Anthony Jackson2 said:It’s not even about whether any of this matters in the grand scheme of things, because at the end of the day, the mods are the ones calling all the shots anyway.
Sure, they make the call, but that doesn't mean they can actually challenge their own moderation decisions—especially after that post I linked.
graniteridge6 said:Look, the bottom line is this: the real value added to the Black Velvet discussions didn't come from the platform itself, but from the massive turnout of contributors on Reddit. It was the people, not the site, that made it happen. 🤣
They’ve got me backed up against the wall here, and I am fighting back with absolutely everything I’ve got. 🤣 It’s not like I’m refusing to pull my weight when it comes to the fund. 🙂
And honestly, you shouldn't just be giving a reason to yourself—you need to give the UN mods a legitimate reason why this stuff should be taken down too.
😉
When I actually stop to look at it, over the last month or two, there’s been a constant stream of complaints about the NAACP moderation. It’s happening way more frequently there than in any other threads. Hmm... that says something, doesn't it? 🤷
P.S. Boss, you really ought to be given a moderator role over at the NAACP, considering how much you stick up for them. You're all over this thread and that other one started by kiss me. You're quick on your feet, I'll give you that. 😂
Let’s not play games here. I didn't twist your words, and anyone with an IQ 100 or higher can see exactly what my point was. It’s pure logic.
Sure, the mods have the power to deny my partial ban appeal, but they also have the option to approve it. And why would they approve it? Well, modesty aside, I consider myself a high-quality contributor to this Reddit community, and I bring real substance to the discussions I join. I even contributed to those threads over on r/pics (though I'm not sure how one "contributes" to a thread dedicated to photos of women, other than by trying to post as many pictures as possible 🤣). Contributing to the discourse was actually one of my arguments in favor of VB. As for her, I don't see any other strong argument for lifting her permanent ban—not that I wasn't also in favor of lifting it back then; you can find my old post on the subject . The fact remains that the logical arguments I've laid out here serve as additional weight in favor of lifting my partial ban.
I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I honestly feel like I need to get it off my chest. There’s a certain level of noise lately that I just can't stand, and frankly, it feels like we're missing the point entirely. We spend so much time circling the drain on these minor details that we completely overlook the actual core of the issue. It’s frustrating, really. You see people jumping to conclusions without even looking at the data, acting like their gut feeling is some kind of substitute for actual logic. It isn't. It’s one of those things where if you just took a second to step back and look at the big picture, everything would be obvious. But instead, we get caught up in these endless, circular debates that go absolutely nowhere. It’s exhausting to watch. We need to start holding ourselves to a higher standard of reasoning if we want to actually make any progress. Otherwise, we're just shouting into the void, and quite frankly, it's a waste of everyone's time. kaže: Look, I’ve got nothing against you downloading whatever you want, but I have to jump in here. VB didn't lose her permanent status based solely on the reasons you're laying out. Or, at the very least, that wasn't the only factor involved. The admins haven't made any official statement claiming that was the specific reason they decided to strip her of her perm. 😉
Look, let’s be real here... if we start making special exceptions for everyone, we might as well just give in to every single person who asks. There's always going to be someone out there looking for a handout or a custom deal, and if we start playing that game, there's no end in sight. 😉
The rules regarding how bans are lifted need to be crystal clear. Right now, there’s a massive gray area in the guidelines—specifically when it comes to partial bans versus temporary ones. As it stands, the policy doesn't explicitly define what happens during a partial ban, which is exactly where my situation falls through the cracks. If we're being logical, a partial ban should essentially be treated as a permanent ban from a specific PDF. That’s just common sense, and frankly, that logic should apply to both of these scenarios.
Austin Harris8 said:Look, if I managed to secure this before the new rule was even drafted—meaning I’m essentially in the exact same boat that Velvet Black was in—then I expect the moderation team to play fair. In the spirit of being consistent and reasonable, the same logic applied to her should absolutely apply to me. Look, if I got hit with a permanent ban right after they rolled out that new rule about not requesting or transferring permissions to yourself, then the whole thing is fundamentally flawed. We’re talking about a massive oversight on the part of the ZKa moderation team—which, hopefully, was just an honest mistake rather than intentional—but either way, it's a mess. Because of that lapse, this permaban needs to be wiped from the record immediately. No questions asked.
