Posts by Ashley Bishop4

Hold on a second. I put in all this work, drafting a complete appeal filled with specific examples and solid arguments, and you just tossed the whole thing out because of some technicality? 😲 What is this, the Supreme Court? 🤦

I need a straight answer: am I actually allowed to get a response to my claim, or did you just use a procedural error as an excuse to kill my entire case? Do I really have to rewrite the whole appeal from scratch, and if I do, should I leave out the parts about how that person insulted me and acted so condescendingly just to make sure it gets approved this time?

I honestly can't believe it’s come to this. Have you guys really become this negligent, rigid, and stuck-up? Was everything I wrote just a waste of time? Can someone please tell me I'm wrong? 😕

I am truly disappointed. I've spent years being part of this community, and leaving isn't an easy decision for me, but if things have really reached this point, I don't see any other choice. 😢

I just happened to stumble upon this, and man, it really highlights the double standards here. It’s crazy to see how I get treated compared to everyone else.

Basically, they're being blatantly insulting while simultaneously admitting the whole post was just meant to troll and stir up drama. For a moderator, that should be an automatic 45-point deduction and a warning for harassment.

If I had posted something like that—which I never have, especially not to people I don't even know—I wouldn't just be getting points docked. I’d be looking at an immediate ban, or at least a hundred or two point penalty.😉

Matthew Anderson said:You didn't lose your membership because of one single comment. It was the constant, toxic sludge you kept spewing. You spent all that time calling women anchors, losers, trash, and fat—basically just insulting them for having any life experience at all, or telling them they need to go find some "extreme" ways to get laid. That kind of discourse is exactly why you're out.

Look, I already told you—there’s no point in you asking to have that partial ban lifted in six months. You aren't getting my vote on that, either. If we're going to make any changes regarding how these bans work, the mods actually need to get on the same page and reach a consensus first.

No need for any partial revisions here—everything lines up perfectly.

Wow, thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I definitely wasn't expecting such a fast response. 🤷

Do you think the mods actually agree that I got a partial ban? Let’s be real here—the mods don't actually care about this stuff. They aren't out there investigating the details; they're just going to side with whatever you tell them. If you frame the situation a certain way, they’ll just nod along and validate whatever you say, including my partial ban.
You really went overboard with that claim about how I "label women." That’s just not true. I don't go around calling every woman I meet names like that—I only ever used those terms for specific women I was actually clashing with.

On top of that, I received my partial payment completely out of the blue. There was zero notice and absolutely no heads-up beforehand. As we’ve all seen from those other PDF reports, giving a warning is standard practice—it's basically an unwritten rule in this industry. I'm strictly talking about the partial payment here, though.

There wasn't even a single heads-up or a warning.
They told me straight away that I could forget about clearing the balance in six months—or honestly, ever.

I have a question for the administration here—and I’m talking to the higher-ups, not the mods. Everyone seems to be on the same page except for one specific moderator who targets me exclusively with bans and warnings. Is this actually fair? Is this how things are supposed to work? Out of the four moderators we have, I am the only one getting hit by this one individual. It makes you wonder if there's some sort of bias going on. To make matters worse, he barely even shows up on the staff list, and since he works over at a local tech firm, he basically just swings an axe whenever he feels like it. I actually tried to have a civilized conversation with him about it, but he completely shut me down. He literally told me to my face that he only moderates based on user reports because he "doesn't have the time" to read through all the nonsense and garbage people post on here. So, what's the verdict? Am I being singled out for no reason?
Look, without getting bogged down in all the backstories, I want to clarify something. Every time I use a harsh epithet—like calling someone a goat or fat—I’m not just talking trash; I’m basically inviting an immediate ban or at least a partial one. But apparently, if someone engages in "subtle" trolling, or even that creepy, unsettling stuff, they get a pass. Even when people straight-up call me a misogynist, it seems like they don't face any real consequences. Is that actually considered an insult, or is it just dismissed as "bad discourse"? If I try to defend myself, I just end up right back where I started. But if I don't report it—and honestly, I don't want to create extra work for the mod team over every little thing because I'd rather just handle it myself—then I'm the one who ends up suffering for it.

