Posts by Bradley Sanders4

Reading this complaint actually triggered a memory from when I was a kid. We used to sit around watching the Miss Italy pageant on TV, just tearing them apart—"this one's ugly," "that one has a massive nose," "look at those legs." My sister ended up in tears because she couldn't wrap her head around why we were being so mean to these girls.

Rachel Brooks63 said:you completely missed the entire point of this forum existing as a media outlet🤷

And it’s not just about this forum; it applies to the internet at large as a medium.

Look, I don't think public figures deserve to be slandered on here, but calling someone a total loser or pointing out they have massive hips isn't slander. It doesn't exactly ruin their professional reputation or anything.

Basically, the rules against insults and gossip are there to stop users from attacking each other, which prevents everything from devolving into endless flame wars or personal vendettas. We ban hate speech against groups and we ban doxxing. But gossiping about celebrities—even when it's tacky as hell—doesn't violate any of those actual rules.

If we start policing people just because they're being crude, we're heading straight toward total censorship and sterility. Even the American tabloids don't play by those kinds of rules, so why should this little corner of the web?

Bread and circuses. 🙂

Austin Harris8 said:My entire history on this Reddit definitely doesn't support the idea of lifting the ban.

Actually, your history is exactly why it’s not happening.

You’d be getting that ban lifted if you hadn't been the one begging for it in the first place—and let me tell you, that was the last time you ever asked. See you in four months.

feralpilot0 said:What a lovely way to pitch a placebo.

🤣

In that spirit, let's all take a moment to appreciate this beautiful little guy: 🙂

Nathan Brooks4 said:I'm curious, though—do you use this same logic when you see a photo in the news of some disheveled teenager wearing extremist gear at a country music concert?

No.

I'd only use that line of reasoning if we were talking about a masquerade ball, a big game, or some other social gathering that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Hope that answers your question. Now, please, stop dragging me into these kinds of arguments. This isn't the place or the time for it. We're here to discuss how to manage heated topics on the subforum, not debate who wears which political hats to rallies.

Nathan Brooks4 said:

Are you still not seeing the connection? Look, Gay Pride—and the whole movement for gay rights itself—inherently includes a political component that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual gay rights. So, at its core, it functions as a political movement, even if that isn't how it's supposed to work.

To answer your question: no, I still don't see it. What I see is just a shitty, counterproductive attempt at being provocative.

Why on earth would such an isolated incident be lumped in with Pride marches and the broader LGBTQ+ community and their general rights? It’s weird how this specific image gets dug up every single time opponents start fighting against holding these events. It just shows that the person who posted it only wants to drag the conversation down into trolling territory. Once you let one person's provocation steer the debate toward things like Nazis versus partisans, you're basically inviting a wildfire that's nearly impossible to put out.

Kevin Mitchell20 said:Can you even perform surgery on social shifts by just dissecting one specific era?
And is it actually possible for parents to have zero impact on who their twenty-year-old kid turns out to be today?

One last thing—what kind of method even exists to separate religion from politics?

All in all, I'm with aryna and Megalodon on this one...

Look, there’s a massive difference between bringing up old-school communist regimes and pointing at organized religion. The church still refuses to accept homosexuality today, which directly fuels intolerance and discrimination in our society. It’s a continuous political pattern, whether you like it or not. Honestly, I hate making comparisons to the Middle Ages or witch hunts, but it’s pure hypocrisy to ignore this when the media is constantly flooded with priests pushing blatant discrimination. On the flip side, communism hasn't been a state ideology here for decades. Arguing about what those guys did forty or sixty years ago is just pointless because you're debating a ghost—there is no continuity there. It’s like trying to debate what the Nazis did; sure, maybe some twenty-year-old's grandparents were influenced by them, but we all know exactly where that line of reasoning leads. And let's be real: communists weren't some isolated weird case. Homosexuality was treated as an illness and criminalized throughout the entire Western world well into the mid-seventies. So, if we’re going to drag up the horrors of America, then fine, let's talk about the legacy of Thatcherism and Reagan, too—because unlike communism, that stuff is still very much alive and kicking today. Sure, the relationship between the church and the party was tense, but I don't see how that translates to their stance on homosexuality when both sides were essentially against it back then. I just don't see it. If someone can actually explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I’ll gladly change my mind.

Finally, someone actually asked the question. Is there an actual method to separate religion from politics, or are we just stuck in this endless loop forever?

