coppermarlin13 said:I’m starting a new thread right here on this subforum specifically for reporting posts like these...
We aren't going to have a mega-thread for this one.
coppermarlin13 said:I'm jumping in right away to report two separate posts—one from a moderator and one from a supermod. Ryan Vaughn7 It looks like you’re asking about the policy listed on that PDF.
Cardboarded.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:I honestly can't believe we're still circling the drain on this same topic after all this time! It feels like we’ve been having the exact same argument for months, and yet, here we are again. I was just reading what Ryan Vaughn7 had to say earlier, and while I get where he’s coming from—really, I do—I think he’s missing the forest for the trees. He’s so focused on the technicalities that he’s completely ignoring the actual impact this is having on people's daily lives. And don't even get me started on what coppermarlin13 mentioned about the recent ruling from the Administrative Court. It’s just typical, isn't it? You expect some level of common sense, and instead, you get a decision that feels like it was written by someone who hasn't stepped foot in a real American city in decades. It’s frustrating, truly. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, but we have to look at the bigger picture. If we keep following this logic, we're just heading straight into a wall. I remember back when we were discussing the Memphis situation last year, and we saw how a similar approach led to total chaos. We should have learned something from that! Instead, we seem determined to repeat the same mistakes. I know, I know, I’m rambling. I tend to do that when I get worked up. But seriously, if we want to see any real progress, we need to stop nitpicking the small stuff and start addressing the core issues head-on. What do you guys think? Am I just shouting into the void here, or does anyone else feel like we're spinning our wheels?
Look, next time, could you please just put everything into a single post? Or, at the very least, throw in an English translation so we aren't all left guessing. It would make things so much smoother for everyone. And honestly, just be a little more mindful of what you're posting, where you're putting it, and how you're phrasing it—please.
That forum regular you mentioned actually posted several times using Cyrillic within a single thread and ended up getting one cumulative warning (it was four posts on just one page, and I didn't even look at the rest of the topic). Edge also received a cumulative warning for two posts. Generally speaking, I tend to issue collective warnings, and that’s exactly how I handled things this time around. I'm not going to be any more lenient just because someone happens to be part of the admin team; if anyone else were in that position, my decision would be identical. I don't recall you insisting on four separate warnings for Morgan back then, either. Please, let's not start any new threads about this.
Daniel Wilson6 said:Yeah, that’s what I was thinking too, but honestly, I had someone in another thread insisting it works differently.
Wait, who exactly is telling you that? 🙂 Look, the mods on some random subreddit might make a backroom deal to swap out who issues a ban if one of them feels personally attacked, but that isn't some kind of universal rule.
A moderator absolutely has the right—and honestly, the responsibility—to step in and issue sanctions whenever someone starts being abusive on a thread they’re overseeing, regardless of whether those insults are aimed directly at them or just directed at another user in the community.
No, you aren't getting your permanent ban lifted, and frankly, you don't have the right to post here under any other username. There’s just been way too much disrespect and a blatant disregard for the rules in general. You came looking for a way out of your perm, but you basically earned it through the way you've been acting.
vividmaker9 said:The issue boils down to the rules. They basically let mods just cut through any friction or debate without caring who actually threw the first punch. I get the logic—mods don't have all day to play detective—but when a situation starts snowballing, shouldn't it be in everyone's interest to actually pinpoint what caused the mess? If you hang out in the politics section long enough, you notice the same pattern: it’s almost always Adam Collins4 clashing with everyone else. It's weird how that one guy keeps landing in these situations. I laid out my own experience earlier; it was pretty straightforward and shows how fast things escalate. It started with someone asking a simple question, just wanting to see some posts from back in 2009 if they even existed. Instead of providing proof, the guy just tried to outsmart the questioner and turned it into an attack. I don't see why the mod can't just step in and handle it properly instead of just defaulting to repression, handing out warnings, and deleting everything.
Exactly. It doesn't really matter who threw the first punch; the mods just have to step in and manage the thread according to the community guidelines.
vividmaker9 said:The absolute worst part about this whole thing is that this kind of trolling always ends up playing right into the troll's hands. The thread is just going to get buried under a mountain of pointless arguing and everyone trying to one-up each other. Eventually, the mods and admins are going to get sick of the chaos—which, honestly, I don't blame them—and they’ll just shut the whole thing down. The troll walks away scot-free without any consequences, and we’re all left right back where we started, circling the drain. It would be so simple to fix this in five minutes if someone in charge actually had the guts to just post this: Look, you guys are fighting over a single detail that's actually pretty easy to settle. Since we can't quote posts that aren't there, the only way to clear this up is to actually show the receipts. So, McAuliffe (or whoever else wants to play this game) why don't you go ahead and quote those specific posts from 2009 you're claiming prove you were against the new bylaws? If you can't pull them up, then it’s perfectly fair to assume they don't exist and you never wrote them. After that, any more back-and-forth is just pure trolling.
Look, out of the 34 replies in this thread, 23 of them are yours plus the original post. You can't really point fingers at someone else for all the trolling and back-and-forth happening here when you've been right in the thick of it—not just participating, but practically leading the charge! Since this isn't the appropriate place for this specific debate, and because our moderators have every right to remove posts or issue warnings for rule violations regardless of who started the mess, I'm locking this thread.
Christian Taylor3 said:It feels like this entire forum has just ground to a halt, leaving us all hanging on the whims of a single admin!
I've already mentioned that this is just a temporary thing!
