Nicholas King said:I get where you're coming from and I accept that—it’s just that, in this specific instance, the moderator restricting Canadian content strictly to the Canada thread seems more like a personal rule of theirs rather than anything actually tied to the official forum guidelines.
Look, moderators are granted a certain amount of autonomy, and they can set specific ground rules for particular threads even if those rules aren't explicitly laid out in the main handbook or the PDF guidelines. As long as they aren't breaking the core community standards and the discussion stays civil and productive, it's all good. In this case, since there was a clear need to allow people to write in Canadian within the Canada discussion, the moderator simply made that call to accommodate everyone.
Bill, just like Striker pointed out to you, using this kind of language isn't helping your case—if anything, it’s just proving once again that the decision to issue the ban was completely justified. This is a space where we have zero tolerance for insults, and that type of rhetoric simply isn't allowed here.
Since you can't even manage to show a shred of basic decency while trying to argue your point or petition to have the ban lifted, I'm confirming yet again that the original decision stands. We have absolutely no intention of changing it.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to step in and tell you all not to throw accusations around without a shred of actual proof. We aren't going to sit here and tolerate conspiracy theories designed just to "derail the conversation," nor will we tolerate blatant trolling or anyone simply trying to stir the pot for the sake of it.
Nicholas King said:On a neighboring thread, the question of what actually constitutes "trolling" has resurfaced—for some reason or another—so I am starting this topic (which, naturally, could be summarily deleted based on someone’s subjective whim) because it remains a perennial stumbling block on this American forum.
I suspect we are dealing with two distinct issues that are being stubbornly "kept alive" for no apparent reason, despite being entirely unnecessary. First, there is the issue from the user's perspective: no matter how perfect a definition you craft for a specific punishable category, you cannot prevent a bad moderator from being a bad moderator. It is impossible to turn an argument into an algorithm, and by extension, it is just as impossible to fully automate the sanctioning of rule-breaking within those arguments; there will always be that "gray area" where everything ultimately hinges on that infamous "discretionary moderator judgment."
On the other hand, there actually is a way to significantly shrink that gray area—and thereby reduce the amount of friction between users and administration: namely, it is completely unclear why, on this site, absolutely everything gets lumped under the label of "trolling" (resulting in vastly different users being uniformly branded as trolls), or why trolling is treated like some wild card a moderator can play whenever and however they feel like it.
I don't presume to think I can provide some flawless, universal definition of trolling when no one else has managed it—but, I do believe there is a solution that would simplify things; specifically, there are two obvious forms of trolling that are beyond dispute: the first is the total fabrication of stories about Milen... oops 😁, Soraya-topica, where people post entirely made-up narratives for reasons I cannot fathom, just to trigger a wave of outrage and pathetic responses. The second is "jumping into a thread just to stir the pot": you walk into a discussion on Veganism and start typing about how meat-eaters are idiots and so on. These types of examples are easy to spot, and penalizing them would never lead to any misunderstanding.
That leaves us with that problematic segment that is constantly shoved under the "trolling" umbrella, when it could much more simply be called "disrupting the discussion." This is the part that cannot be captured by a clear definition that would eliminate a moderator's discretionary right to decide what is what based on their own (in)competence. While I realize I am essentially inviting a massive amount of ridicule here—since it is always easier to mock someone on the first volley and lean on the "that's just how it's always been" inertia rather than pausing to actually think—I seriously believe that renaming the "offtopic/spam" penalty to "offtopic/spam/disruption," and separating those instances from unambiguous trolling, would clear up many of the ongoing misunderstandings. There is plenty of room for debate regarding the how and the why without needing further clarification 🙂.
Nicholas King said:I won't multi-quote every single individual post—just a few collective observations here.
Does the specific label of a ban actually matter? I’d argue it does—because if it didn't, we wouldn't have distinct categories for off-topic posts, harassment, trolling, and so on; we’d just hand out an arbitrary number of penalty points and say goodbye. So, it seems someone, somewhere, decided that my thread actually had enough merit to warrant introducing a "ban taxonomy"—otherwise, the only rule this Forum would ever need to implement (copyright Jack) would be a simple "don't be a jerk."
