Posts by Austin Harris8

hiddenseal14 said:You are.

You relentlessly force your way into every single thread on PŽK instead of just sitting tight for a few months and requesting a partial refund, which is clearly what would suit you best.

It is truly a pity you don't grasp that, but you are the absolute last person who should be complaining about anything to rustydrifter10. The very last.
Because, if any other administration were in charge, you would have been banned ages ago. And that is not even mentioning your threats regarding the abuse department.

Just stop it already. For heaven's sake.

In any case, the idea behind a question for administration is actually quite brilliant in theory, but in practice, it obviously fails because there is far too much chatting and spamming allowed. But really, is that such an impossible problem to solve?

Look, I am asking you nicely to stop making these kinds of personal attacks against me. You are nowhere near being in a position to offer any kind of objective judgment regarding my specific situation. If you could actually strip away your own bias, you might be able to, but that would require you to drop your attitude first.

Once again, I am politely requesting that you cease addressing me in this manner. 🙂

hollowtrucker77 said:nico, you aren't exactly rock bottom
but honestly, it’s not even because you earned it, it’s just that the bottom moves further away the second you get close, because even the absolute lowest point knows better than to be seen associating with someone like you.

😬 🤣

I’ll say it again: once dissatisfaction and frustration with the moderation and administration reach a boiling point, the bubble bursts. That is exactly what happens here. Suddenly, individual grievances and personal complaints start bleeding into threads that are strictly meant for technical support—like the Support thread, which was locked specifically to prevent this exact mess.
It’s not just a couple of people acting out, either. It’s widespread, and frankly, it’s a symptomatic trend that will continue even in this extended version of the Support thread. I don't know exactly when it will happen again, but mark my words: as soon as the first signs of this behavior resurface, this thread will be locked too.

Why do people act this way? Why do they insist on dragging their personal drama into a space meant for technical troubleshooting? I can't say for sure, but I do know one thing: it certainly isn't happening because the administration is doing its job effectively and consistently.

rapidhawk22 said:I find myself in complete agreement with everything fadedsailor932 wrote.

In my view, rustydrifter10 lacks the fundamental competence required for anything beyond basic moderation. She simply isn't equipped to handle the inherent pressure of an administrative role; she fails to maintain any sense of objectivity, constantly shifting her stance whenever the wind changes direction. It’s impossible for her to make a firm decision and actually stick to it, which means she can't treat all the forum members with the consistency that such a decision demands. Her responses to posts are incredibly selective; she tends to ignore anyone offering actual substance, choosing instead to focus on trolls or jokes—even when those comments are directed at her personally—under the convenient excuse that, as an admin, she isn't obligated to engage.

As for the topic itself, if it were being moderated properly, it might actually yield something worthwhile. As it stands now, it’s better off being locked, because it’s doing nothing but generating an endless stream of garbage.

Hey, well you're actually the first mod to grow some balls and say what you really think instead of just hiding behind the administration and then turning around to defend that little inner circle of favorites. 🤣

Thanks for being you. 🙂

I’m not being annoying. 🤷

This isn't just about my specific topic; there are plenty of examples where evidence is clearly laid out, yet it gets completely ignored or dismissed. Every single time a similar thread pops up, people link back to previous posts as proof, and most of the time, those points are shot down through some quick procedural maneuver and closed out.
Even when a user filing a complaint is clearly in the right, the administration often resorts to rationalization. Knowing their decision isn't actually fair, they start hunting for excuses to justify their biased treatment of the user—essentially acting like "the user is always wrong," which is nothing new given how the admin team at PŽK has been operating lately 🤷—just to spin their own arbitrary behavior into something looking legitimate.