There’s actually a solid basis here for pulling a partial.
Based on everything I’ve laid out here, I expect a partial ban on ZK. After all the arguments I've presented, anything less than that would call the entire moderation team's competence into question—and I don't just mean on ZK, but across all of Reddit as well.
Look, I honestly couldn't care less if the rules are vague or poorly defined. That’s just noise to me. Anthony Jackson2, thanks for the heads-up. 😁 You actually ended up doing me a massive favor without even realizing it. 😉 The weight of this whole thing comes from the fact that you didn't write this as just another user on Reddit—you wrote it from the perspective of a moderator.
Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial ban isn't really anything more than being permabanned from a specific PDF, so you might as well realize the rules are exactly the same for both.
That’s exactly what I was getting at in my previous post.
Austin Harris8 said:Here’s what I’m actually trying to get at: back in the day, did the rules for partials work the same way they did for Perm? Specifically, could you request to add or remove them on your own terms? Because from what I’m reading in this thread, it sounds like that rule changed, and now you don't have that same level of control over adding or dropping Perm whenever you feel like it. So, let me get this straight—are we saying that perms and partials actually sat in the same tier when it comes to that specific rule? Logically speaking, there’s really no reason they shouldn't be in the same category. A ban is a ban; PERMA is just a broader, more expansive version of the exact same thing.
Based on that...
Austin Harris8 said:Since Velvet Black was granted the ban she actually asked for, I’m expecting the exact same courtesy to be extended to me regarding the ZK PDF, based on the following:
So, Velvet Black and I both ended up getting permabanned from ZK—though, to be fair, we actually requested it ourselves. She was banned just before they rolled out that new policy stating that permanent bans can't be issued or revoked upon request. Honestly, I can't even remember if my ban went through before or after that rule change was implemented, but regardless, there’s a solid argument to be made for overturning this: Look, if I managed to secure this before they rolled out the new rule—basically putting me in the exact same boat as Velvet Black was—then I expect some level of fair play here. In the interest of decent, consistent moderation, I’d expect them to handle my situation just like they handled hers. Look, if I got hit with a permanent ban right after they rolled out that new rule about not requesting or keeping permissions for yourself, then the whole thing is fundamentally flawed. Honestly, it feels like a massive oversight on the part of the ZKa moderation team—though I’d like to believe it was just an honest mistake. Either way, the ban is unjust and needs to be wiped from the record immediately.
The difference between me and VB is pretty clear when you look at it this way: she’s dealing with a permanent ban, whereas I'm just facing a partial one. So, we’re right back to where we started on...
Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial ban isn't really anything more than being permabanned from a specific PDF. At the end of the day, you're playing by the exact same set of rules for both.
Given everything I’ve laid out above, the conclusion is pretty straightforward:
Austin Harris8 said:I expect fair moderation and for every single user on Reddit to be treated with respect, including myself in this instance. Based on the points I've made, I expect my permanent ban from ZK to be lifted.
Look, you can tell me or any other user on Reddit whatever you want, but when it comes down to the actual rules, the only thing that matters is what’s officially written in the site guidelines. And in those guidelines, I don't see anything stating that if I request a partial adjustment, I have to wait some arbitrary six months before I can ask for a pardon. Yet, here I am, stuck waiting.
On top of that, does this even make sense? I get a partial adjustment based on my own request, and then I’m supposed to go begging for approval from every single moderator just to be sent right back to the exact same PDF that granted the initial adjustment in the first place!?
