Look, when you feel called out and decide you need to drag a private DM conversation over here to settle things—which is pretty unprofessional, if you ask me—it makes me wonder: if someone misses a bet, is it really "provocation" for me to point out they missed? And regarding that money-back thing, I already said it was a joke—take it however you want to take it!
Regarding that "oh, look at these experts" post, I actually stepped up and apologized on my own. I took the ban, and I even explained the full context to you in a DM—basically explaining that people are constantly missing their picks—but you just refuse to acknowledge it and keep shoving that one post back in my face for the nth time. Just try to understand that I’ve already served the penalty for that post and moved on!!
My last ban actually came from you, following some rather questionable warnings from your colleague Joshua Garcia8. She flagged me in the Formula 1 thread—and honestly, she doesn't seem to know the first thing about F1, though I guess it doesn't matter since she's a moderator—simply because I dared to offer an argument that countered some "great expert." I can't even link to his post right now—I can't find mine or his because it looks like Joshua Garcia8 deleted it—where he was indirectly mocking Kimi Räikkönen's "incompetence." I know a lot of people might not get the reference, but unfortunately, that's how it works here; the moderators act like they own the place, so you can't even provide a link to back yourself up. If I present an argument that doesn't align with your resident "sports gurus," it's labeled as insulting other users and gets sanctioned immediately. The community is right—this kind of behavior is exactly why you've already driven away several genuinely talented bettors.
And I'm genuinely curious what the admins think about you telling me to just leave the sub-forum if I don't like it. This isn't your private living room, man!
The way you're acting just totally validates what I wrote in my previous post about ego trips.
Eric Fox7 said:And what exactly are you complaining about? 🤷
I already laid it all out for you in our private messages.
Komentiraš na temi na kojoj piše:
You’re getting a yellow card for breaking the subforum rules.
Napišeš:
You get a hundred bucks just for posting this—because let’s be real, the whole point here is just pure provocation.
Napišeš:
jadedrifter2 Asks: Parker Pao.
Over Pao.
Hey, you still owe me cash! Seriously, when are we actually gonna hang out so you can pay me back?
So you're out here dissecting everyone else's post-game breakdowns—and then you have the nerve to go on about some money-back guarantee nonsense? Give me a break. 🤷 Look, you’re getting a five-hundred-dollar fine this time—but consider this your final warning. If you pull another stunt like this, it’s a permanent ban. Honestly, looking at your track record here, you haven't contributed anything useful to the sub besides stirring the pot and picking fights. You don't deserve anything else.
Look, either start following the rules—which you clearly haven't bothered to read—or just stay out of this subforum entirely.
Basically, the admin response to your question is right there in the bolded section. It's not a threat; it's just how things work.
amberwalker4 said:So, what you're saying is I have to prove someone is being unfair or biased just to earn points for talking about the mods? Thanks for nothing, you basically answered my question.
Look, if you've got actual facts to back up why someone is wrong, go for it. But if you want to vent about how the mods are running things, there’s a specific spot for that. This isn't the place for political bickering, so let's keep it moving.
amberwalker4 said:Well, let's verify that. People lie just to troll, plain and simple. Not to mention he's handed out bans for much smaller things before. Plus, the bias dripping from his posts makes it pretty obvious he shouldn't be moderating there.
Look, this isn't the place to be proving stuff like that. There's probably a specific thread for that over in Politics.
amberwalker4 said:And about these posts... is it okay for me to claim that the US is actually just a continuation of the Independent State of America and was built by reformed fascists? I mean, look at the currency, the anthem, and how similar the flag is—it's striking 🙄. Is it okay for me to say that since those guys didn't hide their mess, and because there's no physical evidence left (like skeletons, etc.—which builds on that), it means it never happened? Is that okay? I'm asking sincerely.
It's not okay because the US isn't a successor to the Independent State of America.
amberwalker4 said:And is it okay for a mod to restore posts that users deleted themselves?
That really isn't okay, but since I don't know the full story here, I'll just keep my answer general.
amberwalker4 said:One more thing—we're talking about history here. Claims that can't be backed up by facts aren't anything more than propaganda. Sam Green73 was going off about how he'd ban posts like that. He can't even support or argue his own points. If that's the case, what are we waiting for 🤷?
Sorry, but since I'm out of the loop on this one, I'd rather not comment.
amberwalker4 said:P.S. If I really have to, I’m happy to sit down and lay out the actual facts—like naming specific witnesses killed by the resistance forces just so this guy doesn't try to spin their actions—to prove that Sam Green73 is just pushing propaganda. Honestly, though, I don't think it's even necessary because the bias is staring us right in the face.
How exactly do you want the administration to handle this?
wiredangler5 said: The posts from Judolin and Zenodor definitely deserve a ban, no question about it. It’s not even just about trolling; those insults are straight-up harassment. On top of that, they should be deleted.