William Bennett53 said:Just a quick technical heads-up on this: whether it’s a partial or permanent ban, it’s considered a single, lasting action. You aren't getting "double punished" because you can't escalate a permanent status. I know there's a common understanding here that you can ask for an appeal after six months, but don't mistake that for the ban actually expiring at that mark. That rule exists mainly so people with partial or permanent bans don't blow up our inbox every couple of days asking to be unbanned. The idea is that once those six months have passed, you can reach out and try to show the moderators that things have changed—maybe your behavior has shifted or your circumstances are different. The goal is to prove that if we do decide to lift the ban, the issues that caused the initial trouble won't just pop up all over again.

Look, please don't lecture me on the technicalities because they have absolutely nothing to do with my situation. What matters to me is how these sanctions actually play out in the real world. We all know how it works—rules aren't applied consistently. It’s common knowledge just how "disastrous" a conversation has to be to trigger a partial ban like the one this little lady handed down to me (and I say that with all due respect, though apparently, I’m the only one who gets labeled with "disastrous discourse" just because I'm talking to women).

I get it—when things go south, it’s much easier for the administration to just side with the moderators. It’s the path of least resistance. It’s easier to deal with one grumpy user than to lose a moderator, especially since these people are volunteers giving up their free time (so everyone just jumps on the bandwagon without even knowing what they're agreeing to). But still, I am asking the admin team to take a much closer look at my history, review my warnings and strikes, and reconsider this partial ban. Honestly, if you have to offend the lazy person who isn't even reading the threads but just moderating based on reports to get this ban overturned, then fine—let them resign.

Please, try to remember why you stepped up to manage this forum in the first place. You did it to ensure fairness and to resolve conflicts in a way that makes the community and its content better. The goal should be helping users navigate trouble and keeping them around, not just taking the easy way out by banning them. Let’s be real here: this sanction has effectively kicked me out of the community.
Did I really deserve this, or is this just a coordinated effort where a handful of users and current mods decided to "liquidate" me because, let's face it, they can't handle me verbally? If that's the case, is that really my fault? 😕

So, I’m calling on you one more time: look at this objectively and judge for yourselves whether I truly need to be removed from this forum. If you decide I have to go, then just permaban me and let's be done with it. Because if I'm not welcome here, then frankly, neither are you. Thanks for understanding.

A partial ban for "unpleasant discourse"? That’s what the explanation says.

I picked up three or four direct bans for insults on a subforum within a pretty short window (I haven't dug through my records to check the exact count yet). Honestly, I’m not even complaining about that part—I’ve already corrected my behavior. But I can't just let this slide, and there are two reasons why: 1) that vague "unpleasant discourse" phrasing, and 2) the fact that it was explicitly stated in a private message that I shouldn't even bother trying to appeal for the next six months. So, am I being stripped of my right to appeal before I even try?😕

What does this actually mean, and what kind of massive offense did I commit to get hit with a double penalty immediately? I don't know if anyone else on any other forum has dealt with something like this where they were told not to complain because their partial ban wouldn't be lifted anyway.

If you look at the thread itself, you can see exactly what happened. The person who triggered my partial ban called the thread starter "creepy." I shot back that she was the pathetic one, then she mocked me, and finally, I gave her a reality check.

(I can't link the thread directly via PDF, but it's titled "How to meet someone when you don't have friends or something like that.")

So, who actually started it? Who was being rude? Who decided to unprovokedly vent their venom on a thread starter who was just looking for advice rather than getting attacked by everyone in the room? Who ended up getting punished here, and who got off scot-free?

Look, we all know how it works: you have former moderators, you have certain cliques, and then you have people like me who aren't allowed to defend themselves against rudeness, belittling, or outright insults. It seems the easiest way to "resolve" a conflict is to just slap a partial ban on someone like me while the other side walks away without any consequences. Is that fair? Is that balanced moderation?
Of course, I'm sure it isn't.

So, I’m asking for this case to be reviewed and for this stupid partial ban to be removed, because there is simply no basis for it. (And hey, if you need to give me a warning for trolling or another ban instead, go ahead.)

I should also mention that I received this partial ban because someone reported me. Now, someone might argue that I should have just reported them instead of arguing. If it's my mistake for thinking I didn't need to call for the authorities over every little thing, fine—but that still doesn't justify a partial ban.