But there's more to it—and here comes the part that’s easiest to mock: much like how every janitor nowadays gets rebranded as a "facilities manager," it isn't quite right to lump vastly different types of disruptive behavior under the single umbrella of "trolling," or to dress up completely different users in the same "troll" uniform. It might be funny, sure, but it’s just as counterproductive to the health of the community to label a harmless goofball and some absolute chaos-agent like Miles... oops, I mean 😁 Sarah.
Therefore, I still maintain that providing clearer definitions makes sense; this isn't merely about rebranding a "trolling ban" as a "discussion disruption ban."
One more thing: I made it very clear that formalizing the rules won't somehow prevent a moderator from acting like an idiot or a nuisance—after all, even "real" laws are subject to various legal interpretations, let alone the rules of an online community. I also explicitly stated that there will always be a "gray area" where arbitrary moderator judgment takes over—but the whole point is to ensure that this gray area is limited strictly to those instances where no specific rule exists to cover them.
In light of the warning I just gave, there is really no point in you constantly backtracking on your suspicions by claiming someone is a clone. We have clarity regarding Sarah—that part is settled, no doubt about it—but we don't have that same certainty regarding Milena. You are more than welcome to hold your own opinions or express them, but please stop dragging this "clone" argument out every single time it feels convenient for you, because it isn't working.
Drew Martin84 said:Here are the exact kinds of statements that caused three different people to get a red card. There was no insult involved, merely an expression of dissatisfaction with the moderation, yet it resulted in an automatic ban. It is the most effective way to silence someone.
What seems to be escaping your understanding is that these instances will only become more frequent. This isn't just isolated to one specific thread; things spiraled out of control there because Disney was deleting posts and issuing warnings without any legitimate cause—so it is perfectly natural that people are expressing their frustration there, and that sentiment is beginning to spread. With every new penalty issued, the number of dissatisfied users will only grow.
If anyone here actually understood how to moderate these people, these unjustified bans would be overturned, Disney would apologize and admit her mistake, and perhaps everything could return to normal; instead, the situation will only deteriorate until half of the expatriate community rebels, at which point you might finally have no choice but to replace her.
But as I have already said, I no longer have any intention of participating in such an undemocratic forum, so as far as I am concerned, you may close this topic whenever you wish... this will be my final post.
Look, expressing frustration with the moderation team isn't allowed on these threads—that’s exactly what the community guidelines PDF is for. I honestly feel like we've made that clear more than enough times by now. Since the moderator gave several different warnings that were just ignored, she decided to go with a harsher penalty, which is totally within her rights.
Anyway, we’ve reached an agreement that moving forward, it’s enough to give one warning before handing out the standard infractions. We won't be jumping straight to bans, though keep in mind that depending on someone's total point tally, even a single infraction might trigger a ban automatically. That said, if there’s major chaos—like actual insults or other serious violations, especially if they keep happening across multiple posts—the moderator can issue infractions immediately without any prior warning.
As for those comments suggesting we shouldn't sanction anyone unless someone actually reports them, that's just not going to fly. Most people here tend to jump straight into a confrontation instead of just reporting the issue and stepping away, which really ruins the quality of the discussions. The moderators are here to uphold the rules in the handbook, and user reports are just a helpful tool, not the only way we operate.
Please just be careful from here on out and take the moderator's warnings seriously.
Drew Martin84 said:The sole reason mimoza felt the need to address the moderation was that Henry Moore2 initiated a warning unnecessarily at the very beginning, given that there was no insult intended toward her, yet she apparently took everything personally, which suggests a complete lack of objectivity... However, it is clear that you all have already made up your minds and have no intention of revisiting the sanction, so as far as I am concerned, you may close this thread, and I will be the first to announce that I will no longer be participating in this community, as I see there is simply no point...
Instead, I shall make sure to represent the moderation team from this site in the most glowing light possible on all the other platforms where I am active. That is all from me. Regards.
Look, mimoza wrote a post that Henry Moore2 might have misread or taken the wrong way—and I’ll be the first to admit the user definitely wasn't trying to be insulting—but that doesn't change the fact that the thread had turned into a nasty back-and-forth. The communication was getting pretty unpleasant, and someone had to step in and shut it down. If mimoza felt there was an issue with how things were being moderated, the right move would have been to send a private message or bring it up in the official feedback section, rather than cluttering up the main discussion. That's exactly what was suggested, but it was ignored, and that's when the sanctions finally kicked in.
