Posts by rustydrifter10

vividranger162 said:Hey there. I was told I could reach out at the beginning of May regarding my permanent ban, so here I am. I did use a couple of alt accounts shortly after being banned, but I gave rustydrifter10 my word that I wouldn't touch them until it was actually time to request an appeal. It’s not that I was posting under someone else; it’s just that I haven't even logged into the forum for several months.

I recently sent rustydrifter10 a private message asking if she had checked with the mods regarding the 2-3 PDFs where I was most active (LDS, football, and fitness). She said she did, and apparently, nobody was in favor of lifting the ban. However, I reached out to some of the mods via PM myself, and every single one told me they had been contacted and confirmed that I hadn't been problematic. I have the screenshots of those messages to prove it.
I honestly don't know why rustydrifter10 won't let me back on the forum, especially since she's been told I'm not a troublemaker. That's really a question for her.

That thread about women's bodies in rural towns—where I picked up a few warnings—is problematic in its own right. Women there are constantly dealing with drama; I know that was the case when I was posting, and I assume nothing has changed. One female user I used to clash with was always picking fights with others, so it likely remains the same. So much for being "only" the one causing conflict. I won't deny I caused issues and acted provocatively in that specific thread. But generally speaking, the atmosphere in that section isn't great.

I'm asking for this permanent ban to be lifted. I've learned my lesson. 😉 Or, if the administration truly believes I'm going to keep causing trouble on Zionist Kitchen, feel free to leave the ban in place for the other sections. You can even keep me off Fashion Nova, though I only have about 20 posts in that PDF. Honestly, there shouldn't be a reason to keep me out.

I'd like to call on the mods from LDS, fitness, and football to speak up here and confirm whether they ever had any issues with me. To be fair, I'll admit I have one warning over in the football section (I think it was just some trolling).

Best, dedina tambura

Look, you just asked to have your perm removed a little while ago; you can't just keep asking for it over and over. You couldn't wait until May and decided to rush things, but that doesn't mean you can jump the gun again—otherwise, that whole "six-month rule" becomes totally meaningless. It really doesn't matter if you're asking for the ban removal here on the public boards or through private messages.

vividranger162 said:Hey there. I was told I could reach out at the beginning of May regarding my permanent ban, so here I am. I did use a couple of alt accounts shortly after being banned, but I gave rustydrifter10 my word that I wouldn't touch them until it was actually time to request an appeal. It’s not that I was posting under someone else; it’s just that I haven't even logged into the forum for several months.

I recently sent rustydrifter10 a private message asking if she had checked with the mods regarding the 2-3 PDFs where I was most active (LDS, football, and fitness). She said she did, and apparently, nobody was in favor of lifting the ban. However, I reached out to some of the mods via PM myself, and every single one told me they had been contacted and confirmed that I hadn't been problematic. I have the screenshots of those messages to prove it.
I honestly don't know why rustydrifter10 won't let me back on the forum, especially since she's been told I'm not a troublemaker. That's really a question for her.

That thread about women's bodies in rural towns—where I picked up a few warnings—is problematic in its own right. Women there are constantly dealing with drama; I know that was the case when I was posting, and I assume nothing has changed. One female user I used to clash with was always picking fights with others, so it likely remains the same. So much for being "only" the one causing conflict. I won't deny I caused issues and acted provocatively in that specific thread. But generally speaking, the atmosphere in that section isn't great.

I'm asking for this permanent ban to be lifted. I've learned my lesson. 😉 Or, if the administration truly believes I'm going to keep causing trouble on Zionist Kitchen, feel free to leave the ban in place for the other sections. You can even keep me off Fashion Nova, though I only have about 20 posts in that PDF. Honestly, there shouldn't be a reason to keep me out.

I'd like to call on the mods from LDS, fitness, and football to speak up here and confirm whether they ever had any issues with me. To be fair, I'll admit I have one warning over in the football section (I think it was just some trolling).