Where in the Reddit rules is it clearly and concisely stated that I can request a partial removal at my own discretion? - because I certainly can
And where, specifically in the Reddit rules, is it clearly and concisely defined that removing a partial post requires approval from every single moderator listed on that specific PDF? - because it absolutely does
Furthermore, where in the Reddit rules is the duration of a partial removal clearly and concisely laid out? - First, the mods told me it lasts six months, now Anthony Jackson2 is telling me I need to get a "blessing" from the moderators, all while failing to mention any actual timeframe at all...😕
Where in the Reddit rules is any of this actually addressed? 🤷
If we're judging by what you can actually gather from loneraven25's post regarding partial bans or temporary suspensions, the rule is incredibly vague and poorly defined. Look at this specific sentence: "Partial bans and temporary suspensions requested by the user carry the same weight as those issued by administration; therefore, using alt accounts during their duration is strictly prohibited." The only thing that's transparent here is that you aren't allowed to use alts while a partial ban is active. That’s it. Nothing else is clarified. 🤷
So, are partial bans and temporary suspensions only mentioned in the Reddit rules in that one single sentence? Is there actually anything in the official guidelines about requesting or lifting a partial ban, or how long they even last? 🤷
Anthony Jackson2 said:If you want a requested partial ban to be lifted, you have to get the blessing of the moderator in charge of that PDF.
In my case, I was told I have to wait six months.
How am I supposed to expect this place to function normally when even you moderators can't seem to agree on the most basic, elementary details? 🤷
It didn't really hit the mark for what I'm actually trying to figure out, but thanks anyway for doing the legwork. 😉
The core issue for me is this: back in the day, were partial bans treated exactly like permanent ones? As in, could you request them or have them lifted at your own discretion? Because from what I'm reading here, those rules changed, and now you can't just request a perm ban to be lifted or applied anymore. Basically, I'm asking if perms and partial bans sat in the same category under those old rules. Logically speaking, there’s no reason they wouldn't be treated the same way. A ban is a ban—a permanent one is just a broader version of the same restriction.
@loneraven25 Yeah, that’s how it works under the new rulebook. It wasn't like that before, which is actually why VB was slapped with a permanent ban in the first place. That said, there’s absolutely nothing written here regarding partial bans... so what happens if someone requested a partial ban back then? What was the protocol? If perms and partials could both be requested or lifted at will, and I was handed a partial ban via my own request before the new rules kicked in, then I’ve got a legitimate case for getting that partial ban removed. On the flip side, if I was given a partial ban by request *after* the new rules were implemented, then they shouldn't have even been able to grant it—which would mean they violated the Reddit rules.
Just so there isn't any twisting of the facts or people trying to spin this—I didn't just get handed a partial settlement out of nowhere. I requested it myself. Here’s a post from one of the moderators
Since user Black Velvet received a ban at her own request, I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me regarding my permanent ban on Zika, based on the following logic:
I was hit with a permaban on Zika, just like Black Velvet was, at my own request. She was banned before the new rule was implemented (the one stating that permabans aren't granted or lifted upon personal request). I’m honestly not sure if my ban happened before or after that rule change, but either way, there’s a solid reason to lift it: a) If I was banned before that new rule kicked in—meaning I'm effectively in the exact same position as Black Velvet—then in the interest of fair and consistent moderation, I expect to be treated exactly the same way she was. b) If I was banned after the new rule regarding the refusal to grant or lift permabans on request was established, then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. That would mean there was a major oversight by the Zika moderation team (hopefully an unintentional one), and my permaban should be unconditionally removed.
I expect fair moderation and equal treatment for every single person on Reddit, myself included. Based on the points above, I expect my permaban on Zika to be lifted.
P.S. When exactly was that new rule introduced? I’ve been scouring the rules here on Reddit, but I can't find anything about those specific restrictions. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place. 😁
I’m a huge fan of using emojis—I definitely have my go-to favorites 😍—but honestly, I think bumping up the limit per post would be a massive help from a practical standpoint. When you start typing out longer posts, you easily end up hitting over 10 emojis, and then you’re stuck having to delete some just to make room for the ones you actually want to use 🙂
Even just moving the cap from 10 to 15 would be great. Let's make it happen! 🙂
I still remember her—she was a top-tier debater who always kept things rational. Why on earth did she even ask to be banned (if that’s even what happened)? Fine, whatever, she’s banned, but now they’re just refusing to lift it or something?
