Posts by Brian Edwards6

It’s much like how a criminal record remains confidential, which can then serve as either a mitigating or an aggravating factor during sentencing.👍

casualharbor9 said:... So why on earth are we debating this in this specific section of the forum?

It isn't a debate. You asked a question, you received an answer, and unfortunately, we can't really do much about the fact that the response didn't meet your expectations.🤷

If you're looking for a genuine discussion, I'd suggest heading over to the Legal subforum or perhaps the Economics section.👍

casualharbor9 said:Is endangering someone's life or health through negligence—or who knows what else—not considered a criminal offense?...

Based on my own experience and how things currently work in the US legal system, no, a wage garnishment isn't a criminal offense. If you feel otherwise, you’re more than welcome to reach out to the District Attorney's office; they can provide you with a specific, well-substantiated answer that will hopefully leave you feeling satisfied.👍

On the other hand, it actually *is* a potential crime for you and me to have taken on debt that we knew, right from the start, we wouldn't be able to repay. Isn't that part bothering you at all?😕

casualharbor9 said:... Was that a legal or illegal procedure?...

Even if we assume it was illegal, that doesn't automatically make it a criminal offense. 👍

And no, that doesn't actually meet the statutory definition of "unlawful collection."👍

P.S.: Regarding the flow of this conversation, I think it's best if any specific legal questions are moved to the appropriate thread (in this case, the one dedicated to debt collection) just to avoid any unnecessary confusion.👍

I’ve just finished doing a little spring cleaning in the "Law" and "jobs and career" subforums. I moved several threads over to the "Archive" section, where comment counts aren't publicly displayed (though they remain fully visible to the administration). That likely explains the slight dip you're seeing in the total comment count.👍

casualharbor9 said:Why wouldn't it make sense? Doesn't the police investigate when someone's life or health is at risk?...

Now you’re just expanding the scope to include everything under the sun. Sure, the police respond when there's a direct threat to someone's physical safety or health (though even that isn't an absolute, given there are other agencies for different types of threats), but no, they aren't going to step in because the Federal Reserve decides to seize my entire paycheck. There are much more appropriate threads for that specific grievance, and "police investigation" certainly isn't one of them.👍

casualharbor9 said:... Seized your whole paycheck?

Yes, they did.👍

casualharbor9 said:... if someone's life is actually at risk due to an illegal procedure and there's clear evidence of that, then it becomes a matter for a police investigation. That's why I'm looking for a perspective from someone like Brian Edwards6...

Frankly, this question makes zero sense within a thread dedicated to "Police Investigation." As crimsonsailor7 already pointed out, you aren't going to get a useful answer here without drifting completely off-topic.👍

P.S.: Just for context, I’m coming at this as a police officer, a moderator, and someone who recently had their entire paycheck frozen by the Federal Reserve (though perhaps not necessarily in that specific order).👍

Because of official (formal) reasons.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:… I disagree, and frankly, I find your tone a bit too aggressive and confrontational. That’s just my take on it, much like yours is on me...

And look, there's no issue here; everyone is entitled to their own perspective.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:… If you look at the response to those comments, you'll see he merely pointed out what shouldn't be done, without actually offering a solution or explaining how to properly handle it...

This is what I wrote:

… If you feel that a moderator has insulted you via Direct Message, you are free to report Direct Message and the administration will take it from there...

I thought it was fairly obvious how to report a Direct Message. If it wasn't, then my apologies for not being clear enough. You report a Direct Message by clicking the triangle icon (report Direct Message), exactly the same way you would report a standard comment. The only difference is that notifications for reported comments go to the moderators in charge of that specific sub-forum, whereas reports for Direct Messages go straight to the administrators. From there, an administrator will act on the report or reach out to you via Direct Message to clarify the situation.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:… See, you're running out of arguments, so you're reducing the debate to a simple "is vs. isn't" argument...

Given that after several back-and-forth comments, you end up saying:

… My context is correct...

