Daniel Ward87 said:Maybe I wasn't being clear enough—we aren't exactly sitting down with him to negotiate which sanctions we’re going to drop, right? That's our call to make!
I’d say it really just comes down to whether the Reddit rules are actually being applied consistently—don't you think?
Daniel Ward87 said:Moderators can definitely complain about getting a strike since they’re still just regular users on Reddit—they have every right to appeal, don't they? There's even a dedicated thread for that! It's just that things work a little differently for them when it comes to the rules.
If the moderators are just regular users—and since we all have that dedicated Reddit thread to appeal our bans—why aren't the mods using that same thread to appeal their own strikes? I mean, sure, they’d have to get flagged first to have anything to complain about, but there's no reason those appeals shouldn't be handled in the same spot. Wouldn't that actually help clarify the rules for everyone else too?
Look, don't take this the wrong way—but you can't really expect me to take your frustration with my impression as some kind of deep, soul-searching truth, right? I mean—given we haven't exactly known each other forever.
So, which moderator are you actually going to coordinate with? It sounds like you're planning to chat with the very same mod who flagged the post just to decide how to handle the penalty... which is honestly pretty weird. Not to mention, that’s definitely not how things work with regular users. I'm just not following the logic here—does that even make sense to anyone else?
I didn't jump into this thread just because you were being sympathetic.
Look, I never actually said the moderator called anyone retarded. 🥳 What I *did* say was how he basically handed out a diagnosis to everyone asking for their change back. I know managing a hundred different subreddits can make it hard to focus sometimes—so I'll just quote his little "diagnosis" here:
MMachéte said:And again—what is actually going on in someone's head? Like, what kind of issues does a person have if they lose it over someone asking for fifty cents at a grocery store? I'd say it's way bigger than just the fifty cents. 🙄
In my opinion, there’s no room for those "well, it depends on how you look at it" arguments here—it's crystal clear what the moderator said and what he intended. That rolling eyes emoji? Just more proof of the overall tone of the post. So, since you're saying this should have been a warning instead of a ban, we end up back at my other question... you know, the one about equal criteria. According to the rules, insulting a user is 45 points. From the quote, it's obvious the mod isn't just insulting one person—he's insulting the whole group.
Now, if I got slapped with 45 points for "insulting users" just because I called some random guy—not even a regular user, just some random dude—an idiot for the way he was riding his bike on the road, clueless... and that ban wasn't even overturned after my appeal—then logically, shouldn't direct insults toward a group of users be handled the same way? It's about having equal rules and criteria, and all that jazz.
Plus, one of the moderators from the Economy sub actually DM'ed me saying he would've banned the post outright if he had the power to.
He basically just diagnosed everyone who claimed they were looking for their own mistakes—I mean, isn't that obvious?
As for that second question, I didn't get the feeling that the rules are applied equally... plus, let's be real, it feels like moderators (and the higher-ups) almost never face any actual consequences.
Since we started touching on ways to make this forum run even smoother over in that other thread—and since that isn't really what that specific discussion was about—I’d love it if we could move those ideas over to their own dedicated thread? That way, we can all jump in together and brainstorm how to level up the site.
This post can serve as the official starting point for us.
I used the report button about three or four days ago.
Since the supermods and admins get notified about moderator reports right away—and yet this post still hasn't been flagged days later—I’m curious: what exactly are the criteria for deciding if a post gets a strike or not?
Link to the post
Look, I get it—when an admin calls out a user, it passes without a hitch. It’s also pretty clear that a supermod can basically say whatever they want about a user, even if they're flat-out lying about what was said, and walk away scot-free. So, now I’d love to know... do moderators also enjoy total immunity when it comes to making "diagnoses" about users?
One last thing—if it isn't too much trouble, could we see the rules for sanctioning posts from moderators, supermods, and admins? That is, assuming they actually *do* get sanctioned, of course. It seems like this public list of violations and strikes only applies to the regular Reddit crowd—and you know how they are, thinking the rules apply to everyone since they agreed to them during registration.
Dennis Davis5 said:He basically compared believers to people who can't read—and had the nerve to mock the Virgin Mary, too. Can we please get this flagged as hate speech?
God put Judelin on this earth for the exact same reason He left dinosaur bones in the ground—to make us question our faith in Him.
Honestly, I just don't get why anyone would even bother with Chrome when the last three versions of Internet Explorer aren't some slow, bloated piece of junk. :math_baby:
wiredangler5 said:Or maybe you're just trolling again because you've got nothing better to do?
---
Alright, go ahead—keep going. I was actually hoping for a decent debate here...