Best, dedina tambura

I don't know what you were told, but I know what I was told. I personally reached out to every moderator from those three PDFs you claim to have been most constructive in—the ones you think would have the best opinion of you. The best response I got was, "I don't know him, he posted before my time." The next best thing was, "We managed to deal with him somehow." I don't even need to tell you what the worst responses were. Not a single person told me, "Yeah, he's fine, let him back in." Not one person. And those are the very subreddits you personally believe you were being constructive on, and the moderators you specifically pointed me toward. I checked with everyone, whereas you only checked with a select few—who, frankly, you probably picked yourself.

vividranger162 said:Hey there. I was told I could reach out at the beginning of May regarding my permanent ban, so here I am. I did use a couple of alt accounts shortly after being banned, but I gave rustydrifter10 my word that I wouldn't touch them until it was actually time to request an appeal. It’s not that I was posting under someone else; it’s just that I haven't even logged into the forum for several months.

I recently sent rustydrifter10 a private message asking if she had checked with the mods regarding the 2-3 PDFs where I was most active (LDS, football, and fitness). She said she did, and apparently, nobody was in favor of lifting the ban. However, I reached out to some of the mods via PM myself, and every single one told me they had been contacted and confirmed that I hadn't been problematic. I have the screenshots of those messages to prove it.
I honestly don't know why rustydrifter10 won't let me back on the forum, especially since she's been told I'm not a troublemaker. That's really a question for her.

That thread about women's bodies in rural towns—where I picked up a few warnings—is problematic in its own right. Women there are constantly dealing with drama; I know that was the case when I was posting, and I assume nothing has changed. One female user I used to clash with was always picking fights with others, so it likely remains the same. So much for being "only" the one causing conflict. I won't deny I caused issues and acted provocatively in that specific thread. But generally speaking, the atmosphere in that section isn't great.

I'm asking for this permanent ban to be lifted. I've learned my lesson. 😉 Or, if the administration truly believes I'm going to keep causing trouble on Zionist Kitchen, feel free to leave the ban in place for the other sections. You can even keep me off Fashion Nova, though I only have about 20 posts in that PDF. Honestly, there shouldn't be a reason to keep me out.

I'd like to call on the mods from LDS, fitness, and football to speak up here and confirm whether they ever had any issues with me. To be fair, I'll admit I have one warning over in the football section (I think it was just some trolling).

Best, dedina tambura

Don't try to turn this into some personal vendetta against you; please don't call me out or accuse me without any proof or reason. I don't personally "dislike" you; I simply don't want you here because you were constantly causing trouble on Zionist Kitchen and PŽK. That being said, I actually would have been willing to lift your permanent ban if the moderators of those three subreddits had shown any desire or willingness to have you back, but I just didn't get enough positive feedback to make that happen. So, the ban stays.

Look, I’m sorry, but topics don't just get moved around simply because the person who started them wants them elsewhere. It really matters that they stay right where they fit best from a thematic standpoint—wherever makes the most sense for the conversation—regardless of whether the founder decides a few years down the road that they’d rather have them tucked away somewhere else.

Just a quick heads-up for everyone: if you've been banned, you aren't allowed to communicate anywhere on this site except for the designated banned users corner. That includes private messages, too—those are considered a form of communication, so they're off-limits. Honestly, we see so many rule violations happening through DMs anyway, so there’d be no point in banning someone if we still left them an open door to keep doing exactly what got them in trouble in the first place. The same logic applies to the PDF Greeting thread; please don't use that space to mess with people's sanctions or try to start discussions with anyone who's currently banned.

I went ahead and scrubbed the posts that were flirting with pedophilia, promoting violence, or just devolving into nasty personal attacks and petty bickering—basically anything that clearly violated our community guidelines. I’m not deleting the entire thread just yet, though, because there are still plenty of decent contributions in here that don't break any rules. That being said, I am locking this topic now since the original author has been permanently banned and won't be able to post here anymore.

The moderators and supermods have already laid everything out clearly. Honestly, I don’t have anything else to add—the partial ban was totally justified, and there aren't any plans to lift it anytime soon. You might want to be a little more careful with how you phrase things in the rest of the forum.