It isn’t always like that, and honestly, it depends on how the conversation is going. I haven't noticed anything on the Zodiac Killer forums that strictly forbids mentioning politics. At the end of the day, this entire debate is rooted in politics anyway, since secular marriage and constitutional issues are political matters, not religious ones. The only thing explicitly mentioned in the moderator warnings is to stay away from discussions about Marshall or America—basically avoiding those endless Godwin-style shouting matches you see over at the New York Times comment sections. I’m all for them banning the mindless insults and sweeping generalizations that Megalodon warned us about, but I’m definitely not in favor of censorship. As far as I understood their warning, they aren't trying to shut down topics; they just want to keep people from dragging in subjects that have no business being part of a discussion like this.

What you’re trying to pull here isn't even about politics; it's just straight-up off-topic trolling. Besides, what you're saying is flat-out wrong. 😉

Charles Ross3 said:Bradley Sanders4, with all due respect, I wasn't actually addressing you, but rather the moderators.

It simply isn't possible to separate those two things, whether it's on this specific thread or any other topic here.
If the policy on ZK is so strict that mentioning the political system we lived under just twenty years ago is deemed "improper"—under the guise that someone might feel offended, hurt, or belittled—then where is the consistency? We often see the moderators explaining that bringing up politics leads to people losing their cool, and let’s be honest, it’s pretty obvious that some forum members really do struggle with anger management. If that's the reasoning, then why isn't it understood that bringing religion and faith into the mix to the level of mockery, disparagement, and outright insults is just as problematic? Why isn't that treated with the same level of scrutiny when similar topics pop up on ZK?

So, my stance is simple: either we allow political discussion, or we ban religious bickering as well. If we go the latter route, shouldn't those users who are itching for those kinds of debates be directed toward appropriate PDFs or dedicated threads focused on politics, religion, and such?

Yeah, and? So am I. I’m officially calling for an end to this forum sterilization.

Charles Ross3 said:Hey Bliss, I really think you moderators might need to sit down and hash out some clearer guidelines regarding how we handle mentions of politics and religion here on the forum.

I mean, look at this—it feels almost impossible to have a serious discussion about homosexuality without touching upon how it was viewed back in the days of the Soviet Bloc or under those old one-party socialist regimes, which shaped the attitudes people still carry today.

As it stands, it's making it seem like gay rights issues only became a flashpoint here after the early 90s when certain religious rhetoric took center stage, whereas in reality, people were being thrown in prison years before that for "unnatural acts" or supposedly "Western decadence" that threatened the stability of the old socialist state.

If simply bringing up socialism, one-party rule, or historical figures like Stalin or Mao is considered such a sensitive, taboo topic that we get instant warnings telling us "keep politics out of this shop," then shouldn't we also consider banning these endless debates over religion? There are plenty of other sub-forums for that, after all... if someone is truly interested in those topics, they can just head over to the Politics or Religion boards.

To be honest, as many others have pointed out, there’s this lingering impression that mocking or belittling believers—mostly Catholics, let's face it—is perfectly fine, yet the second anyone mentions politics (usually referring to the old communist era or the Cold War), it's treated like something scandalous and unwelcome. If both subjects are open to criticism—and they absolutely are—then why shouldn't both be allowed? It doesn't feel particularly fair if one is declared off-limits while the other is left wide open for debate.

Actually, yeah, it is possible. We haven't lived under a one-party system for twenty years, and frankly, that history isn't nearly as relevant to this topic as, say, ancient Greece or some Islamic states might be. The real issue is that the go-to arguments in these debates usually boil down to "well, things were better under Marshall," which is just a nasty way of implying that gay people are all atheists or nostalgic for the old regime. Once someone pulls that kind of "logic" out of their pocket, of course someone else is going to jump in to call them out.

Stop dragging Marshall and Stalin into this as if they're valid talking points, otherwise, we'll never get any actual political discussion done. Cut the philosophy crap.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Voting exists specifically to curb moderator bias.
If the site needs two mods because, say, demand is high, then they should just say: "Hey everyone, this time we're voting for two out of these four candidates."
It's not exactly rocket science.
That way, we actually eliminate that sense of moderator unchecked power.

And believe me, if you look at how things are actually moderated right now, there's no shortage of potentially decent candidates. You can't just claim beforehand that someone won't do a good job.

