needed—not necessarily for "rights," but to ensure men actually stay men, because the Western man is becoming increasingly feminized. The average European and American guy is now catching up to women when it comes to manicures, pedicures, Botox, and fillers; they even know all the actors from Sex and the City by heart. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer men actually know how to change a lightbulb or swap out a tire. Not really the point, but: Last summer near Lourdes, a group of Americans spotted a snake by the side of the road. We grew up catching those things with our bare hands and scaring the old folks, but these guys were screaming like twelve-year-old girls. One of them even started crying. And they were somewhere between 25 and 40 years old.🙄
But no, it’s not the same thing, and there was no reason to delete it. If you're going to leave a "feminism" thread up where the opening post claims feminism is a hate movement, then why was my thread wiped? My post wasn't about masculinity, and I want an explanation for why it was removed. Saying it belongs in the feminism discussion isn't a good enough answer, because that's not where this conversation belongs. The movement is already out there, and I don't see any reason why we can't talk about it!