I noticed you tagged that comment as trolling, and honestly, I’m dying to hear the reasoning behind it! I’ve gotta say, even as someone just hanging out on the forums, I'm pretty curious to understand your thought process there.

silversailor said:Look, I said what I had to say. If you’re still confused about it, you should probably just take it up with the admins.

Can someone please give me a real explanation as to why that post was deleted? If there was actually trolling involved, I'd love to know why. But if it was just a mistake on the moderator's part, then the whole "trolling" accusation doesn't really hold water—though I'm not saying warnings aren't necessary in general.

It probably got deleted by mistake, seeing as it’s on this thread now.

The links you included in your signature weren't even valid, honestly. One just sent people straight to a profile, and the other went to the main thread instead of the specific post itself. Even if we look at the one that actually worked, the snippet you pulled from it was totally taken out of context—you left out a huge chunk that pretty much changes the whole meaning of what was said. It feels like you're just posting these things to be provocative, and it’s the same pattern where you drag the same argument across different threads where it doesn't even belong. Seriously, please stop doing this.

Rachel Jones8 said:There isn't anything wrong with quoting someone like that, especially since it was clearly marked as a quote.

The issue wasn't the quote itself—it was how you used it to be provocative and pull it completely out of context. Plus, you linked to the entire discussion thread instead of pointing directly to the specific post.

Benjamin Martin80 said:Could someone please enlighten me as to what exact criteria were used to appoint the current moderators over at the Men's Corner?
Let’s set aside my own personal grievances with them for a moment.
My personal theory is that the moderators on any given subforum are usually just forum regulars who have contributed somewhat to that specific section—people who happen to post there more frequently than elsewhere—provided they haven't committed any major violations of the site rules, especially regarding the "heavyweight" offenses.
I can't speak for every single corner of this site, but the rest of the forum seems reasonably well-managed to me; the more serious sections, in particular. Even Chuck is actually a decent mod over in the Politics section.

However, if one takes a look at the Men's Corner, the lack of cohesion with the rest of the forum becomes glaringly obvious. The moderator assigned there is none other than Chuck, a man who seemingly has absolutely nothing to do with the culture of the Men's Corner. He doesn't know how to joke around the way we do there, he doesn't write in the style of the MC, he isn't particularly entertaining, and frankly, nobody in that subforum actually cares about him. He only shows his face when it's time to hand out bans or to occasionally drool over the ladies.

Dee also contributes absolutely nothing of value to the Men's Corner through his posts. Ninety percent of his activity is centered around food and cooking. The guy cooks, dances, sings... I fail to see how he adds anything to the "guy talk" vibe. Where are his actual meaningful contributions, aside from issuing bans and the occasional thirsty comment on those threads with the photos? 😕

United Airlines handles the Travel section, and he’s doing an alright job there too. I've followed that subforum a bit, and it seems to function quite well. But this guy never even bothered to post in the Men's Corner until that photo thread showed up, where his only talent is being a creep and acting like he's some big shot. 😕 His contribution to the Men's Corner is zero. He's just an annoying, witless presence.

As for mother, I honestly don't know if the man is even still alive.

To me, it’s crystal clear: these three living souls were slapped onto the Men's Corner as mods simply because they already held moderator positions in other sections. They probably tossed a few posts into the MC, and management figured it was easier to just move existing mods over rather than recruiting someone new.

But is that really the smartest way to run things? These guys have no idea what the Men's Corner used to be like; they don't grasp the specific brand of sarcasm we have, and they've turned what used to be a real community into some sanitized, "soft" version of a social club.
Let’s be honest here: the subforum has dwindled down to basically just a thread of photos where the same three or four girls constantly post pictures, the same three or four guys constantly compliment them, while everyone else sits on the sidelines being creeps and sliding into DMs.
Every other topic follows the same stale pattern—rehashed, mindless ideas and dull posts filled with "LOLs" and "ROFLs," which, let's be real, aren't half as funny as a mediocre American stand-up comedian.

So, I believe I have every right to ask: why aren't the moderators being rotated out when they have clearly ruined the Men's Corner?