It's a shame. I used to stay away from PŽK entirely; wherever else I participated in discussions, I never had issues. Then the stuff with ŽK starts. I come over to PŽK, see that ŽK is the most talked-about thing here, and I think, well, that explains a lot. 🤷

P.S. You aren't exactly the gold standard for moderators either. I also post on the Soccer forum where you're a mod, and I see how much chat and off-topic nonsense is allowed (regularly permitted for the same group of troublemakers), yet that same leeway is granted to some and denied to others. At least you, as a mod over there, shouldn't be so loud about shoving this administrative-moderator brand of "justice" down users' throats. 🤷

P.P.S. I'm predicting this thread will be shut down shortly. Yeah, for the exact same reasons the "Questions" threads were closed. If you want to know why—why a thread meant strictly for technical questions directed at the admins often turns into a vent for personal grievances—it might be due to administrative oversight. It could be the result of accumulated frustration from users whose complaints are being ignored, causing them to voice their problems everywhere on PŽK, including the question for administration section. Though, I doubt that's the case. After all, the admins and mods are always right. Or maybe it's some kind of conspiracy against the administration. Who knows.

🤣

And then they try to play me for a fool, claiming I’m dragging my issues out on the PŽK everywhere I go. 🤣
I am not dragging anything out, especially since the administration doesn't give a damn about anything posted on the PŽK anyway. It doesn't matter if you provide clear, black-and-white evidence—like direct links proving moderation failures—it won't mean a thing to them. ☕

But hey, whether I'm the only one whose appeal gets shot down through the fast-track process or if there's an entire sea of people dealing with the same thing on the PŽK...

hollowmason64 said:Why don't you tell us how the former management would have handled things? Given how long you've been around here, I'm sure you know better than anyone. 🤣

I've never seen the community treated with such blatant disrespect. It feels like everyone's complaints and concerns are just being brushed aside—it's like everything we write here just gets dismissed without a second thought.

Exactly.

I mean, who’s actually losing their mind here? In my own thread regarding the double standards on the Women's Corner, I laid out clear evidence—links to posts where I was told why I shouldn't comment on women's bodies in the Men's Corner but should in the Women's Corner, and how the guys commenting on threads dominated by women are basically just aggressive trolls. It's blatant chauvinism/trolling that absolutely warrants a warning, yet rustydrifter10 just writes, "I don't see any reason for a warning here," and locks the whole thing down. 🤣
The fact that anyone reaching out to the main administration keeps getting shut down is obvious if you bother to look at the recent threads. There have been cases just like mine where people posted links proving they were being treated unfairly, and just like what happened to me, a few days pass and the thread gets locked with a standard message. Lately, it seems like the administration's default policy is: the average user is always wrong.

@rustydrifter10
With that kind of dictatorial approach, you're only going to fuel the fire. The resentment toward you isn't going to fade; it's going to grow. And we all know how dictators usually end up.

P.S. Don't take the part about how dictators end literally. 😉 We're well past the era of old-school revolutions and guillotines. 🤣 You'll keep your head on your shoulders, don't worry too much. 😁

Are any moderators from Zillow keeping an eye on this thread?

Given that last paragraph in this post I honestly feel like my partial ban should have been lifted way before those optional six months were up.
If anyone wants to argue for lifting it early, my entire track record on Reddit up to this point should be more than enough evidence.

It’s already been two months since the partial ban kicked in. Does a user like me—someone dealing with their very first partial ban, which, let’s be honest, wasn't even caused by anything I did intentionally—really have to sit through another six months of this?

Believe me, I am itching to get back into the discussions about beautiful women. Especially when it involves looking at photos. 😍

rustydrifter10 said:Austin Harris8, you received a Partial ban on Zillow after the rules regarding it were established.

The only rule we actually need concerning Partial bans is how they are issued and how one should behave while they are in effect. A Partial ban, acting as a ban, is indefinite—essentially permanent—so we don't need a rule about its duration because such a rule wouldn't make any sense. The decision to request the removal of a Partial ban after six months isn't a rule; it's just a guideline. For you, or any other user facing a Partial ban, moderators can tell you they’ll consider an appeal after two months or even a year. However, over time, six months has become established as the optimal window to ask, which is why it gets mentioned so often. But again, that’s not a rule, and we don't need a rule for it because, as I stated, a Partial ban is by its very nature a permanent sanction.