Drew Martin84 said:Please, let’s not dwell on baseless assumptions... I am the one who initiated this entire discussion, yet I have only been a registered member of this forum for a single month, and I hardly know anyone here, much less the people you are implying I am connected to. This is quite literally my first thread, which means your theory falls apart before it even begins to take shape... If you find that hard to believe, you are more than welcome to examine my profile and review my posting history for yourself...
Yes, she carried out that action flawlessly, primarily because she went ahead and scrubbed every single post that proved her mistakes... such as that one from mimoza which led to her issuing a warning and a formal strike, despite the fact that nothing offensive was actually written in it. If that post were still live on the forum, I would gladly copy it right here just to demonstrate how absurd the accusation really was... but of course, the easiest path is simply to delete the evidence, find a few moderators who will conveniently take your side, and then claim you performed your duties perfectly without any errors at all...
This is absolutely correct, and with every passing post, the reality of the situation becomes increasingly transparent... Here we have four users complaining about Henry Moore2, and I suspect at least three others would have voiced their grievances if they hadn't been banned already; that makes seven people in total, yet it turns out all seven are in the wrong while she remains the only one standing on solid ground... It follows that no matter how much we protest, there is no point, because a handful of moderators will inevitably side with her simply because they have known her for so long, and that is where it ends. This entire PZK forum feels utterly futile, given that the moderators are clearly always right and everyone else is perpetually mistaken, making any attempt to appeal a complete waste of energy... wanderingharbor492 made an excellent point when he suggested that the best course of action is to simply pack up and walk away, to stop participating entirely, so that perhaps when only the moderator is left alone in certain threads, some things might finally become clear...
Look, we saw those deleted posts.
The mimoza user got flagged because they just wouldn't stop picking fights with the moderation team and bickering with the other sanctioned users on the thread, even after Henry Moore2 gave several warnings to drop it. Honestly, the mods messed up here, and the penalties they handed out were totally justified given the situation.
Drew Martin84 said:Perhaps Henry Moore2 could simply copy and paste the exact comment here that led to mimoza being banned—the specific remark that was supposedly offensive enough to warrant a warning, a yellow card, and eventually a full ban... so we can all judge for ourselves whether she actually deserved such treatment.
Furthermore, I have noticed that quite a few people living in Australia seem to be getting banned on this forum, and soon enough, when someone wants to ask a question regarding life in Australia, there won't be anyone left to answer, because those living in Australia will either end up banned or simply stop participating due to this style of moderation...
And I completely understand why they would feel that way (for instance, Nancy Jones91), because there is little reason for them to waste their time participating here when they have already relocated and achieved their goals, leaving them with very little to gain from these types of forums... people join out of pure goodwill to help one another, so instead of issuing bans and warnings over trivialities, perhaps they should be granted a bit more freedom...
It was also rightly pointed out that a moderator on the Diaspora forum really ought to be someone from the diaspora itself, as Henry Moore2, through this particular approach to moderating, seems to be creating more friction than they are resolving... merely escalating tensions by sanctioning individuals like mimoza, who truly did nothing wrong at all...
Since everyone just kept ignoring the initial warnings, Henry Moore2 finally stepped in and announced that anyone who keeps this up is getting banned. It didn't come out of nowhere, either—she made it crystal clear from the jump exactly what would happen if people didn't stop breaking the rules in this thread.
Drew Martin84 said:Perhaps Henry Moore2 could simply copy and paste the exact comment here that led to mimoza being banned—the specific remark that was supposedly offensive enough to warrant a warning, a yellow card, and eventually a full ban... so we can all judge for ourselves whether she actually deserved such treatment.
Furthermore, I have noticed that quite a few people living in Australia seem to be getting banned on this forum, and soon enough, when someone wants to ask a question regarding life in Australia, there won't be anyone left to answer, because those living in Australia will either end up banned or simply stop participating due to this style of moderation...