It feels like most of the mods operate that way. I remember back in the day, there were times when nobody on those specific sub-forums even wanted to take on a mod role, so they’d just grab someone who was knowledgeable, even if they weren't hanging out in that particular corner of the site as much. The veteran MK-ovac moderators were actually appointed exactly the way you described, but it’s totally possible that over the years, their activity as regular posters has naturally tapered off—though that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't still the right people for the job.

Benjamin Martin80 said:Could someone please enlighten me as to what exact criteria were used to appoint the current moderators over at the Men's Corner?
Let’s set aside my own personal grievances with them for a moment.
My personal theory is that the moderators on any given subforum are usually just forum regulars who have contributed somewhat to that specific section—people who happen to post there more frequently than elsewhere—provided they haven't committed any major violations of the site rules, especially regarding the "heavyweight" offenses.
I can't speak for every single corner of this site, but the rest of the forum seems reasonably well-managed to me; the more serious sections, in particular. Even Chuck is actually a decent mod over in the Politics section.

However, if one takes a look at the Men's Corner, the lack of cohesion with the rest of the forum becomes glaringly obvious. The moderator assigned there is none other than Chuck, a man who seemingly has absolutely nothing to do with the culture of the Men's Corner. He doesn't know how to joke around the way we do there, he doesn't write in the style of the MC, he isn't particularly entertaining, and frankly, nobody in that subforum actually cares about him. He only shows his face when it's time to hand out bans or to occasionally drool over the ladies.

Dee also contributes absolutely nothing of value to the Men's Corner through his posts. Ninety percent of his activity is centered around food and cooking. The guy cooks, dances, sings... I fail to see how he adds anything to the "guy talk" vibe. Where are his actual meaningful contributions, aside from issuing bans and the occasional thirsty comment on those threads with the photos? 😕

United Airlines handles the Travel section, and he’s doing an alright job there too. I've followed that subforum a bit, and it seems to function quite well. But this guy never even bothered to post in the Men's Corner until that photo thread showed up, where his only talent is being a creep and acting like he's some big shot. 😕 His contribution to the Men's Corner is zero. He's just an annoying, witless presence.

As for mother, I honestly don't know if the man is even still alive.

To me, it’s crystal clear: these three living souls were slapped onto the Men's Corner as mods simply because they already held moderator positions in other sections. They probably tossed a few posts into the MC, and management figured it was easier to just move existing mods over rather than recruiting someone new.

But is that really the smartest way to run things? These guys have no idea what the Men's Corner used to be like; they don't grasp the specific brand of sarcasm we have, and they've turned what used to be a real community into some sanitized, "soft" version of a social club.
Let’s be honest here: the subforum has dwindled down to basically just a thread of photos where the same three or four girls constantly post pictures, the same three or four guys constantly compliment them, while everyone else sits on the sidelines being creeps and sliding into DMs.
Every other topic follows the same stale pattern—rehashed, mindless ideas and dull posts filled with "LOLs" and "ROFLs," which, let's be real, aren't half as funny as a mediocre American stand-up comedian.

So, I believe I have every right to ask: why aren't the moderators being rotated out when they have clearly ruined the Men's Corner?

Look, let's be real for a second—the quality of our PDFs isn't just on the shoulders of the moderators; we as forum members play a huge role in that too.

Benjamin Martin80 said:First off, let me make one thing clear: I’ve been hanging around this forum much longer than you have, and I've been on the CIA boards even longer. This isn't even my first handle 😉
. Back when Chuck was running the show, things were fundamentally different. You probably don't even remember half the users who used to post back then. The whole vibe—the banter, the sheer chaos—was on a completely different level. Out of all those old-timers, the only one I still see around is mum. Everyone else either vanished into thin air or retreated to some hole-in-the-wall dive bar somewhere deep in the Midwest 🙄
.
It is honestly just pathetic that there’s now a single thread on the CIA boards that carries its own set of special rules, even if it’s just about file sharing. It used to be that the CIA was nothing but pure, unadulterated nonsense. And sure, naturally, the chauvinism was always dialed up to eleven. Women were always posting on the CIA, too, but they were always part of the joke, getting teased and ribbed just like everyone else.
But now? Now you come along, you write a little something to some random woman who’s dumped 150 photos and racked up 3,000 posts in a single thread, you call her out, and suddenly you get banned. Why? Since when did women start moderating the CIA? Since when did chauvinism become forbidden territory here? Since when was having a laugh against the rules?