An indefinite Partial ban only has a legitimate basis if a Reddit user is constantly causing issues within a specific thread because they are fundamentally incapable of engaging in a normal discussion. However, when I receive a Partial ban, then start a thread on N/A, and then a neutral person (and this is crucial: someone who doesn't participate at all—doesn't even post in the threads where the conflicts occurred) writes this do you really think, in my specific case, that an indefinite Partial ban is still the answer based on the premise that I am incapable of having a normal conversation? Am I, judging by what she wrote, incapable of a normal discussion because of who I am, my character, or my personality? Or were there other reasons for my Partial ban prior to this? 😳

That is exactly what I was getting at when I suggested that a Partial ban shouldn't inherently be indefinite, and that this represents a certain "loophole" in the rules. There is a clear distinction between cases where a person is inherently unable to hold a normal discussion—resulting in a Partial ban—and cases where a person, due to other factors, subsequently fails to maintain a normal discussion in a specific thread and receives a Partial ban.
If we want to be fair and correct, these two groups of cases cannot be treated the same way, and that fact alone is the reason why a Partial ban shouldn't be indefinite in every possible scenario.

rustydrifter10 said:Whether a Partial ban is lifted depends primarily on the moderators of the specific thread the user is in, and it won't be removed unless all current moderators agree. There is no right to have a Partial ban removed; any potential lifting of it is a privilege.

So, even though I was on the Zillow threads—where the conflict with certain female users took place—and I was provoked in the manner that our fellow countrywoman noted, I quote:
The sheer volume of mindless, immature, offensive, and boring troll posts on this thread only becomes an issue when the moderators decide to play favorites—protecting certain users while punishing everyone else for the exact same behavior without actually grasping what’s happening here (if they even care to understand).
To be clear, I wasn't engaging in a "normal" debate because of outside circumstances, not because of who I am as a person. So now, I’m expected to be treated the same as someone who is inherently toxic and fundamentally incapable of having a civil conversation?

Basically, even though I'm not a problematic person by nature—this whole thing being a Partial result of specific circumstances—I'm supposed to just sit around for six months waiting for the moderators to feel merciful enough to lift my restriction?😕

As you can see, an indefinite Partial only makes sense if the user is inherently flawed. In cases like mine, it makes zero sense, because the root of the problem isn't me.

rustydrifter10, I really hope this Partial gets lifted based on principle. You can't treat me like someone who gets restricted because they have mental issues and can't hold a decent discussion. My situation is a product of circumstance, not a reflection of my character. I hope you can see that.

I’ve laid out my arguments multiple times now, so I’d highly recommend you go back and read this entire thread from the top if you want to keep up.

Ultimately, the whole reason I even started this discussion is because of the gaps in the rules—specifically the fact that we’re relying on these vague, unwritten guidelines based on the "goodwill" of the administration.
Anthony Jackson2 claims that keeping a Partial available for six months is just an act of "goodwill" from the admins. But if it’s truly just a matter of goodwill, why be so dogmatic about it? 🤷 The only justification for being that rigid would be if it were explicitly written in the official Reddit rules, which is what everyone loves to cite so much. If it's in the official rules, it applies to everyone equally. So, why isn't it there? Why isn't it stated that once a Partial expires, you can't automatically revert to the PDF and instead have to submit some formal request?
These are all significant flaws in how Partials are handled, yet you all seem to miss them—or maybe you just choose not to see them. And that's regardless of my specific situation. It's funny how quickly everyone jumps to "refer to the rules" when it suits them.

So, are users really expected to wait six months just to download a Partial based solely on the "goodwill" of the admins? On top of that, they have to file a request and then wait for every single moderator to agree? Honestly, why not just bake this into the actual rulebook? It wouldn't be a bad idea. 🤷
In my opinion, requiring a formal request after a Partial ends is absurd in its own right. Six months is more than enough time—if anything, it's far too long of a sentence for a user who actually wants to turn things around.

@rustydrifter10
You and the rest of the admin team should take this as a serious suggestion for expanding the current Partial regulations. Don't worry, I'm not asking for any compensation for the advice. 😁

Anthony Jackson2 said:Look, I’m perfectly fine with it if the partial stays permanent. Honestly, I don't see the issue.