And I completely understand why they would feel that way (for instance, Nancy Jones91), because there is little reason for them to waste their time participating here when they have already relocated and achieved their goals, leaving them with very little to gain from these types of forums... people join out of pure goodwill to help one another, so instead of issuing bans and warnings over trivialities, perhaps they should be granted a bit more freedom...
It was also rightly pointed out that a moderator on the Diaspora forum really ought to be someone from the diaspora itself, as Henry Moore2, through this particular approach to moderating, seems to be creating more friction than they are resolving... merely escalating tensions by sanctioning individuals like mimoza, who truly did nothing wrong at all...
Honestly, I feel like we’ve pretty much ironed out all those PDF issues regarding this topic, which leads me to believe that the moderator isn't actually the one at fault here—especially since everything else seems to be running smoothly without these kinds of crazy escalations breaking out.
Nancy Jones91 said:This is just people trying to flex their dominance, nothing else. I live in Australia, but honestly, this forum is losing its purpose. There's no real discussion or even healthy debate left, and without that, there's no way to actually build anything positive...
Best,
You are absolutely free to debate and express opposing views. In fact, we encourage it! But you cannot resort to insults, provocation, or breaking any of the other forum rules.
Henry Moore2 has stepped in a few times now, asking everyone to just chill out and reminding us that certain debates really don't belong in this specific thread. Since things kept heating up anyway, she issued one final warning, making it clear that if the bickering continues, she’s going to start handing out bans. Everyone got the memo, though clearly, a few folks decided to just tune her out entirely.
People are starting to bring up older incidents too, and honestly, it feels like we saw the exact same drama unfold in that thread about Australia. I actually remember jumping in once myself—I ended up locking a topic because the trolling was getting so out of hand within just a couple of hours! I had to step in because if I hadn't, I would have been forced to ban people myself just to keep the peace after they ignored the warnings.
At the end of the day, talking back to the mods or straight-up ignoring a warning is a direct violation of the rules and definitely subject to penalties. We can't have that here. That's exactly why we have this entire PDF laid out for the appeals process—to make sure threads don't get hijacked by people who aren't following the guidelines.
If you don't have anything constructive or specific to contribute to this appeal, please just hold off on posting instead of turning this thread into a massive back-and-forth argument.
The appeal is currently under review, so I’m asking everyone to please show a little patience while we work through it.
redtiger15 said:And there you have it, that’s exactly my point. A moderator goes and kills a perfectly good discussion for no reason, leaving us all shortchanged on posts like this one. But for some reason, they just can't—or won't—wrap their heads around that. It’s apparently more important to scrub away some harmless back-and-forth just to keep the environment feeling sterile and "clean." Look, I’m not trying to drag out an argument with that particular mod; honestly, the mistake should've been fixed two days ago anyway. Besides, I don't really feel like posting on that thread or even in that subforum anymore.
@Jack Rodriguez7, yeah, my PMs are actually turned off right now. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned how it makes sense that certain places prefer the "average Joe" types. This isn't the spot to hash that out, and since I’m done posting in that subforum, I'm not going to go through the trouble of moving this post over there myself. If someone else wants to get the ball rolling on this debate again, be my guest.
Anyway, thanks. I'll give you a shout if anything else pops up that I need help with.
Actually, you're losing those posts because certain users seem to think they can break the rules as long as the rest of their message stays on-topic and helpful. Newsflash: they can't. If you stop mixing inappropriate comments with constructive ones, the good stuff won't get lost in the shuffle.
bluebadger44 said:What are you even going to say to deny that I consider this violence? I’m sticking to what I said, and I’ll add that you won't even answer my questions (again, depriving me of information). And besides, for the hundredth time, who are you to decide what counts as relevant information to me? As for the belittling part, I think you're the only participant who actually took what happened seriously.
Don't put words in my mouth. I only said that human memory is fallible; I wasn't calling anyone out. My answer was general.
You're grasping at straws.
Excuse me? I didn't ask for your reaction. You don't need to be a moderator just to reply to someone's post. Isn't that literally the whole point of an online forum? I simply asked you to compare that comment to the one that was deleted and explain the difference, but you're dodging the question again. I assume the site rules apply to every section of this forum (except maybe the politics board) and to everyone participating? I am asking you once more to comment on the quoted post—and I'm asking Nicky too.