The fact that you didn't know anyone is irrelevant. The bottom line is we need to reduce moderator favoritism and create some balance.
Give the actual users of a sub-forum a vote in who represents them.

Brenda Hayes16, if the mods are the ones making the suggestions and then the users vote, how exactly would you stop moderator bias during the nomination process itself?

Look, let's be clear. I'm all for having a discussion with the subforum members before installing a new mod, but I'm totally against adding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. We shouldn't be creating rules just to check a box, especially when the end result is just swapping one undemocratic system for another. Don't take this personally.

Steven Reed said:Do you have any idea how many clones would show up to cast their votes? Sure—I realize that increasing the user count might be exactly what Anderlon is aiming for—but honestly, I’m not even sure he’d actually enjoy it.
Reviewing and tallying all those valid versus invalid ballots... honestly, I don't know who would even volunteer for that headache—and personally, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, even if I were dead. 😍

Voting for or against the MOD—it’s an exercise in pure futility. Between all the hidden pitfalls and logical traps, you're basically just asking for a bigger mess.
Did Mark appoint his buddy John as a moderator? Honestly—it doesn't bother me one bit—as long as Mark and John actually do their jobs right.
The real issue arises when Mark and John start moderating poorly—basically playing favorites and picking sides among certain groups on this Reddit thread—along with all the other nonsense I’ve had the displeasure of witnessing since I joined these forums.

So, here’s my suggestion—the mods could actually ask the community who they’d recommend for a moderator position. I say "could"—it's not like it's mandatory, though some people do go about this via private message—but it would be a much better way to handle things.

If we want to actually curb this moderator overreach—and I mean really stop the arbitrary whims of the staff—one solution seems obvious: Anderlon needs to strip the admins of their power to install or remove mods whenever they feel like it based on "forum needs." This assumes, of course, that nothing can be changed without his personal blessing—which is exactly what I gathered from reading through this thread.

With three admins on board, you’d think—given that power isn't concentrated in just one person's hands—that we could actually expect the most objectively qualified candidate to come out on top. It's not exactly rocket science.
A suggestion for the admins—just because it’s easier to grab a former moderator since they already know how the tools work doesn't mean it's actually the smartest move. Chill out a little and take a risk; you might just stumble upon an excellent new mod. Look, if they turn out to be a disaster, we can always strip them of the title—but that just lands us right back at Anderlon.

Can we please just drop that idiotic rule about how a Mod 58 PDF can block a mod installation? The whole point of having home-base PDFs is to handle exactly that—otherwise, there’s zero incentive for me to ever step up and become an archive mod. 😢 🤣

IIRC, unless there’s a legitimate reason to object to a candidate, that "rule" doesn't actually get used. Honestly, mod elections usually go pretty smoothly.

dustyranger64 said:Wishful thinking and reality don't always play nice together. Honestly, there's no need to turn it into some massive Yahoo! headline. Just getting it close to the level of a Yahoo! story is plenty. Or honestly? Maybe don't even bother if the change isn't actually making things better.

Why wouldn't they complain? Honestly, nothing is stopping them!

So, seriously... why on earth should some homophobic, misogynistic troll on Reddit or Yahoo! get a say in who handles the moderation? Makes zero sense!
Why on earth would a historical revisionist get a say in who handles moderation at a history site? Seriously? Makes zero sense.
Why on earth would an orthodox creationist get a say in who handles moderation for the natural sciences? Seriously. It just doesn't make sense!

Just because they aren't random chatters, but actually regular users on Reddit?
Look, I’m out. I refuse to post on a forum where someone like Pero Perić gets a say in who moderates the PDF files—especially when that guy thinks being gay is on the same level as being a predator or a murderer. And there's no way in hell I'm letting some hardline creationist, who wouldn't know basic biology or scientific proof if it hit him in the face, decide who handles the natural sciences. Just isn't happening for me!

A veto? Honestly, respectively, I think that's a terrible move. You can't stop people from letting personal vendettas or old grudges drive their decisions through a veto. It’s way more logical to ask the folks on Reddit for moderator suggestions rather than asking them to handle vetos. That feels much more constructive—plus, some of us are already doing that anyway!
In fact, those kinds of discussions are exactly why I decided to stop suggesting certain users for mod roles. Once I saw that some of the more experienced users on here didn't think someone was competent or mature enough for the job, I just backed off.