Look, I’m going to be blunt: this just isn't right. Permanent bans should only ever be on the table if a user explicitly asks to have their entire account wiped from existence. If someone actually requests that their data be deleted, then yeah, a permanent ban makes total sense. In any other scenario? It’s completely unnecessary.
The rules really ought to be expanded. We need much more granular detail laid out clearly—specifically regarding exactly what constitutes a ban, how someone actually earns their way back onto the site once a restriction expires, and how long those bans are supposed to last. I genuinely hope you didn't intend for things to work this way, because treating partial bans like permanent bans—essentially just letting mods act on whim rather than policy—is a bad move for the health of Reddit.

Anthony Jackson2 said:It’s pretty straightforward. If the fine print says the rules are the same, then that’s that—it goes without saying. You don't need it spelled out explicitly.

I’ll list out everything that hasn't been touched by the partial rule, and you actually have the nerve to tell me that it's more than enough? 🙂

I’m not going to keep repeating myself here. Go back, look at the post above, and read it again—and honestly, read it a few more times if that's what it takes for you to actually get it.

Anthony Jackson2 said:You’re talking nonsense. If the rules were actually that comprehensive and covered every single possible scenario, there wouldn't be any need for admins to step in and intervene in the first place.

Look, let’s be real: you can’t write a rulebook that covers every single possible scenario. It’s impossible. The issue here is that the current guidelines regarding partial payments and bans are way too thin—they barely scratch the surface. I didn't just vent; I laid out specific facts to show exactly where these rules need to be expanded. If we actually beef up the documentation, we’ll see much less confusion among the Reddit community. Expanding the rules isn't about adding bureaucracy; it's about cutting down on the constant stream of repetitive questions about partials and bans that clutter everyone's feed.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Sure, an admin might let their own biases creep in, but once they make a call, that’s the law of the land. Unless the big boss himself decides to throw a tantrum and change things up, it’s unlikely he’ll go against the decisions made by the moderators he hand-picked to run this Reddit community.

I’m not looking for any kind of handouts or sympathy from anyone here, but I fully intend to keep calling you all out—with plenty of logic and solid arguments to back it up. If anything, this is actually a win, because it’s becoming pretty obvious to everyone on Reddit that there are some massive gaps in how this place is being moderated.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Honestly, this whole thing feels like a complete waste of time. If I weren't so bored right now, I wouldn't even be bothering to reply to you, because let’s be real—this isn't going to lead anywhere.

Oh, please. You’re only replying to me because you’ve got nothing better to do.🤣

Anthony Jackson2 said:It’s honestly pretty wild to watch how much you're willing to twist yourself into knots and flip-flop on everything just to get that partial payment removed—especially since you were the one demanding it only two months ago. But look, regardless of all the gymnastics you're performing, that partial isn't going anywhere. I'm almost certain of it, so you might as well stop wasting your breath. 🤷

I’m not doing this anymore because I’m getting rid of my partial investments; I’m doing it because of the principle of the thing. It’s exactly like why I started that whole thread on the Vanguard forums regarding partials in the first place—it was purely about standing my ground.

Look, I’m going to keep doing this—providing reasoned, well-supported arguments just for your entertainment. Honestly, it feels like a bit of a lost cause because it's always easier for people on Reddit to just point fingers at whoever is posting and call it a day. But hey, I don't mind. It’s actually worth it so everyone else can read along and see exactly what’s really going on here.

graniteridge6 said:The point is, it wasn't her alone who validated the value of the Vanguard discussions; plenty of Reddit users did that too. 🤣

And since you’re acting all high and mighty and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, let me give you an answer...

A person's entire character is defined by their body of work—their posts. Anyone who actually reads my stuff knows exactly what kind of contributor I am. If you want to compare me to Vanguard and use those same subjective reasons why she got banned—modesty aside—you absolutely can. Yeah, those exact same criticisms apply to me as well.