Well... it was just a misunderstanding. 😉 Everything's fine now. There’s really no need for an apology here, because there wasn't any bad intention involved in the first place. An apology only makes sense if someone actually meant to cause trouble, which wasn't the case. 😛
Alright, here’s the breakdown of how this exchange went down:
Austin Harris8 said:@solna, you look kind of out of proportion to me. Eyes, nose, mouth...
solna said:That’s just not fair. I told you that your features looked exaggerated, not out of proportion. That’s a nasty thing to say. Honestly, I might just kill myself.🙂
Terry Collins9 said:solna, don't go killing yourself over some idiot.
😕
The whole situation is even weirder when you consider that, despite being on this forum for a long time, I have never had a single interaction with this esteemed moderator. We haven't even crossed paths in a single thread. And then, suddenly, this happens... I am genuinely surprised and insulted.
Our respected moderator, Terry Collins9, really ought to realize that by acting this way, he is setting a terrible example for how we should communicate on this platform. A moderator should be a model for civil discourse, not a stumbling block.
I am calling for this moderator's post to be sanctioned; I'll leave it up to the admin clique to decide.
Once I finally land a moderator spot over at ŽK, I’m going to implement a very streamlined process to deal with all those people claiming men don't belong there, or insisting that any man posting on ŽK must be gay, or acting like beautiful women are just skeletons measuring 5'9" and 110 lbs.
So, consider this my official pitch: give me your votes and let justice prevail!!
Double standards. It’s a massive problem with a certain segment of the forum elite, specifically over on Zipline. Honestly, it's pretty interesting because I haven't run into this kind of hypocrisy on other boards—and trust me, I’ve been active on plenty of them.
So, I've been getting some comments directed my way over on Zipline lately: What does a guy like him even want to be doing hanging around this chicken coop talking about beautiful women? He should just head over to Microsoft—that’s where he’ll find nothing but that kind of topic anyway. He claims he's a guy, yet he writes about "feminine" topics with more passion than most women I know. Just imagine how much "manhood" someone has to be lugging around to comment on women's bodies with that kind of unhinged intensity. Seriously, give me a break! 😁) A guy who spends all his time hanging out with women is just... well, you know. Honestly, a man should be spending his time at Microsoft, where it’s 99% guys.
And all the other comments look exactly like that.
You’ll see this exact kind of commentary popping up from users like Tina, Barbie, hannah3, and never more. Just wanted to give you a heads-up on who you're actually dealing with if you ever decide to join that crowd. 😁
So, here’s the deal... I’ve noticed that my posts are being systematically reported by a small group of users over on Chicken—specifically within those threads about "The Most Beautiful Women" and "Most Beautiful Female Bodies"—and I'm getting sanctioned for it regularly. Yet, here’s the kicker: not one single post (and I mean absolutely none) that carries the same sentiment—basically arguing that men have no business participating in "women-only" discussions—has ever faced a single sanction.
The whole "the moderators didn't see those posts" excuse just doesn't fly with me. They had to have seen them. There’s no way they weren't watching the discussion, especially since things were getting heated and the tone was frequently spiraling out of control.
It’s nothing but a blatant double standard. Period. It all stems from the fact that so many of my cartoons were actually based on— It’s a classic move, isn't it? When someone realizes they can't actually win an argument on the merits, they just start throwing punches at the person instead. It's the ultimate white flag. Instead of tackling the logic or the data, they pivot to attacking character, motives, or personality. It’s lazy, it’s predictable, and frankly, it's a sign that the conversation is officially dead in the water. If you have to resort to insults to make your point, you've already lost. Basically, people aren't just looking at the posts themselves anymore. They’re viewing everything through this filtered lens of who I am, my track record here, and all the times I’ve clashed with certain users on this forum.
That was just my way of showing that I’m not the only one thinking this way. I’ve been getting a few more messages in my inbox, but honestly, it doesn't even matter anymore. I’ve already realized that I’m the one coming out on top here morally speaking. 😁
I’ve already said my piece. The simple fact is that I ran into trouble with a small, practically insignificant 😁 group of users over at the FBI, specifically in the threads I was contributing to. Whatever... I'll see you guys in a few months—looks like I'll be back there again. 🥳
Since you’re already calling me out, I might as well make it clear that I’m definitely not the only one noticing certain patterns regarding how the FBI moderation team runs things. http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=44979274&postcount=3