Look, I’d actually give Pero Perić the benefit of the doubt here. There’s a massive difference between him saying he doesn't want some evolutionist moderating his thread, and him saying he doesn't want Davor running the show. I mean, Davor has barely even touched this board—he’s popped up maybe twice on some random sub-forum, and both times he was acting like he owned the place and talking down to everyone else. You can ignore the first point if you want, but you really can't just brush off the second one.

Timothy Davis59 said:And here we see the true face of these so-called liberals. Democracy is just a convenient tool for them, used whenever it suits their interests.

Just like they do to the enemies of liberal democracy, for that matter. ☕

steelskipper5 said:Which, again, looks like an even bigger failure on the part of the monument to stupidity administration for letting a subforum rot to the point where nobody even wants to touch it.
I mean, new subforums should only pop up when there’s actually enough interest for people to stop crowding other sections. Except for the formal debate area, obviously. ☕ And if it eventually gets to the point where nobody cares about it anymore, then either the administration messed up by opening it in the first place, or they just totally dropped the ball on keeping things running.

I was actually just about to try and talk some sense into you. 🤣

It’s not really true that all the forums looking for mods have "failed." It's just that on some of them, there simply aren't people willing to take on the responsibility. Most folks would much rather just post and stay blue.

dustyranger64 said:Wishful thinking and reality don't always play nice together. Honestly, there's no need to turn it into some massive Yahoo! headline. Just getting it close to the level of a Yahoo! story is plenty. Or honestly? Maybe don't even bother if the change isn't actually making things better.

Why wouldn't they complain? Honestly, nothing is stopping them!

So, seriously... why on earth should some homophobic, misogynistic troll on Reddit or Yahoo! get a say in who handles the moderation? Makes zero sense!
Why on earth would a historical revisionist get a say in who handles moderation at a history site? Seriously? Makes zero sense.
Why on earth would an orthodox creationist get a say in who handles moderation for the natural sciences? Seriously. It just doesn't make sense!

Just because they aren't random chatters, but actually regular users on Reddit?
Look, I’m out. I refuse to post on a forum where someone like Pero Perić gets a say in who moderates the PDF files—especially when that guy thinks being gay is on the same level as being a predator or a murderer. And there's no way in hell I'm letting some hardline creationist, who wouldn't know basic biology or scientific proof if it hit him in the face, decide who handles the natural sciences. Just isn't happening for me!

A veto? Honestly, respectively, I think that's a terrible move. You can't stop people from letting personal vendettas or old grudges drive their decisions through a veto. It’s way more logical to ask the folks on Reddit for moderator suggestions rather than asking them to handle vetos. That feels much more constructive—plus, some of us are already doing that anyway!
In fact, those kinds of discussions are exactly why I decided to stop suggesting certain users for mod roles. Once I saw that some of the more experienced users on here didn't think someone was competent or mature enough for the job, I just backed off.

You've got a point, veto might be a bit of a heavy word. It might work on some boards and fail miserably on others. I can already picture the crowd over at a site like Reddit failing to reach any kind of consensus. But whether you call it a veto or just consultations, the core idea is the same: ask the community if they want user XY to be a mod, and if not, find out why.

dustyranger64 said:Awesome. First thing's first: let's trim that list from five candidates down to just two. Honestly, out of those five, only two actually seem even remotely interested in picking up the mod mantle. That's point number one. We've had several top-tier users on here—super popular, totally objective, and highly respected folks—turn down the moderator role multiple times. And that's even when the offer was made by people they aren't even buddies with!

So, now that you’ve split into two groups, what’s the game plan? How are those biased, compromised mods going to decide who actually gets a vote? Who are these two candidates even supposed to be? And more importantly, how are you going to stop everyone from losing their minds when people like Perica Bukić or maca Maradona realize they aren't running or don't even get a say in the matter?
Why do you think the whole "rigged" thing and all those conspiracy theories are already settled?

No way, that definitely wasn't me!

Ready?
Punishment is weak, there’s way too much off-topic nonsense, debates are total garbage, and the rules feel totally inconsistent? Oh, you think that has nothing to do with them changing the rules to let people vote for moderators based on popularity? Yeah, right. If you actually want to chat with the people who used to moderate and supermoderate Yahoo!, no biggie—they’re hanging out right here on this forum. I can give you the lowdown on how Yahoo! actually runs and how being "popular" basically kills any real moderation.

Look, let's be clear—I'm not saying this way of picking moderators is perfect. Far from it. I’m definitely not claiming it's the gold standard. But honestly? This whole "popularity contest" alternative has some massive holes in it. Just huge gaps.