Regardless of this whole mess regarding the Partial, I'm talking specifically about the subjective reasons behind Vanguard's ban. Those same reasons definitely apply to me. Just read my history and you'll see exactly what I mean. 🙂

Anthony Jackson2 said:Look, let’s be logical here. If this were just some temporary fix, you’d see them pulling out of the situation automatically after a while. Since that isn't happening, it’s pretty obvious this isn't a short-term move. It's permanent.

Yeah, obviously. Is it even right—morally speaking—for a partial to just drag on indefinitely? Especially if someone went out of their way to request it in the first place for whatever reason they can come up with. It really makes you wonder.

Anthony Jackson2 said:It’s clearly laid out and more than thorough. Just because you’re trying to muddy the waters because certain facts don't suit your narrative doesn't mean the logic isn't sound.

Yeah, it’s all laid out in a single sentence:

Look, let’s get one thing straight about partial bans and temporary suspensions requested by users: they carry the exact same weight as any ban handed down directly by the admin team. There's no loophole here. If you're under a restriction, that means you're prohibited from using alt accounts to bypass it while the ban is active. Simple as that.

It’s honestly a bit ridiculous that the guidelines don't explicitly state you have to submit a formal request just to pull a partial file. You’d think it would be obvious, but apparently, you also need to make sure every single module within that specific PDF is bundled together correctly. Even if you were the one who requested the partial in the first place, you still have to go through the whole formal application process. It's a lot of extra paperwork for something that seems like it should be straightforward. 🤣You know, it’s funny—it doesn't explicitly state how long a partial remains active. Honestly, I’m pretty sure that six-month window is just a courtesy from the moderators. If they weren't being generous, you definitely wouldn't see every single partial PDF staying valid for half a year. 🤷Look, at the end of the day, just because there isn't a specific line in the rulebook covering this exact scenario doesn't mean it isn't important. Honestly, it’s not even that big of a deal.

Anthony Jackson2 said:You don't even need to worry about the rules here, especially since the admin already gave you the green light.

Alright, let’s circle back to this.

Austin Harris8 said:Look, when rules are clearly laid out, things run smoothly. But when they aren't—and I’m looking specifically at how we handle partial bans or temporary suspensions—it becomes a mess. Right now, those specific issues are barely even mentioned; we’re talking about a single sentence that covers everything. That leaves way too much room for an admin to just go by "gut feeling." In my book, having a massive gap filled by subjective judgment while the actual official rulebook remains vague isn't just bad practice—it's fundamentally flawed from the start.

Anthony Jackson2 said:He isn't saying anything because a Partial is effectively an unlimited ban anyway.

What kind of logic is that? Extreme logic? 🤷

Anthony Jackson2 said:The six-month thing is just the administration being generous.

The real issue here is that the rule regarding Partials isn't clearly defined, which leaves too much room for this kind of "generosity." Users have no way of knowing how these things work until they ask on N/A—and by then, they've already been hit with a Partial.

loneraven25 said:How hard can it be to understand when an admin writes:

If you're going to lean so heavily on the rulebook...

loneraven25 said:Given everything mentioned, I hope the request is handled in accordance with the Rules.

Where exactly in all of this:

You have the right to request that your Partial be lifted after six months; moderators may choose to accept or deny the request.

Is written in the rules? Maybe it is, but I haven't seen it... could you please provide a link? 🤷

Anthony Jackson2 said:You’ve got two problems on your hands.

Look, there isn’t a single rule stating that Percival won't be granted upon request; the rules specifically say that permanent bans aren't to be handed out. I was drawing a parallel between lifting a permanent ban and granting Percival—I wasn't talking about the refusal to provide them. We keep circling back to people twisting my words, and frankly, it's getting old.

Truth be told, I’m right there with you on this one. If you actually look at that specific line in the rules—the part about how Percival and temporary bans can be issued upon request—it basically admits the door is open for people to ask for them directly. It’s written right there in plain English.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Look, you got hit with a Percival. Because that’s how the new rules work now, you’re in the same boat as anyone else who gets flagged by a moderator—you've got to sit tight and wait out the six-month period before that mark is cleared from your record.