And yet again, you refuse to address this pathetic response of yours, which I've already posted three times in this thread:
Sure, but that discussion—the one you think was excessive—is what "triggered" his quality comment...
How many users have to complain about a moderator before something actually gets done about this?
It’s not really about the quantity of complaints; it’s about what the complaints are actually about and whether they’re frequent and justified.
Drought is an incredibly active moderator and does a ton of heavy lifting here, and honestly, given how much work they put in, minor grievances—like complaining about edits or having off-topic posts removed—are hardly a reason to let go of such a solid moderator.
We all mess up sometimes; nobody's perfect. But in this specific instance regarding the deleted posts, Drought didn't do anything wrong.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the sheer absurdity of what just happened in Lütje. Honestly, it feels like one of those fever dreams you have after eating too much greasy diner food at 2 AM—just surreal and fundamentally nonsensical. It’s one of those situations where you find yourself staring at the ceiling, wondering if everyone else actually witnessed the same chaos or if I’ve finally lost my grip on reality. It’s almost impressive, in a deeply frustrating sort of way, how quickly things can spiral when logic decides to take a permanent vacation. kaže: Comments like the one from bluebadger44 shouldn't have even been an issue, but then again, you managed to scrub the entire thread before anyone could even react.
Once the thread was scrubbed, the conversation shifted toward relationships and other topics, settling into a much more civil tone—similar to the kind of level-headed commentary you’d expect from someone like Brian Edwards6. Honestly, if the discussion had maintained that sort of decorum from the very beginning, none of those deletions would have been necessary in the first place.👍
I can't say I have much to add regarding Ljutica. It seems we've hit a bit of a dead end here. kaže: It seems you’ve run out of actual arguments to lean on.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I’m under no obligation to agree with it. In this particular instance, I find myself in disagreement—and, if I do say so myself, the site administration feels exactly the same way.👍
It’s officially a local holiday here, which means the usual chaos is in full swing. You know how it goes—everything slows down, the streets get packed, and you spend half the day wondering why anyone thought this was a good idea in the first place. Just another typical day of trying to navigate the festivities while pretending I'm not just looking for the nearest quiet corner and a decent cup of coffee. kaže: Well, looks like they went ahead and nuked my post. Well, there you have it. The very first sentence explains exactly why this was deleted. Honestly, what more is there to say?
Look, since editing comments isn't an option here, the entire post—which was actually quite coherent and grounded—got nuked just because of that one sentence where you decided to take a shot at the moderation team. Honestly, there were several warnings posted right on the thread, complete with links to the subforum rules and this specific discussion, yet you went ahead anyway. You knew exactly what you were doing, so really, you have no one to blame for the deletion but yourself. This is how it works, and frankly, this is how it will continue to work for every future comment of this nature. The rule against critiquing the moderators within a main discussion thread exists for a very practical reason: if we let people hijack the topic to complain about oversight, a discussion that’s already hundreds of comments deep would be completely smothered by meta-arguments. It's all laid out clearly. You've been asked to simply repost your comment without the commentary on the staff; if you have grievances regarding how things are run, feel free to air them here instead.👍
It’s the exact same situation I’m dealing with at my place.👍
Furthermore, for the umpteenth time, I have judged the utility of a comment based on the reaction it provoked.👍
The topic at hand concerns deleted comments within this specific thread, not every random post across the entire site, so I have no intention of weighing in on things that don't pertain to me. Should someone post something like that in the subforums I moderate, I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion.👍
Why call it snarky? She didn't provide a substantive answer to that first deleted comment; she immediately pivoted to making fun of it, which was quite clearly her intent. To avoid any confusion, that was a perfectly justified and understandable reaction to that initial comment. If she had found the discussion actually interesting, she would have had something substantial to contribute rather than just that.👍
Not by a long shot. Miller's comment was prompted by the deletion of posts in the Legal subforum and our private exchange via DM. He and I have an unrelated dispute, and this provided him a chance to express his dissatisfaction, doing so politely, as he always does.👍
In my experience, even a single legitimate grievance should suffice, as evidenced by some of my previous threads.👍>
I'm with you on this.
Since things have devolved into insults and provocations, and both the moderator and the admin team have made their positions clear, I'm locking this thread.