I agree that picking mods solely through popularity contests is a desperate move. That said, I think it would be fair if the users on a specific subforum had the right to veto a proposed moderator candidate. Of course, it should work both ways—mods should also have the power to veto a user's candidacy.

Edit: Brenda Hayes16, having just five people is basically impossible. Sometimes we wait months for a mod because there's literally nobody willing to step up and deal with the headache of a particular subforum.

Daniel Ward87 said:The whole point of having moderators and supermods isn't to spend all day merging posts into existing threads. We get at least ten new ones every single day, and honestly, I think every single author feels like their post is unique enough to deserve its own dedicated thread.🙄

Sorry, but actually, that's literally what being a moderator is for.

Joshua Anderson said:Is the goal here to elegantly lock and delete a thread within minutes? Or should we just merge them with three clicks since you guys clearly read everything and already know which topics are duplicates?

Bingo. 🤣 😍

dustyranger64 said:There’s really nothing left to say here. Especially considering how they sounded in the first half of their post.

I’m kindly asking the supermods to stop letting people judge someone else's tone when they're supposed to be handling appeals in the proper section.

Thanks in advance. 😍

Harold Taylor6 said:Let me clear this up for you:
The reason you were flagged was because of this comment:
"People can't be cured of two things—death and stupidity.
Congratulations!" To me, that sounded like you were diagnosing someone with a terminal case of being an idiot (calling them stupid, essentially)...
Look, if someone is getting on your nerves, just report them. You’ve got two moderators handling things, and I really hope you realize just how many posts get flooded into the system in a single day. Imagine coming back from a ten-day vacation only to find a mountain of content—it's impossible to meticulously read every single thing people say.
Secondly, commenting on a moderator's actions isn't allowed here. If I’m posting in my capacity as a moderator (using those red letters), you should send me a PM to discuss it, rather than spamming the thread itself...

edit:
p.s. Just to add a thought—Delta Air Lines and general tourism are such straightforward topics, and I honestly don't see why people feel the need to pick fights over them, yet somehow they always manage to. There are rules in place, and I make sure to stick to them. I’ll even allow a debate to wander off-topic, provided it doesn't turn into personal insults.

Since when did we lose the right to call someone an idiot on this forum, even if they deserve it? 😢

1. So, I finally got a response regarding my account status, but I’m laying out the rest of my questions here since this whole mess started because of that initial warning and the appeal.

2. Look, let’s call it what it is: it wasn't a threat, it was a warning. But why issue a warning if the observation itself isn't even punishable? And if it *is* against the rules, since when, and by what logic? Does any rulebook actually state that you can't share an opinion on topics that dominate a specific subforum?

3. As for comparing things to the NAACP, go ahead and write that. Unlike the UN, most of the discussions over there aren't built on exaggerating gender stereotypes just to mock men—though, granted, some of that happens too. It’s also full of ridiculous, childish posts, endless chat clutter, mindless babble, and piles of gossip. Why should it be a violation to point out that's exactly what it is?

4. Yeah, if we're going by that logic, you can say it. Even if it weren't true—which it is—I don't see one single reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion.

Look, I’m not actually trying to pick a fight with the mods here, but I honestly didn't see any other way to get a straight answer without starting a thread about how people get shut down. It feels like any real question just gets dodged by hiding behind technicalities—people tell me I’m being "off," that I’m trolling, that I’m posting in the wrong sub-forum, or that my topic doesn't belong in a section dedicated to card collecting.

So, let's just get to it. Is it fair to call the UN an infantile, chauvinistic joke? And if it isn't, then why the hell is it off-limits to say?

Since some people are hell-bent on turning this whole thing into a debate about me and my trading cards, let’s just pivot to a new topic entirely. I want to know if it's actually off-limits to say that the tone over on the UN subforum is basically infantile and chauvinistic. If it's "not allowed," then I want to know exactly why. You only need to glance at that section to see that most posts consist of people thinking they're hilarious by leaning into tired old stereotypes about women. It's a plain fact. I'm just acknowledging reality here, and honestly, I don't even bother stepping foot in a subforum that literally advertises itself as being full of verbal sexism and total chaos in the USA. If it's okay to say, then I'd love to hear by what authority a moderator can threaten someone just for making that observation.

I ate a green pine tree, please hurry with an answer.