Honestly, I thought you’d see why it's a bad look for a supermod to have Goebbels in their signature without any follow-up context. My mistake for misreading the situation—sorry for wasting everyone's time.
I don't think is bad, since the Iron Cross—unlike Goebbels—isn't exclusively Nazi. It’s been around since the 13th century when the Teutons first started using it, so it's just part of German military tradition. To me, the line between military history and evil ideology is so clear we shouldn't even need to muddy the waters. Where wiredangler5 and I really differ, though, is regarding the nature of Goebbels' speech and, by extension, his quote in the signature. While wiredangler5 sees it as something purely military and separate from Nazi ideology, I see it differently—it's pure ideological propaganda. Sure, it was spurred on by military defeats on every front, but the speech was delivered by the Nazi Minister of Propaganda and the #2 guy in the Reich (let's not forget Goebbels succeeded Hitler after the latter's suicide). Just the call for "total war" says enough about its intent; especially since the speech directly mentions the Final Solution. wiredangler5 argues the point is about boosting troop morale after several disastrous losses, but if you take two minutes to look it up, you'll see an escalation of German war crimes in Russia right around the time of the speech:
8 – 26 February, Operation Hornung (Lenin, Hancewicze; 12,897 people, including children) 15 February – end of March, Operation Winterzauber (Oświeja, Latvian border; 3,904 people, including children) 22 February – 8 March, Operation Kugelblitz (Polock, Oświeja, Dryssa, Rossony; 3,780 people, including children)
I'm not kidding! I actually used to have an Iron Cross on my avatar back in the day—but I had to ditch it after some users started complaining. Honestly? It was just a bunch of baseless gripes from people who didn't know any better, but the admin made his stance pretty clear. 😁
wiredangler5 said:Alright then, as long as you've finally laid out what you personally believe is the truth—because honestly, I just don't have the energy to slog through ten pages of debate over this here.
I'm really not feeling this level of conversation—and I'll be honest, I expected much more from this. If I'd known you were going to get this emotional and go looking for a ban, I wouldn't have even bothered wasting my time. I was hoping for a bit more objectivity regarding the issue. My bad.
I don't really buy the idea that those words were meant in a military sense—it was just classic propaganda delivered to a hand-picked crowd, wasn't it? The whole "having war" thing isn't even the main point; it’s clearly just a reaction to recent losses and pure Nazi propaganda at its finest.
There's honestly no need for all the drama or calling for a ban here. This isn't some personal attack on you—it's just a debate about whether your signature is appropriate and what kind of message it sends to patients. Better safe than sorry, right? 🙂
wiredangler5 said:We've never messed with avatars featuring the Iron Cross before.
Well, previous admins certainly did. But hey, back then, even posting a PM would get you banned without a second thought. 😁
I actually started this thread because of your signature.
Do you want total war? You will have total war.
Look, as someone who grew up in the History subforum—and even serves as a supermoderator here—don't you think it's just incredibly out of line? I mean, quoting or paraphrasing Joseph Goebbels is pretty terrible practice, isn't it? Sure, that speech at Madison Square Garden happened right after the Wehrmacht started taking massive hits, but we both know exactly what kind of guy he was, don't we?
Just imagine if a brand-new member joins up and sees a supermod with a signature like that. They’re going to assume their own neo-Nazi nonsense is perfectly fine, right? They'll probably set their avatar to... I don't know, Mengele, put "Arbeit macht Frei, LOL" in their bio, list their location as "Third Reich," and just start posting brainfarts. Honestly, I really believe we need to nip this stuff in the bud—we shouldn't be giving anyone an inch of breathing room, especially when a supermod's signature provides that exact kind of opening.
Since we already decided last week that using the term feminazi is totally off-limits here—it counts as an insult, right?—and we've seen avatars with Nazi symbols or officials get scrubbed, plus "Third Reich" isn't allowed as a location... can we basically assume that signatures featuring Nazi propaganda are banned too?
Michael Anderson2 said:Oh, and heaven forbid someone mentions that it might be time to grow out of using colored fonts... 🤣
Just an update to the political correctness handbook: if a Black American says they're proud to be Black, a White American isn't allowed to say they're proud to be White. It works the same way for any group—if a certain ethnic group is proud of their heritage, an American from a different background shouldn't dare claim pride in theirs, especially here in the States... 😁
🤦
Maybe the issue really is just the hosting... 😁 😁 😁
Edit: Another addition to the PC manual: you aren't allowed to call a creationist stupid; you have to respect their "right to an opinion."🤣
If that makes you happy, feel free to tell me that every single day—really! You get an ego boost, I get some karma +1, and everyone walks away smiling. 😉