I don't see any point in repeating myself if I'm clearly not getting through to you. However, I have stated my opinion, as have the other participants involved, and the administration will make its final decision regarding this matter.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:… So, theories can basically be whatever you want them to be...

I wouldn't go that far.🙂

Michael Vaughn2 said:... Given the varying thresholds, 50% is a stretch...

Since that threshold doesn't even come close for most other users here, you're definitely an outlier. And just to be clear, this isn't a personal vendetta against you. You clearly possess the necessary expertise to participate in these discussions, but you frequently become overly defensive and combative toward others when defending your views, regardless of how much they actually know.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:... You wanted it, but didn't get it. If I filed my report incorrectly, why didn't you just tell me the right way? It seems your intention wasn't really to educate me on the proper procedure, since you kept quiet about it...

If you look back at the previous comments, you'll see that I provided guidance the moment I realized what was bothering you.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:... I don't believe I have that tendency 🙂 So, where does that leave us now?...

We wait for the administration's decision.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:... Let's just stop with you judging my tendencies, because otherwise, you're essentially claiming the right to judge yours...

Feel free to start a new thread, and we can discuss it further if you truly feel there is an issue here.👍

Michael Vaughn2
My context is perfectly fine...

Actually, no.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:… He hasn't actually explained any of those "I've already explained this 15 times" claims of yours...

Do you see how much it matters how a message is perceived rather than just how it was intended (regardless of how many times someone edits it to be clearer)?😁

Michael Vaughn2 said:... So why on earth would you assume a situation that was minor in scale is going to escalate?...

Based on experience.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:... That’s exactly what I just reported right here. You got a problem with that? I don't see why you're telling me to do something I've already done?...

The issue is that it wasn't reported correctly, nor was it reported in this specific thread. You missed several steps in the process, so I was simply trying to clarify how you ought to have handled it. There really isn't any need for that kind of attitude.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:... Intent matters...

Negligence exists too.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:... And a question regarding you: I'm not sure if you're a moderator or someone whose word carries weight later on? In the sense that if you say something is allowed, does that stick? Or are you just a regular user like me?

Since you're lodging complaints against the moderators, we'll wait for the final decision from administration. What I wrote was merely my own opinion—both personally and in my capacity as a moderator. Regarding your status as a user: if you direct a phrase like "you're playing dumb" at me, I won't take it as an insult, but if you directed it at another user, it would likely be viewed as such (or rather, as a provocation), given your tendency to ramp up the tension in discussions, whether intentionally or not.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:… We know what happened after the fact—but until it actually happens, we don't know, right?
Or are you suggesting you have some sort of crystal ball that tells you exactly how every single debate is going to spiral?…

We can certainly be skeptical, and frankly, experience usually tells us what to expect.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:… Is it really okay to tell someone they're "playing dumb"...

If you feel a moderator has insulted you via Direct Message, you are more than welcome to report it, and the administration will handle it accordingly.👍

As for using a phrase like "you're playing dumb" during a discussion, there’s no way to predict the outcome beforehand. We can't know ahead of time how a conversation will evolve or how specific wording will land with other users. The phrase itself isn't inherently an insult (at least, I don't view it that way), and it might pass in a casual exchange. However, if the intent is purely to provoke someone, then it becomes inappropriate.👍

P.S.: Since you edited your comment, the quote looks a little different now, but it still perfectly illustrates my point.👍

Michael Vaughn2 said:... So, I’m being warned for saying things like "come on, show me the evidence, I'm listening, be specific..."—words I use in legal discussions where actual proof and the law actually matter...

I seem to recall us having a similar back-and-forth via Direct Message not too long ago, so it feels a bit silly to suggest you're confused about this. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with demanding evidence. The issue is that you have a tendency to let a debate spiral into a personal spat between yourself and whoever you're talking to, regardless of whether they know the subject matter or not. You were simply asked to dial down the tension. Besides, there are several deleted comments (and not just yours) that follow this exact pattern, so the admins won't have any trouble verifying the situation.👍

You’ve got some info >>hereon that topic.