Look, let’s be real: a forum is a living, breathing thing. It grows, it shifts, and it evolves constantly. People cycle through—some move on to other things, while new faces show up, and because of that, the whole vibe changes. The culture shifts, the way we hang out moves, and even the topics that grab our attention evolve over time. There’s just no way to make it perfectly suit everyone all at once. I know some folks will always look back and swear the old MK was much better, while others are loving the way things are right now. And honestly? That’s just how it goes.

Benjamin Martin80 said:First off, let me make one thing clear: I’ve been hanging around this forum much longer than you have, and I've been on the CIA boards even longer. This isn't even my first handle 😉
. Back when Chuck was running the show, things were fundamentally different. You probably don't even remember half the users who used to post back then. The whole vibe—the banter, the sheer chaos—was on a completely different level. Out of all those old-timers, the only one I still see around is mum. Everyone else either vanished into thin air or retreated to some hole-in-the-wall dive bar somewhere deep in the Midwest 🙄
.
It is honestly just pathetic that there’s now a single thread on the CIA boards that carries its own set of special rules, even if it’s just about file sharing. It used to be that the CIA was nothing but pure, unadulterated nonsense. And sure, naturally, the chauvinism was always dialed up to eleven. Women were always posting on the CIA, too, but they were always part of the joke, getting teased and ribbed just like everyone else.
But now? Now you come along, you write a little something to some random woman who’s dumped 150 photos and racked up 3,000 posts in a single thread, you call her out, and suddenly you get banned. Why? Since when did women start moderating the CIA? Since when did chauvinism become forbidden territory here? Since when was having a laugh against the rules?

Look, some threads just need a different set of ground rules because they deal with sensitive topics or specific subject matter. If we tried to apply our standard moderation style to them, it would honestly cause more chaos than actual order. Regarding that downloading thread—right now, it has to stay exclusively on MK-ovac. We can't just move it to some other corner of the forum. It simply can't function like any other typical MK-ovac thread because the nature of its content requires a specialized approach to keep things running smoothly and in line with our overall forum guidelines.

Benjamin Martin80 said:First off, let me make one thing clear: I’ve been hanging around this forum much longer than you have, and I've been on the CIA boards even longer. This isn't even my first handle 😉
. Back when Chuck was running the show, things were fundamentally different. You probably don't even remember half the users who used to post back then. The whole vibe—the banter, the sheer chaos—was on a completely different level. Out of all those old-timers, the only one I still see around is mum. Everyone else either vanished into thin air or retreated to some hole-in-the-wall dive bar somewhere deep in the Midwest 🙄
.
It is honestly just pathetic that there’s now a single thread on the CIA boards that carries its own set of special rules, even if it’s just about file sharing. It used to be that the CIA was nothing but pure, unadulterated nonsense. And sure, naturally, the chauvinism was always dialed up to eleven. Women were always posting on the CIA, too, but they were always part of the joke, getting teased and ribbed just like everyone else.
But now? Now you come along, you write a little something to some random woman who’s dumped 150 photos and racked up 3,000 posts in a single thread, you call her out, and suddenly you get banned. Why? Since when did women start moderating the CIA? Since when did chauvinism become forbidden territory here? Since when was having a laugh against the rules?

I honestly don't know about that. I think there are plenty of smart people on MK who are perfectly capable of having actual, serious discussions instead of just leaning into that "it's all just a joke" attitude. We should give them the chance to do that. Sure, most threads on MK still feel pretty tongue-in-cheek, but it’s such a shame when we let potentially great topics get trivialized, especially when they have the potential to be a space for high-quality, lively debate that we can all be proud of.

Benjamin Martin80 said:And you're starting this whole thing with them.

Honestly, I'm already getting my cut from the CIA, but I really ought to write down exactly what they expect from me.

