Look, this isn't even about quark's private info; we're talking about another user who never actually posted any of that stuff here in the first place. I’m dropping the subject right there. As for the rest of what you're bringing up—specifically those claims about baseless moderator decisions—I'm going to need you to show me some actual proof. Every single ban, every partial restriction, and even the decision to lock the chat was fully explained to the users involved, and honestly, it was all completely justified. Anything else you want to get off your chest?
I honestly think you just laid out a perfect explanation of why you ended up with a partial ban. Just a heads-up though, a penalty like this doesn't just happen because of one single mistake, so there’s no point in digging your heels in about that broken link you messed up earlier today. Usually, these kinds of restrictions come after a long period of negotiation where it's become clear that someone has been consistently dragging down the quality of the discussions, breaking the community guidelines, or just straight-up disrupting the flow and productivity of the forum. Since the moderator mentioned you’d already received prior warnings, this outcome really wasn't out of left field for you.
A partial ban is pretty much a permanent thing, you know? It stays on your record indefinitely unless the mods decide to pull it early or change the rules later on.
The mods weighed in on this one. Honestly, there was some provocation flying around from multiple sides, but it didn't quite cross the line of what our rules allow. Given how the whole debate unfolded, they decided it was better to let it slide without handing out any bans this time. There’s really no point in everyone continuing to bicker here. If someone is getting under your skin, just hit that ignore button.
Look, you two have already said your piece, so I’m asking that we please don't turn this thread into a playground for personal bickering moving forward. The moderators and the supermod will step in and address this once they've had a chance to review everything.
The standard procedure here is to post an initial notice first. If you don't hear anything back within about 24 hours, feel free to shoot a message to the mods via DM or just post it right here on the board. So, go ahead and file your report.
Did you end up reporting the post? Honestly, regardless of whose take you’re looking for, the moderators and the supermod should definitely be stepping in here—they really ought to. Dorian doesn't have anything to do with that Microsoft PDF, either; his authority only extends to moderating this specific thread right here on the FBI forums since that's his role as a moderator.
Well, it looks like this thread was basically designed to be a free-for-all of baseless accusations and digging up ancient history just for the sake of it. I’ve gone ahead and wiped those posts; moving forward, you can expect an immediate ban for that kind of behavior.
neonfox12 said:Constitutional rights and legal protections have to apply on this forum just like they do anywhere else. We see it written right there in the community guidelines, but honestly, it feels like those rules are just sitting there gathering dust instead of actually being enforced.
Look, if you spot someone actually breaking the rules or violating the site's policies, just report them.
Maria Johnson said:Does anyone know who I can reach out to here to report someone for threatening to doxx me on the forum? I'd probably just report you instead!☕
Just hit that little triangle icon to report them.
Paul Kern12 said:I suppose I should just ask—since quite a bit of time has passed while this was under review.
It's been moderated.
crimsonjackal63 said:Something went seriously sideways with those links—total mess. They worked fine at first—but now? They’ve completely fallen apart. Is it some higher power at work or just a massive conspiracy? Honestly, who knows. 😍
Anyway, I can see that this user is still banned—but these posts are still popping up:
McAucliffe Asks: The Republican Party absolutely needs to win this election—period. Commies. One flies away forever... then, after a few months, the people finally realize what useless trash they actually were. Those hacks over at the Republican Party. Snap elections... here we go again.
Finally, America will shake off its two biggest historical evils—right after getting rid of the Royalists...
They’re still sitting here on the forum without any consequences—even though they were reported again about 24 hours ago.
And as for all those "commie" insults (which I could probably list off right now)—the kind that definitely warrant a ban under our current rules—there's really no point in me listing every single one here. There are at least twenty of them just waiting to be found.
So, here’s the real question: Is all of this actually worth just a three-day suspension? Or is it worth much, much more? That's for you guys to decide—all I can do is remember how this played out for next time.
It really looks like Charles Fox10 has finally sorted this whole thing out.
stormyraven14 said:Does that mean we aren't allowed to organize anything on ZAG if there's an emergency at a skyscraper, or if the little dragon decides to set something up?
Because, if I’m following correctly, you can't even bring up immigrants on ZAG anymore.
If that's actually the case... oh my goodness, you guys have really gone overboard! 🤦
No, that isn't what it means at all. Humanitarian work is one thing, but politics is something else entirely. When it comes to humanitarian efforts, people should be able to discuss organizing help, figuring out what's needed, and deciding where, when, and how to provide it—not debating who is a terrorist and things like that. If you ever feel unsure, just reach out to the moderators; their DMs are always open. And honestly, if a conversation accidentally drifts into territory it shouldn't, the ZAG mods are pretty chill; they'll just gently steer you back on track like they've always done.