I couldn't agree more with you on this one.👍

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

The crux of the matter is that any discussion, regardless of the subject, inevitably drifts into completely unrelated territory. Yet, I somehow find myself being accused of preventing that drift on the forums I moderate—as if my attempts to maintain order are some sort of negative or unwelcome behavior.👍

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

No one is being prevented from doing that.👍

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

It is out of line if it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.👍

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

"Privileged conduct" is manifested in the fact that such force and police actions are utilized to protect the general public (civilians) from antisocial individuals (both civilians and the "privileged"), rather than to satisfy personal, low impulses. In other words, it is about service, not about holding a privileged position.👍

In my haste, I completely neglected to extend my thanks to everyone here for their support.👍

hollowmason64 As specified by:
... And honestly, sorry John, but you’re overstepping with all this deleting. You're acting like you know exactly what stays and what goes, even though Nick has already made it clear several times that we try to avoid doing that whenever possible.

I have no intention of letting rule violations slide without consequences. As for the mass deletions, I’ll make a concerted effort to do better; honestly, I believe my performance has already shown some slight improvement.👍

feralranger said:And who exactly is claiming these are merely isolated incidents? 🤷 Such a convenient little phrase.

That is precisely how politicians describe their own ranks, isn't it? Meanwhile, the country is looted to its very foundation, and retirees are forced to scavenge through trash cans just to get by...

Oh, of course, in every single institution representing the state, everyone is perfectly honest except for those "rare" outliers. Honestly, it’s nothing more than a fairy tale told to naive sheep.

The simple reality is this: when you're looking at hundreds of thousands of individual actions, it’s statistically inevitable that a handful of them won't follow the rules.👍

amberdriver17 said:😁

The reality? Only a handful of people are actually honest. And even fewer are professionals.

I suspect the average here is likely equal to—or at least very close to—the average found among honest, professional individuals within the broader American population.👍

Unethical. said:...

Michelle Alvarez8, electricharbor30, or me?😕

hollowtrucker77 said:John, honestly, the biggest issue here is how they’re just killing any actual discussion and strangling free speech
it's straight out of some authoritarian playbook
🙂
from the outside, it might look like they're actually moderating or putting in a lot of effort, but that couldn't be further from the truth
if you want to be moderated in a way where everything is reduced to nothing but rigid questions and answers, then go ahead and move over to a corporate platform like LinkedIn

nimblelynx7 As requested:
I have to agree—the PDF is far too sanitized and rigid. From what I can gather, the moderators seem to be almost exclusively from law enforcement or legal backgrounds. It feels like they’re constantly trying to force this overly formal, bureaucratic tone onto the document, as if we’re all reading official government filings or court summons instead of having a conversation.

Since we’re posting in the Law subforum, most of what happens here naturally revolves around specific regulations—which usually means the discourse follows a predictable pattern of questions and answers. Of course, debating the merits of those laws is both allowed and encouraged, but let’s be realistic: when someone joins a thread specifically looking for legal clarity, they shouldn't be forced to wade through dozens of pages of aimless chatter and off-topic nonsense just to find a straight answer.

Michelle Alvarez8 As specified by:
So, I’m lying again, am I?

You’re only presenting a fragment of the conversation. While I wouldn't go so far as to call it an outright lie, you aren't exactly being forthcoming either. Anyone reading this is going to be left without the full picture.👍

nimblelynx7 As stated by:
I frequently find myself under the impression that behind that particular username sits an entire task force from the FBI, stationed here on official duty just to defend and represent the police department...

You’re doing nothing but complaining and playing the part of the skeptic.👍

nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.

Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.

Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)

Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?

Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?

Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.

Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.

I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.

Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.

Look, that’s your opinion—and certainly anyone else's right to have one—but there’s a time and a place for everything. The issue isn't finding that "place." We’ve danced around this enough times already, and there’s really no point in circling back to it every few pages.

nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.

Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.

Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)

Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?

Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?

Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.

Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.

I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.

Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.