It’s nowhere to be found in the rules—not clearly, and certainly not concisely—that I’m supposed to sit around and wait six months. Yet, everyone keeps hiding behind the subreddit rules like they're some kind of holy scripture, acting all dogmatic about them. 🤷

I’ve been looking over the recent discussions on Reddit, and honestly, some of the takes I'm seeing are just baffling. There's a certain level of noise lately that feels less like actual analysis and more like people just shouting into the void to hear their own voices. It’s getting a bit tiresome to wade through the nonsense just to find one scrap of common sense. You see it all the time—people making these massive, sweeping declarations without a shred of evidence to back them up. They act like they've cracked the code, but in reality, they're just grasping at straws. It’s frustrating because it drowns out the people who actually know what they’re talking about. If we want any kind of meaningful discourse, we have to demand better than this superficial, reactionary clutter. We need substance, not just loud opinions designed to trigger an emotional response. kaže:
To be more precise, you have exactly six months to file the appeal.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: just because you're taking something off doesn't mean you have to strip it down to the studs. It’s a common misconception, and honestly, it's a mistake people make way too often. You can pull back a layer without completely dismantling the entire foundation. There's a massive difference between a strategic adjustment and a total teardown, and if you can't see that distinction, you're going to end up making a mess of things. 🤷

It doesn’t say anything in the rules about having to file a formal petition just to get my Percival status removed. Honestly, it’s a complete joke—considering I requested the Percival status myself in the first place, making me jump through hoops to undo it is pure absurdity. 🤷 🤣
And don't you dare try to pull that "I was already on my way to getting Percival" argument out of your hat, claiming I would have secured it eventually anyway. That’s a total non-starter. The bottom line here is that I requested Percival on my own terms, not because some moderators forced my hand. In this context, that distinction is everything.

What really adds to the sheer absurdity of this whole situation is the fact that, for all practical purposes, everyone... 😕 The mods really need to step up and figure out how to scrap Percival once and for all. Honestly, the way things are currently set up just makes it unnecessarily difficult for anyone who actually managed to land one.

So, here’s how it works: you request a Percival on your own terms, but then you’re stuck waiting six months before you can even submit an appeal to get it lifted. And even then? You’re basically at the mercy of whether every single moderator decides to get on board with your request. It feels like a massive bureaucratic headache. I honestly wish I hadn't ended up with a Percival in the first place, especially since I didn't exactly break any rules to get it—I asked for it myself. 🤣

loneraven25 said:Given everything I've laid out, I trust this request will be processed in full compliance with the Rules.

It’s truly heartwarming to see the moderator clique leaning so heavily on "official" forum rules. Honestly, you guys keep inadvertently siding with me without even realizing you're doing it.

When it comes to Partial bans and temporary suspensions, the forum rules address them in exactly one single sentence:
Partial bans and temporary suspensions issued upon request carry the same weight as those handed down by administration; specifically, posting via alt accounts during their duration is strictly prohibited.
Fine, everything will proceed according to the rules. I won't use alts while my partial is active. That is the only rule regarding partials and temporary bans that can be clearly derived from the text above. Just one single rule. 🤷

Since the forum rules don't actually specify anything concrete or clear regarding partials and temporary bans—aside from the fact that you can't use alts—we are left with nothing but arbitrary interpretations. It's quite interesting to see a moderator offering such a specific reading of the text.

Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial is essentially just a permaban applied to a specific PDF, so the rules apply identically to both.

Which is logically sound. Therefore, if that's the case, my situation and Black Velvet's situation should be viewed through the exact same lens. Which means:

Austin Harris8 said:a) If I received this partial before the new rule was implemented—meaning I am effectively in the same position Black Velvet was—I expect, in the spirit of fair moderation, to be treated exactly as she was.
b) If I received this partial after the implementation of the new rule regarding the refusal/removal of permissions—specifically a partial requested by the user—then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. This represents a massive oversight by the NAACP moderation team (which I assume was unintentional) and therefore needs to be unconditionally revoked.