Christian Taylor3 said:I’ve actually got a bit of a suggestion here, too—what if we moved to a system where the administration is elected on a twelve-month cycle?
We don't actually have a PDF where banned users can just chat amongst themselves. What we do have is the Banned Users Corner, but that’s strictly for filing appeals regarding a ban—it isn't some social club for folks who've been kicked off the site. To keep things organized, a banned user is only permitted to post within the specific thread they personally started; the system won't even give them the technical ability to reply to a thread opened by someone else.
Christian Taylor3 said:So, you guys locked the "question for administration" thread, leaving us with nowhere to go—what is actually happening with the Forum staff? I just noticed Uncle Strile suddenly became a moderator over in Religion, which has to be some kind of joke, right? Or is he serving out some kind of "DSM-IV" sentence over there? 😁
Who is even running the Forum these days?
Right now, I'm the only one handling administration. Honestly, there isn't much to explain because it's just the nature of the beast; moderators come and go, and it’s the exact same story for the supermods and admins. If you're looking for more details than that, you can always reach out via message, and then it's really up to them whether they decide to get back to you or not.
I honestly feel like we've covered everything that needs to be said on this thread—maybe even a little too much! Regarding those deleted posts, we've already restored the ones that shouldn't have been taken down in the first place, but I’m going to ask supermod Nathan Turner3 to take another look and potentially restore any others if they were caught up in the crossfire. The moderator was just trying to clear out off-topic chatter, which unfortunately meant some perfectly fine posts got swept up too. It happens, and as you can see, it's an easy fix.
Now, regarding the comments about people making up plot points or acting like something happened when it actually didn't—that's strictly against the rules. That being said, let's remember that everyone perceives things differently, so there really needs to be a distinction made between a personal impression and what actually took place in the story. Personally, I don't follow the series myself, but I do expect the moderators to be able to tell the difference between a subjective feeling and the actual facts so they can moderate accordingly.
Please, I'm asking you all: don't make these discussions personal. Keep your critiques focused on what was written rather than attacking the person who wrote it. If you spot a rule violation, just hit that report button, and if nobody responds, feel free to shoot a DM to the supermod or bring it up here on the PZK.
Also, looking ahead, when a new thread starts, please try not to jump down each other's throats or go looking for provocations. I was pretty lenient this time and let a few questionable posts slide, but I won't be quite so soft next time!
I think that covers all the bases for now, so just get back to enjoying yourselves and chatting!
Hey everyone, please, can we stop with all the bickering and off-topic chatter here? The complaint was specifically about those deleted posts; the moderators have already looked into it and restored some of them. They’re going to take another look and will bring back any other posts if they find they were removed by mistake too. There wasn't any bad intention behind it—it was just an attempt to clear out the off-topic stuff, and unfortunately, a few posts that really should have stayed got caught in the crossfire. But don't worry, it's an easy fix and we'll get it sorted out.
analogwalker5 said:So what’s the actual logic behind it then? Like, how do they decide which rule-breaking posts get to stay up and get flagged, and which ones just get wiped out entirely?
Honestly, in most cases, it really just comes down to a moderator's call, and that’s exactly what happened here. If someone drops a post in a foreign language or uses a different alphabet in a thread titled "Our Words," there's no point in keeping it—most people won't be able to make heads or tails of it, plus it's against the rules anyway. You can actually find a bunch more details about how this works in that other thread you started, which I've linked above.
I actually took a quick look at your profile, and honestly, you don't have a single strike on this thread—at least not under this username. So, if you’re really going to insist on bringing up "your" ban or whatever, you might want to go find the account that actually earned it first.
We actually built in an option to wait a day after submitting an application before showing up here. Just because they’re appearing online doesn't mean they're actively moderating right this second. They might just be checking things from their phones, which isn't exactly the most practical way to manage stuff, or maybe they've just got other things on their plate. Just hang tight for a bit.
Grace White66 said:Well, I think it's pretty obvious to everyone what the issue is with the pond, but I still feel like it’s just wrong to bring him up in such a condescending way in something like a "Just Say No" brochure. 🤷
But look, this wasn't put together just to make fun of Smith. Seriously, if you guys have fresh ideas, please toss them into the chat—no big deal at all. If you come up with something actually interesting and better than what we have, we'll happily switch it out. 🙂
Nathan Turner3 said:Honestly, it doesn't mean anything to me personally, and it isn't meant to represent anything specific, so if you guys come up with a better way to phrase it (feel free to hash it out over on the Nestlé chat if you're really feeling the urge), just let me know and we can swap it out.
Simple as that.
Aaron Harris2 said:But there’s absolutely no insult intended here—not at all! He's a genuinely nice guy who just gets a little grumpy sometimes, and he might even end up being served at a dinner party— and that was actually the description for the PDF—you can expect to read everything about the world of booze (though, okay, maybe don't expect to see Grdović sitting at your dinner table!).
Look, I think Nathan Turner3 and Aaron Harris2 have covered it perfectly. The subtitle was written as a total joke, purely for laughs, without any mean spirit behind it whatsoever.
Eric Hernandez said:Mladen doesn't have an issue with alcohol; he's totally fine.
🤣
It’s funny, sure, but please, let's not turn this thread into a massive debate, please.
Please, Gregory Turner71, just show me which specific post triggered my partial ban.
Look, without getting bogged down in the specifics of why you were partially restricted, it’s never just about one single post—it usually comes down to someone's entire body of work within a certain PDF. You really need to look much deeper than just that one instance. 🙂 As for anything else, just hang tight and wait for Gregory Turner71 to weigh in.