In the US, there are hundreds of thousands of officers exercising police authority. Of course, there are individuals who are an embarrassment to the force and to society at large, but constantly insisting that the entire department is defined by those outliers is simply a generalization. I don't claim to be superior to you, but when it comes to this specific subject, I happen to have significantly more experience than you do.👍

nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.

Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.

Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)

Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?

Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?

Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.

Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.

I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.

Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.

It isn't, nor did I ever suggest that it was.👍

nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.

Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.

Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)

Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?

Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?

Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.

Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.

I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.

Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.

We haven't. Law enforcement isn't a monolith where everyone performs identically. There are specializations and professionals who are exceptionally good at what they do (most of them, actually), so generalizing like that only does a disservice to the good officers, not necessarily to the ones being criticized.👍

nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.

Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.

Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)

Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?

Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?

Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.

Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.

I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.

Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.

Not if I'm just unhappy with something, but rather if I believe something is untrue. Besides, everyone is entitled to their perspective. Just as your perspective is that I am not an individual, my perspective is that a great many people are exaggerating. I base this on the fact that I do this job every day and observe my colleagues doing it as well. The truth is, it isn't rocket science; the procedures are often repetitive or similar, which makes it fairly easy to spot when something is off.👍

Laura Chavez19 said:I’ll sign off on this. I’m not exactly a regular fixture around here, but I’ve started noticing a pattern where comments seem to vanish—specifically whenever someone drops a critique regarding how the police operate, especially in threads dedicated to their conduct. Look, I don't get this obsession with sweeping generalizations. If I happen to get pulled over by an officer twice and they’re both incredibly rude, then in my book, that's just how they are. It doesn't matter if every other cop in the country is perfectly polite; I haven't met them, so their behavior doesn't change my reality. To me, that isn't "generalizing"—it's just reporting my own experience. And honestly, it feels like nobody else on this forum sees it that way either.

Well, you should drop by more often then. Perhaps it feels that way to me because I tend to reply to them, but from where I’m sitting, there seems to be a massive pile of negative comments that are still very much visible.👍

Laura Chavez19 said:I’ll sign off on this. I’m not exactly a regular fixture around here, but I’ve started noticing a pattern where comments seem to vanish—specifically whenever someone drops a critique regarding how the police operate, especially in threads dedicated to their conduct. Look, I don't get this obsession with sweeping generalizations. If I happen to get pulled over by an officer twice and they’re both incredibly rude, then in my book, that's just how they are. It doesn't matter if every other cop in the country is perfectly polite; I haven't met them, so their behavior doesn't change my reality. To me, that isn't "generalizing"—it's just reporting my own experience. And honestly, it feels like nobody else on this forum sees it that way either.

That part isn't up for debate. If you had a bad experience, you are naturally going to describe it as such; however, if you extend that sentiment to the thousands of officers you have never even met, that is precisely what constitutes generalizing.👍

nimblelynx7 said:Exactly. The guy was actually a decent, likable person to talk to, and then he goes and gets moderator powers! 😁

We were exactly the same before and we are exactly the same now.😁

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Ever since he stepped up as a mod, he’s been systematically wiping out any comments that don't fit his specific version of the FBI—it's pretty obvious. Look, I get how you defend your profession—trust me, I'll defend the IT field just as fiercely—but the issue here is that he does it without a shred of critical thinking regarding the police. It’s actually gotten so bad that he straight-up told me the things I saw with my own eyes were—get this—untrue.

Just to be clear, I think our local police are fine for the most part; they don't have an issue with me, and I don't have one with them. I think they do a good job, but that doesn't mean I won't call them out when they mess up or screw something up. After all, isn't criticism exactly what drives improvement and fixes problems?

That goes for this thread, too. In my opinion, Brian Edwards6 is way too subjective to be a quality moderator, and his actions constantly stifle constructive debate and actual critical thinking.

I know deep down this post won't change a thing—and people will probably just roll their eyes and go, "Good grief, there she goes again with the trolling"—but I also know this will serve as ammunition for when Brian Edwards6 finally gets called out by someone who is actually high-quality, sincere, and honest. It's just a matter of time before he messes up so badly that even the admins can't ignore it, and then they'll start remembering all the complaints... including this one.