Morgan Cook10 said:By the way, totally off-topic, but regarding your example... an insult only really stings if there's actually a grain of truth in it.

So, you're saying there's a grain of truth in calling ZH a total moron, a fascist clown, and a complete loser? 👍
If it's even slightly true, then why on earth is he filing a lawsuit? 🤷

Oh, wait, I see you edited your post—now the quoted sentence is gone...😂

Facebook says it's hitting 10,000. That means we might actually see 2 🙂

Susan James said:Do you have any constructive thoughts on the reform?
I’m trying to ask—in a polite way, of course—what actually drives people to support this whole process?
Why do they feel such a strong need to make their voices heard on this specific issue?

Sure, we aren't nearly as organized or well-funded as an outfit like the ACLU, but I still have this naive, almost childlike hope that people will actually show up in the streets.
Real life, not just Facebook. 🤷

I already mentioned earlier that I didn't want to keep repeating myself,

But since nobody here has actually given me a solid argument in favor of the reform—it all seems to boil down to "we just need change, no matter what," or "he's an expert," and other vague excuses
And since people seem to be cheering for this "reform" almost reflexively because it sounds good for the kids, without really thinking it through, I'm honestly not expecting much of a high-level debate here. 🙂

So, I figure my contribution to this thread is pretty much right in line with the rest of the conversation. 😉

Jason Ortiz5 said:Man, if my hometown were closer, I’d be all over it. I just don't feel right wandering around unfamiliar territory.

Have you ever actually lived in a tiny town? Around here, the biggest event we can pull off is a parade to show off new manicures and eyelash extensions, or maybe a little outdoor prayer circle to support Marquette and her crowd... :-(

Don't sweat it. Honestly, even people living five blocks away find it easier to protest via Facebook than actually showing up.

And these protests... if only I knew what they were actually protesting against! 🤣

Is this about Las Vegas? Seriously, folks, he already resigned. Don't you guys know that? Didn't he post a status update on Facebook? 🤷

He gave his (irrevocable!) resignation. So, who are you all even fighting for? It doesn't matter, I guess—as long as Facebook is blowing up, right? 😂

I might just walk across the street just to see the joke for myself. You'd fit right in at a circus like Coachella. 🙂

If they end up doing exactly what they’re doing on Facebook... ☕

Honestly, this little protest making all that noise about teachers at sixteen years old? It won't even get off the ground. 🤣

You'll have fewer people showing up than at a BlackRock meeting. 🙂

I totally agree, that kind of language has absolutely no place in tennis
Besides, saying that only Damir Džumhur makes it through the opening rounds is just plain wrong. It's obvious this whole thing was written just to troll people and stir up drama.

I mean, imagine if someone actually wrote something like, "that little brat Dušan Lajović..." 🤷 But honestly, I doubt some of these neighbors from across the border would even take offense at something like that. 🤦

Not much going on at the moment, really.

Since we aren't in the middle of any major elections or even the pre-election hype, things have naturally quieted down a bit.

A few regulars who are usually all over this place during election season have stepped back to focus on other responsibilities.😁 But don't worry, once the next campaign kicks off, they'll be right back in the thick of it.

Real men don't bother clearing their browser history when their wife hops on the family computer.

Be a real man! 👍

Jack Cook7 said:If someone is praising Hitler as a liberator who brought freedom to Ukraine back in '41 (like that appointed governor of the southern Kherson region who gave a speech to the people of Kherson this May 9th, only to get heckled and pelted with objects), what do you even call that? And how do you describe the authorities who appointed him or continue to tolerate him? Let's not get bogged down in the weeds—there's a whole separate thread for the Ukraine situation.