Yeah, he and I are still stuck in this loop together. And Rita was actually pretty decent. Degan even used to post his own photos despite all the mod critiques.🤣
Can you even imagine anyone from today's crowd acting like that?

Well, you said it. And since you're talking about being banned from MK—which basically means you're barred from participating at all—you really shouldn't be getting involved in editing that PDF. If you want to contest the ban, just go ahead and start a formal thread for that.

rowdytiger13 said:The title basically paints the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as chauvinistic.
The opening post is just overflowing with this talk about "gender chauvinism" and making these totally biased statements. It characterizes the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as some kind of organization meant solely to push women's interests while demonizing men.
By opening the thread like this—with an intro that’s framed this way—it’s basically an invitation for trolls, endless bickering, and a full-blown crusade against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

rowdytiger13 said:I already laid out my reasons for locking the thread.
When a topic is kicked off with an opening post that’s loaded with ugly labeling like this, it just leads straight to fighting, trolling, and pointless drama. I really don't think we need that here, especially since we spend so much energy fighting against things like violence and discrimination in related discussions every single day.
It's up to the admins to decide if they want to take it further.

Honestly, I'm right there with the moderator on this one, so I don't have anything else to add.

Honestly, it looks to me like the moderators were being pretty lenient with you, just like they have been with a few others lately. That warning you received is specifically about how you engage with people here, as the rules clearly state. You went digging through an old thread that had absolutely nothing to do with the current topic, pulled out one single sentence to soften the blow, and then used it as an excuse to obsessively nitpick the exact part you wanted to attack. On top of that, you started taking swipes at the moderation team, and when apparently tearing apart one thread wasn't enough for you, you jumped over to another one to keep pushing those same provocative vibes. I really don't know why you thought you could get away with that kind of behavior.

The posts were removed because they were straight-up trolling, argumentative, and full of personal attacks.

If you’re going to quote someone’s content that happens to be in their signature, then you need to actually include the whole thing. It seems like you conveniently cherry-picked a snippet from your own signature this time just to suit the specific provocation you were trying to stir up, so that’s going to be wiped out too. You might want to watch what you're saying and how you're framing things, because this kind of trolling isn't going to be tolerated anymore.

I’m right there with William Bennett53 on this one. If you actually look at the FEC rules, it’s clearly stated that any accusations need to be backed up by actual evidence. You can't just go around throwing out allegations without proof—it’s just not how things work here, and honestly, it's not fair to expect the moderators to jump in and provide explanations for posts that don't even exist. Give the rulebook another read and try to make sure your thread actually aligns with them next time.

John Castillo7 said:I even backed my point up with four different examples.

Look, back in the original thread, you posted those two links and the moderator was actually pretty cool about it—they told you straight up there wasn't anything wrong with them and explained that you have to look at the context. So, honestly, we should probably just leave it at that.

John Castillo7 said:On top of that, even without providing a link, I brought up that situation with Eiffel's ad.

Eiffel has already been told more than once exactly what the issue is with his advertisements.

John Castillo7 said:If Dorian had written "the moderator answered you" down below...

Everything you asked has already been answered.

Is it Depeche Mode or 🤣 😁
?

Alright, if that's really how you want to play it, then we're going with driftingbear29 🙂

driftingbear29 said:
I actually like the lowercase "d" idea😍 But it feels a bit forced, like a slap in the face... plus what 😵rustydrifter10 said
HOWEVER, it would mean a lot to shorten my handle because the current one reminds me of something 🙂 and I just want a fresh start😁

Maybe it could be... well, just a little bit.. 😁 I need to check if the forum can distinguish between them 😍 🙂

The rules state this 🙂

So, could the handle be Dépeche?? I am really, really hoping so... 🙂 🙂

Nope, that won't work. As far as this forum is concerned, accented letters are treated exactly the same as their standard counterparts. They might let you change it to include an accent later on if the registration system rejects it initially, but since the system views them as identical, you can't use an accent as the sole way to differentiate between two nicknames.

Seriously, stop with the double "e." Those intentional "mistakes" are just plain tacky and unnecessary. 😢