There is a basis for removing the partial in both scenarios. 🤷 In option B, I could even go as far as demanding an apology from the NAACP moderation team.

I have dismantled your arguments here. Because the rules are so poorly defined, I simply followed logic (what else was there to 🤷?) and pointed out how vague the regulations are concerning partials and short-term bans. Instead of actually upgrading the rules so users know exactly where they stand—rather than being forced to rely on the arbitrary whims and subjective judgments of mods and admins—you decide to reward my reasoning by stripping my partial.😂, this is exactly how you people operate. 🙂 🤣

I can hold out for another four or five months—however long it takes until I can officially petition to have my Partial lifted—but honestly, I’m just glad the Reddit community gets to see this. Now everyone can see exactly how things actually work when it comes to Partials and bans and how the moderation is handled.
The "moderation" here is basically 90% arbitrary interpretations and subjective whims from the admin team, while only about 10% is actually written down in the rules. Where in the official rules does it state that you can request to have a Partial removed? Where does it say a Partial lasts for six months? How are users supposed to know that? 🤷 The only thing users can rely on in the rules is that during a Partial or a ban, using clone accounts is strictly prohibited. Everything else regarding Partials and bans is just subject to whatever random interpretation, individual logic, or gut feeling a specific moderator or admin decides to apply.

There is, technically, an unwritten rule that you can ask to lift a Partial after six months have passed, provided all the mods agree on it. But if you want to be taken seriously as a legitimate forum, you need to actually put that in the written rules. 🤷 Right now, it’s just some vague, unwritten guideline that carries zero weight. Especially considering how much you all love to hide behind "official policy" and the rulebook. 🤷

Anthony Jackson2 said:Admins basically operate above the rules here; if they make a call, you’re pretty much stuck dealing with whatever they decide.

That kind of logic only holds up when the rulebook is actually solid. But when things are vague—like how the Partial rules or temporary bans are handled, where the official policy is barely more than a single sentence—you end up with massive amounts of room for an admin to just wing it based on their own mood. Honestly, having a huge amount of leeway for subjective judgment while the actual formal rules stay this thin isn't a good look, period.

jadesailor said:Why on earth would anyone go looking for a Partial on their own? Are you seriously being that dense? It’s not rocket science—just don't type directly onto the PDF. 😕

🤣

It's a long story... 😁

loneraven25 said:Look, there’s really no need to go around trolling the thread just to pick a fight with another user.
Because you two aren't even playing the same game.

If that’s how things stand...

Austin Harris8 said:If you base your entire understanding on what loneraven25 wrote, then the rule regarding partial bans and temporary suspensions is incredibly vague and poorly defined. In this specific sentence:
Look, let’s get one thing straight regarding partial bans and temporary suspensions requested by users: they carry the exact same weight as any disciplinary action handed down by the administration. There’s no loophole here. If you're under a ban, that means you're out. Attempting to bypass the restriction by posting from an alt account is strictly prohibited while the ban is active. Period.
It’s actually pretty straightforward: the rule is simply that you aren't allowed to post using clone accounts while a Partial is underway. That’s really all there is to it. 🤷

So, let me get this straight—are partial bans or temporary suspensions only covered in the rules by that one single, solitary sentence? Is there actually anything written in the guidelines regarding requesting to have a partial ban lifted, or even how long these things are supposed to last? 🤷

And especially when you get an answer like that from a moderator.

Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial ban isn't actually any different from being permanently banned from a specific PDF; at the end of the day, you're playing by the exact same set of rules regardless.