Well, in that case, there really is a valid reason to call someone a Nazi, especially since he actually declared himself as such. Honestly, my first instinct would be to just call him an idiot, but I think that might fly against the rules here since it counts as an insult...🤷

Jack Cook7 said:I pointed out earlier just how messy things are in Ukraine. It’s tough to make a call on the actual facts without knowing the ins and outs. But if these same "facts" are repeated hundreds of times to certain individuals, and they just keep parroting the same disputed claims over and over, what's left? It's just propaganda machines on both sides. They use a sea of repetitive "human bot" posts to drown out reality—the reality that people are dying just to line the pockets of folks like Joe Biden's son, Khodorkovsky, or whoever those guys are on the Eastern Ukrainian and Russian sides. That's exactly the point this thread should be tackling. Instead, we get some mindless extremist waving an M53 flag to "help his brothers," and then everyone who questions the coup-driven government in Kyiv gets labeled a sympathizer for those extremists.

I totally agree with your point. This thread needs to be cleared of all the noise—the extremists, the communists, the Nazis—only then could we have a real academic debate. But let's be honest, that's pretty unrealistic.

What you're describing is basically a perfect example of how modern media handles topics, and honestly, a forum acts just like a medium. That's why it ends up like this.

I wish I didn't have to wade through the same old relativism and historical revisionism—the kind of stuff where people say, "Three hundred years ago, we were using forks while they were eating with their hands" 🙂 just to try and find a single shred of useful information in this ocean of posts. 🤷

I've been following this thread, and honestly, I think the moderators are doing a pretty solid job overall.

From what I can see, they don't allow people to label the Ukrainian Government or the Maidan protesters as fascists, Nazis, or anything similar—and I actually think that’s fair. It's just labeling, and it doesn't add any real substance to the debate; it isn't an actual argument.

But looking at it from the other side, applying those same labels to Putin, the federalists, or the rebels by calling them Stalinists or Royalists is also just labeling. It should be treated with the exact same level of scrutiny.

Basically, my take is that comparing the Maidan protesters to Nazis or SSovc should be moderated just as strictly as comparing the federalists to Royalists or communists. I'm not saying we're equating Nazis with communists here; I'm just saying that in both cases, it's pure labeling. It adds nothing to the discussion or the logic. Instead, it just triggers an equal reaction from the opposing side, turning everything into a massive trolling fest that makes the thread impossible to read and, frankly, totally useless.🤷

Honestly, looking at some of the posts on this forum, you’d think they required an Intelligence Quotient test just to log in. 🤷

Thanks for understanding. 🙂

It’s just about keeping the rules fair for everyone, that's all.

redheron30 said:this goldenowl73 won't even talk about Ukraine; it's honestly pathetic. He hands out cardboard selectively and just deletes posts he doesn't like. It’s pretty obvious he's suffering from a bit of a Russian complex.

How many times do we have to explain that participating in a debate as both a biased participant and a moderator is totally unprofessional? It’s a clear conflict of interest. A moderator should be neutral and maintain balance between both sides.

Basically, it's a total comedy.

I have to agree, unfortunately. goldenowl73 is doing a terrible job moderating this thread. I just got a cardboard for trolling because of this where I wrote "And then there was a rat..." when I could have easily written "That's a fabrication," which means the exact same thing. Would that have been considered trolling too?
So, first off, users in the Ukraine thread are allowed to drop off-topic posts about Iraq without being penalized for being off-topic, yet making fun of those posts gets you flagged for trolling? Where is the logic in that? 🤷

Then, I get another cardboard for trolling due to this post, where I'm once again mocking nonsense being spewed by a user in a quoted post. That quoted post was actually a response to my previously carded post. So, essentially, goldenowl73 isn't following his own moderation rules because

1) he didn't card the user who quoted my carded post
2) he cards my post, which is just me responding to that unpunished post
3) he DOESN'T card, for a second time, the user quoting my second carded post!!

Look, if he had carded post 1), my post 2) wouldn't even exist because I know the rules—but instead, I get carded for it! 🙂 And then I'm the one getting disqualified while the user I'm debating gets a free pass.

It’s clearly bad moderation, whether you call it subjective or not, since the moderator and I are on opposite sides here.

How is this thread supposed to be moderated "easily"? Off-topic comments are being let slide, yet it's forbidden to tell people they are spreading lies and falsehoods. So how are we supposed to respond to people who insist on doing that, other than through sarcasm and mockery?

Let me ask: is mocking people who persistently spout things that have zero connection to reality now also banned?

What way is left to react to posts that ignore the facts and repeat them hundreds of times, even after they've been debunked over and over again? If you can't call them lies or fabrications, does that mean you aren't even allowed to laugh at them anymore?