Eric Hernandez said:I really don't want it to look like I'm trying to push back against rustydrifter10 right now... 😁
You're gonna get a penalty for that one! 🤣
Eric Hernandez said:If we can moderate topics like this properly within the existing rules and standards here on ZAG—the very ones these forum members fought so hard to establish as the core of ZAG—then I don't see any reason to ban them outright.
It’s not about contradicting me; I’m just speaking broadly regarding politics, whereas you’re being a bit more specific and granular. Honestly, the moderators have the discretion to approve a thread that might technically fall outside the usual scope if they feel it's worthwhile, or they can just delete or lock it if they decide it doesn't fit.
Sandra Thompson5 said:I totally get why the decision was made to move those kinds of discussions over to Politics, but you can't really say we're allowed to talk about current events when someone barely mentions immigrants and gets a warning immediately. 🤷
Look, it was just a gentle nudge to prevent the kind of chaos we've seen a few times before whenever that topic comes up. There’s really no need to act like it’s a permanent ban for anyone who has ever dared to mention "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" on this forum. The rules are light; honestly, they're easy enough to follow that you could practically ignore them and still be fine because the moderators almost always lead with a warning first, and there's plenty of breathing room. Besides, if you actually have an issue with a warning, just shoot the moderator a private message or come chat here in this corner instead of making a huge scene in the main threads where it doesn't belong.
Sandra Thompson5 said:and besides, we can't touch politics because the moderators would have a heart attack immediately.
It isn't just an issue for the moderators, though—it’s a hurdle for the whole forum as a platform. If we actually opened the floodgates to those kinds of topics, we'd be forced to overhaul the entire rulebook overnight. That kind of shift would fundamentally change how this forum is structured, and before you know it, we'd just be turning this into another heavily policed political message board, which is honestly the last thing we need. It’s a bit of a shame because ZAG is a little too laid back for that. Some subjects naturally bleed into multiple different forums, while others just don't fit anywhere else. Politics is one of those things that simply doesn't work here, at least not on ZAG.
Politics has been off-limits here on ZAG for as long as I can remember. Just take a look at my registration date—you won't find anyone opening threads about politics, except for that one brief experimental period where we all saw exactly why that was a disaster. Even Herb said ages ago that this specific sub-forum isn't the right place for those kinds of debates, and honestly, she hit the nail on the head. We had at least two chances to talk about immigration, and both times it just turned into absolute chaos. The whole vibe of this section and our laid-back rules just don't mesh with the kind of heavy-duty moderation those topics demand. It’s the same story with religion; it’s banned here for those very same reasons.
ZAG is open to pretty much anything else. You can get serious, you can mess around, you can chat about current events—basically whatever pops into your head. This is one of the most chillly moderated corners of the site; the rules are super light, and there aren't a ton of guidelines to stress over, so they're really easy to follow. Plus, there's no rule against reviving a topic if there's a genuine reason to do so.
The Politics section is actually a specialized sub-forum designed specifically for those deep dives, with moderators who are deeply plugged into the news and the subject matter. That's what it's built for, so if you're looking to debate immigration or any other political issues, feel free to head over there.
restlesssailor88 said:! Anyone who jumps into a discussion on a thread shouldn't have the right to moderate that same thread!
The logic here is pretty simple: if a moderator is actively debating a topic, they’re inherently biased. Once they run out of actual arguments, they start reaching for the "ban hammer," tossing out warnings, banning people, or just deleting posts under the guise of "stopping trolls"—which is really just a loose way for them to silence anyone they disagree with.
That’s a pretty clever way to try and paint moderators as biased, but honestly, it’s not going to fly. Just because a moderator joins a conversation doesn't automatically mean they've lost their objectivity. Moderators have every right to participate in any discussion they want, just like any other member, and they actually have a responsibility to keep an eye on threads to ensure things stay civil. They can always coordinate amongst themselves and decide that one person won't handle a specific thread, but that’s an internal matter for them to work out. At the end of the day, moderators are real people with lives outside the internet, and often, they don't have any other choice but to moderate the very topics they're interested in. Participating in a chat doesn't inherently equal bias, so let's not make that implication—it just isn't how the rules work.
restlesssailor88 said: 2. We should implement a system where users can assign infractions to moderators, which would carry certain point values. If a moderator accumulates enough points, they would automatically lose their moderation privileges for a month. And if they hit five temporary suspensions, they lose their status permanently.
My reasoning:
Basically, every user could issue just one infraction per moderator during a single moderation term. We’d also need to require a reason for every infraction issued. I really think this would massively improve the quality of the forum, because moderators wouldn't feel like they could just force their opinions on everyone by handing out warnings or deleting posts without a valid cause.
That just wouldn't work in the real world. Our community has all sorts of different personalities, and a small handful of vindictive users would absolutely flood the moderators with fake infractions in no time. We have a hierarchy for a reason; this forum isn't a direct democracy.