Best,
Michelle Alvarez8 👍

Since I've looked at the report you submitted, I don't see any evidence of what you're claiming, nor does it match the reason you gave for the report. If anyone interpreted my posts that way, I followed up with several messages to clear the air (which you are, of course, welcome to report as well). Besides, the rest of this thread addresses the issue directly, and I believe I've been perfectly transparent about my stance.👍

redtiger15 said:My bad, guys. I really didn't mean anything by it. :Brian Edwards6: 👍

Why is it that a moderator like this stays firmly in their seat even though they’re getting hit with a non-stop barrage of complaints? Honestly, it’s because:
He basically just does whatever the admins tell him to do without even blinking.
Man, this guy moderates like his life depends on it. And honestly? In the eyes of the admins, "over-moderating" is basically synonymous with "doing a stellar job." Because of that, you can pretty much just ignore all his constant little outbursts and the way he loves to tear into people's posts on a daily basis. It’s all just background noise at this point. I mean, look at the logic: if they actually let go of a moderator who moderates this aggressively, the subforum is suddenly left without someone who moderates aggressively. That just creates a massive headache for the admins because then they have to deal with the extra workload and go through the whole exhausting process of hunting down a new moderator. And let's be real—who actually has the energy for that? Not them.

I'm really hoping my take—which, let’s be honest, is the absolute truth here—doesn't get nuked from orbit this time. 👍

Some of those complaints are legitimate, and some aren't. When a complaint is valid, I adjust my approach to ensure users are satisfied. As for the idea that I should be removed from the moderation team—well, if that's what the community decides, I have no problem with it; that's just how a healthy forum operates.👍

redtiger15 said:My bad, guys. I really didn't mean anything by it. :Brian Edwards6: 👍

Why is it that a moderator like this stays firmly in their seat even though they’re getting hit with a non-stop barrage of complaints? Honestly, it’s because:
He basically just does whatever the admins tell him to do without even blinking.
Man, this guy moderates like his life depends on it. And honestly? In the eyes of the admins, "over-moderating" is basically synonymous with "doing a stellar job." Because of that, you can pretty much just ignore all his constant little outbursts and the way he loves to tear into people's posts on a daily basis. It’s all just background noise at this point. I mean, look at the logic: if they actually let go of a moderator who moderates this aggressively, the subforum is suddenly left without someone who moderates aggressively. That just creates a massive headache for the admins because then they have to deal with the extra workload and go through the whole exhausting process of hunting down a new moderator. And let's be real—who actually has the energy for that? Not them.

I'm really hoping my take—which, let’s be honest, is the absolute truth here—doesn't get nuked from orbit this time. 👍

Look, if I make a mistake and someone objective points it out to me, I don't see much point in getting angry, sulking, or throwing a tantrum about it.👍

redtiger15 said:My bad, guys. I really didn't mean anything by it. :Brian Edwards6: 👍

Why is it that a moderator like this stays firmly in their seat even though they’re getting hit with a non-stop barrage of complaints? Honestly, it’s because:
He basically just does whatever the admins tell him to do without even blinking.
Man, this guy moderates like his life depends on it. And honestly? In the eyes of the admins, "over-moderating" is basically synonymous with "doing a stellar job." Because of that, you can pretty much just ignore all his constant little outbursts and the way he loves to tear into people's posts on a daily basis. It’s all just background noise at this point. I mean, look at the logic: if they actually let go of a moderator who moderates this aggressively, the subforum is suddenly left without someone who moderates aggressively. That just creates a massive headache for the admins because then they have to deal with the extra workload and go through the whole exhausting process of hunting down a new moderator. And let's be real—who actually has the energy for that? Not them.

I'm really hoping my take—which, let’s be honest, is the absolute truth here—doesn't get nuked from orbit this time. 👍

The vast majority of what I do happens behind the scenes, where it remains invisible to most users while keeping things running smoothly.👍