Are we just supposed to tolerate that kind of stuff? 🤷

Thanks to goldenowl73's "quality" moderation, where I've been slapped with two heavy cardboards in under half an hour without a single warning or heads-up (and anyone can check my history to see how many I've actually earned), I am one step away from a ban. Honestly, I don't even dare participate in this topic anymore. 🤷

In short, I've basically been silenced, 🙂 along with plenty of others. Just look at how many users on the other side have received that many cardboards?

I’m asking the moderators to please weigh in here. We really need a level playing field with the rules. Everyone knows what trolling looks like, so if you've decided to tighten the moderation on this thread, please apply those standards to everyone equally rather than just targeting one side.

To wrap things up, I'll share a post that was sent my way from that thread. It should give you a clear idea of what kind of discussions are actually happening and why certain posts end up getting a cardboard warning for trolling or whatever else...

No, you're totally missing the point. They introduced democracy and gave sovereignty back to the people, and the fallout has been hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. Freedom and sovereignty come with a price.
When you strip power away from a minority regime, they rarely go quietly; instead, they often turn to violence. That’s exactly what happened with the Iraqi Sunnis.

If I were to respond to a comment like that, I'd probably get hit with a cardboard warning for being insulting immediately.

Calling someone a Kike is offensive to Jews.

I know this firsthand because I once said it without realizing how bad it was 🙄 It’s similar to the N-word in the US—Black people can use it among themselves, but it's totally off-limits for everyone else 🙂

According to what I’ve been reading on English Wikipedia, Wittman served in the SS. Specifically, he was part of the 1st SS Panzer Division, which served as the personal guard for Adolf Hitler himself.

It's common knowledge that the SS acted as the armed wing of the Nazi Party—basically the heavy hitters used to enforce the regime's will.

So, when you look at all that, trying to argue that Wittman wasn't a Nazi just because there isn't an official Nazi Party membership card sitting in a file somewhere 🤷 is honestly just missing the point entirely. 😕

Hannah Allen70 said:...
The vibe on this PDF has always been pretty laid-back. The mods tend to be more relaxed and let certain things slide, provided the discussions stay constructive and actually encourage healthy community engagement.

...

Look, I’m telling you, there is a massive difference between just joking around and being intentionally malicious. I'm not against what you're calling "healthy forum banter," really, I'm not! I just can't stand the toxic stuff—and by that, I don't mean people smelling like cheap body spray, I mean actual bad intentions. 😁

Emily Patel64 said:Look, that's just how it goes. You have to accept that we’re all different, and honestly? It's better to just hold onto your own little quirks and stay true to yourself. 😁

That's just not how it works.😳I honestly think you’ll be much better off protecting your peace if you actually call out what's wrong instead of just letting everything slide.

loneharbor34 said:Not necessarily, but you really should have waited for those posts to be cleared out first. I told you this once before—if you see that something hasn't been moderated yet or if it hits that little warning icon, just hold off and let things settle down. As for how cards are handed out, you could have figured it out yourself from your own example: tennis officiating tends to be a bit more lenient with yellow cards. Should you have picked up a couple? Sure, probably. But you didn't. Just because you reacted to some provocations doesn't mean you're somehow immune to getting penalized. loneharbor34, look, you aren't there to defend a PDF file from Nole's trolls, if you catch my drift. 😁
....
I’m calling on you here,

Trolling posts are going to be sanctioned. Whether that means a warning and a deletion—to keep things civil for everyone here on the Tennis forums—or eventually handing out bans, that’s the call. It isn't up to you to go playing Batman and try to defend the thread from trolls by resorting to insults yourself. We can definitely look into tightening up the penalties for that kind of behavior, especially for those users who seem to drop out of nowhere just to stir the pot. 🙂 I just want to make sure we protect this space for the rare few who actually want to have a real conversation about tennis.

I’m totally on board with everything that was said here. Honestly, that’s exactly what I wanted you to write—to clarify how the moderation policy and the whole warning system actually work. Moving forward, I’ll do my best to step back and avoid playing vigilante whenever these topics pop up. 🥳😁

Can we please get this thread locked? 👋