Give me a break—how on earth can anyone claim we aren't on the exact same level?! 😕 🤷

Do you actually get the logic I’m operating under here? Like, do you truly grasp the reasoning that forces my hand, especially when the subreddit rules are so incredibly vague about things like partial bans or temporary suspensions?

loneraven25 said:There might not be. You were right on the verge of getting a Partial.
What was assigned to you on May 8th, 2013? 09:24 Upon personal request,
And you’re stuck dealing with that same old routine all over again today. 23:37 I’m starting a new thread here to get everyone's thoughts on Partial. What's the consensus? 🤔

Look, at the end of the day, it was about the principle of the thing. Honestly, just let it go now. Anyway,

loneraven25 said:Then the admin just drops this line on you, claiming they’re going to "take it under consideration" after six months. It's such a classic stalling tactic.
And here you go again, tripping over your own feet and trying to force your weird little interpretation of the Rules on everyone else. 😲

What kind of "rules" are we even talking about when there aren't any rules to begin with? It’s honestly wild how people try to impose structure on total chaos. 🤣

Give me the answers to this.

Austin Harris8 said:Where exactly does that fall under the Reddit rules? Clear and concise. Period. Can you actually request to have a partial removed on your own accord? And honestly, can you even ask for that?

Where exactly is that located in the subreddit rules? Clear and concise. Straight to the point. So, let me get this straight—to pull a Partial, you actually need to get the green light from every single moderator listed on that specific PDF? That sounds like a massive headache. And then there's the whole "what else do we need" argument.

Where exactly does that fall under the Reddit rules? Clear and concise. How long does a partial usually take to wrap up? First, I was told by the mods that this would take six months. Now, Anthony Jackson2 is telling me I need to get the "green light" from the moderation team, yet he won't say a single word about a timeline. It’s incredibly frustrating.😕

Where exactly are we supposed to find the rules for this on Reddit? Honestly, I feel like they’ve just completely vanished into thin air. 🤷

🤷

Since none of what was written actually follows the official Reddit rules, I’m left with no choice but to rely on pure logic. And logic dictates that a partial ban on a specific PDF is functionally the exact same thing. If we're treating them as identical, then we're back down to the two options I laid out earlier—and in both scenarios...

Austin Harris8 said:a) If I received this prior to the new rule change—meaning, if I’m effectively in the same boat as Black Velvet was—then in the interest of fair and consistent moderation, I expect the same treatment she received.
b) On the other hand, if this permanent ban was handed down after the new policy regarding requesting or removing one's own permissions went into effect, then this shouldn't have happened at all. It represents a massive oversight by the NAACP moderation team (which I assume was unintentional), and as such, the permanent ban needs to be wiped from the record immediately.

There is a legitimate basis here for lifting the Partial status. Especially under option B.

Look, we shouldn't be treating moderation like some kind of rigid dogma. If you want proof that things should be handled with more nuance, just look at the Black Velvet situation and why that ban was eventually lifted. I’m talking about the specific reasons—the ones involving subjective judgment—that aren't explicitly laid out in a rulebook.

When you consider my entire history here on Reddit, specifically the final paragraph of this post View on reddit, the fact that our community guidelines don't explicitly state that a Partial suspension lasts for six months, and the overarching point that moderators shouldn't be acting like zealots...
Given all of that, I’m hoping my Partial suspension from the UN will be lifted.

loneraven25 said:By approaching the debate this way, you’re actually helping make the case for lifting that Partial ban through logic and common sense.
Look, you don't need to worry about what comes after the initial six months. Those subsequent phases aren't even worth your headspace right now. Just let them be.

Austin Harris8 said:Sure, they get to make the final call, but that doesn't mean they have any obligation to actually look back at their own moderation choices—especially after the point I made in that post I linked.

The same goes for Nica. If she actually has the stomach to go back and read through those few threads on the UN where I ended up in some heated debates, she’ll see the pattern. It’s always the same small circle of women constantly clashing. And honestly, if you look closely, there are maybe two posts from any given person that actually carry weight. 🤣 The "other side" is getting totally dismissed, while my kid—who was doing basically the exact same work we were—is being treated like a complete amateur. It’s ridiculous. Even this one bystander, someone who wasn't even part of those specific debates and was just quietly observing everything from the sidelines, noticed the discrepancy. And she's smart enough to see exactly what's happening here.

I’ll say it again: the same logic applies to Nica, too. There’s a chance she might actually change her mind once she digs into those controversial threads. Then again, maybe they're just shouting into the void. 🤷