You can always just report a post if it contains stuff like that, or you could just shoot them a direct message instead; honestly, it won't take you any more time than it takes to write out a post anyway, and it definitely isn't considered spam.
When we clear out spam or any unnecessary clutter, we end up wiping the entire thread. That means even those posts that actually had some constructive points get swept up in the process. We do this strictly to maintain the flow and make sure the conversation still makes sense for everyone else reading it. Occasionally, we might leave certain comments standing if they still fit perfectly within the context of the discussion—even without the original quote—but usually, if the text is vital to the topic, it gets cleared out too.
Honestly, there isn't anything in those deleted posts that can't be rewritten properly, and most of it probably isn't new info anyway. Plus, the moderator was kind enough to copy and paste them for you, just in case you felt like you missed out on any essential details.
That’s not even the point. You clearly missed it—read the post again.
Those argumentative posts actually contain info regarding the job opening that matters to me. Please put them back. Honestly, a simple warning from the moderator that we'd face sanctions if the tone didn't change would have been enough.
That’s not even the point. You clearly missed it—read the post again.
Those argumentative posts actually contain info regarding the job opening that matters to me. Please put them back. Honestly, a simple warning from the moderator that we'd face sanctions if the tone didn't change would have been enough.
Look, most of those posts end up being nothing more than petty arguments rather than actual helpful info. Besides, it’s really up to the moderator to judge whether a simple warning is enough, or if they need to step in with deletions and sanctions. Any constructive nuggets within those posts can always be reposted—just without all the extra fluff, and especially without dragging moderator decisions into the mix.
Regardless of anything else, any single post that breaks the rules is fair game for deletion. It doesn't mean the mod has to be a total hardliner and wipe out every little bit of casual chat or off-topic banter, but commenting on moderation or trying to bait people just doesn't belong in this thread, and the moderator can clear it out if they feel it's for the best. If you look at those 15 deleted posts, about two-thirds of them didn't even have anything relevant to the topic anyway, and the rest were just quotes and reactions that probably would have been totally fine in a different context if they weren't part of the whole argument.
I think we’re just seeing things differently regarding what actually counts as important info. In this instance, redtiger15’s take and my own carry more weight than yours. This thread wasn't opened up for moderation purposes; it was created so we could swap experiences, news, and stuff like that. From that perspective, the thread is working perfectly. And I’d really like to keep it that way.
Actually, every single thread on this forum is subject to moderation.
I went back and read through those deleted posts, and honestly, most of them were just people sniping at one another. Even the few that weren't aggressive were just part of that same messy back-and-forth, and they were probably pulled just to keep the discussion focused. So, I'm totally fine with them being taken down. That very first deleted post clearly triggered a massive wave of nasty comments that have no business being here, and given how it was originally phrased, it probably would've just kept the negativity spiraling. Personally, I don't think anyone would mind if the author posted it again—as long as they leave out those baseless claims about how you basically need to be "above average" and have the right connections just to land a job.
Just a heads-up from the team: our moderators will be handing out warnings and cleaning up any posts that break the rules or just don't fit the vibe of this community.
I'm on the exact same page here. Both Strile and I stepped up and offered some solid answers, just like a few of the mods did. Honestly, I think it’s pretty obvious why that guy ended up getting banned.
Oh, I see my name popped up here! Sorry about that, guys, I might not have the full scoop on this specific situation.
I took a quick look at the profile and went through their recent posts, and honestly, here’s my take on it. It looks like someone signed up with a handle that might seem harmless enough at first glance, but then they immediately started dropping nothing but problematic, troll-style comments. Basically, they look like a troll and they're acting exactly like one. In my opinion, if this user had chosen a less "flashy" username or if they had just engaged in normal conversation without trying to provoke everyone, they probably wouldn't have been banned so quickly. But when you combine a loud username with constant agitation right when they join the community, it’s a massive red flag. It’s usually better to just clear them out fast before they cause real damage to the vibe of the board. Just like how we jump on spammers or people posting ads the second they show up, sometimes we have to do the same with trolls if that’s the only reason they’re even here. Honestly, two posts can be more than enough to make a call, especially when the username itself is screaming for attention.