Fair enough, then I'll leave it to you to hand out bans and scrub those posts when needed.
feralranger said:I beg to differ. It is my belief that both politics and the law should be anchored by morality; in other words, just because immorality is unfortunately common doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered undesirable in those spheres.
In an ideal world, sure, but if you want to debate whether a law is actually "moral," that belongs over in the Politics section; goldengull3 usually handles that kind of stuff there. Here, the law is what it is, and we can talk about specific court rulings. Whether something is right or wrong is a whole different conversation that fits perfectly in the Politics Forum. What's the confusion?
amberwalker4 said:Look, he was trying to downplay actual crimes. Since that kind of talk was being allowed—basically, the resonator was letting it slide—I didn't see any reason why I couldn't jump in. Besides, looking at the rules on Reddit, I don't see anything banning that kind of thing.
Like I said, the resonator was letting the conversation happen. That’s why I decided to match that energy.
Alright. Just keep one thing in mind—a moderator missing something isn't an excuse to engage in a way you already know is off-base. It's on you to report those posts to the mods first, and if nothing happens, then you can come back here and flag it again.
Your post is straight-up trolling because you're just throwing out insinuations, like that "was your grandpa around then" line. We banned that kind of talk—including all that nonsense about "where were you in '91"—on Reddit a long time ago. As for those other posts, I think they deserve a ban, but since I don't have the full context of how they were written, we should probably wait to hear from the resonator and Scotsman. Personally, I think posts like yours deserve a ban for trolling and getting deleted.
You've got a point—Reddit is meant for discussion. But Law is a different beast because of how specific it is. When the law says something, there isn't much room for debate. I don't see any reason to argue about everything, but I do think we should have dedicated spaces so people who aren't interested in legal deep-dives don't get bogged down by stuff they don't care about. It’s just like service announcements, right? If the fix is to open up a separate thread for comments, why not just stick to specific proposals like topics or PDFs? And don't worry, we aren't trying to bypass the moderators at all.
At the end of the day, it's about identifying a problem and finding its solution, not about changing policy or swapping out moderators. You used to be an admin, so you know how slow this process moves, but it can be done. Honestly, looking at how fast things move in religion, I bet we'll get there sooner than expected.
hollowtrucker77 said:Ward87, this legal mess has been dragging on for years. The constant stifling of debate, combined with lazy and arrogant moderation, is just a recurring theme here. It’s always easier to just set super tight boundaries and resort to deleting posts or handing out bans. Besides, I don't see why there's an issue with explaining a law or debating a specific action. People aren't robots; if there's a law they don't get, you can't just expect them to automatically think it's great or follow it blindly. The media blows things out of proportion, lawyers protect their own interests, and judges just take the path of least resistance... If we start choking out public discourse too, the end result is basically state terror and whatever chaos follows.
We're talking past each other. I'm talking about how the legal system has functioned for ages. I was looking at that PDF specifically because it mirrored a previous complaint, and I just shared what my move would have been. That's all. Now look, we've got rustywalker42 dealing with the exact same thing.
If we actually want to change things, wouldn't the most logical first step be asking the mods if it makes sense to start a dedicated thread or PDF? Somewhere where the talk isn't just dry legal jargon, but a bit more open and philosophical. That's what I suggested. Personally, I'm fine with it. But I'd still want the local mods to weigh in.
The mods are the ones running the show there, so it's only fair to ask for their input and recommendations. It's much easier to coordinate with the admins once the mods and the users have reached an agreement.
rustywalker42 said:Since the Legal subforum has basically turned into a help desk like Legal, should we just apply that same logic to all the other boards?
People have been bringing this up before; I think slafko mentioned something similar. Back then, I spent four days lurking in the Legal section just to get a feel for how it works, what the vibe is, and how the mods handle things.
The reason Legal feels like a service desk is because most people—at least from what I can tell—just want a quick Q&A. It’s unique because laws dictate what you can and can't do, and Brian Edwards6 made a good point: discussions over at the KK Chicago board are practically pure philosophy.
rustywalker42 said:For example, on Natural Science, should we only allow strict scientific facts, banning any debate or heaven forbid, challenging established norms? And would the mods there need to be exclusively scientists to ban anyone attempting a constructive argument?
Should we do the same for Automobiles? Hire traffic experts and punish anyone whose posts stray from Dr. Marusic's answers at AAA?
Are we turning this whole site into one giant automated SERVICE where bots just answer questions and kill off EVERY creative discussion?
We could always hire lawyers from big firms to answer everything, and then you’d definitely have a "service" board. Sure, when picking moderators, you look for people who know their stuff, but it doesn't always have to be extreme. Having basic knowledge is enough; you pick up the rest as you go.
rustywalker42 said:Legal is the last place where you should be stifling creative debate, mainly because law itself is constantly shifting. There aren't really "dogmas"—rules only exist as long as the law stands. Once a law is overturned, that "dogma" is gone. But clearly, that doesn't stop the mods there from shutting down any meaningful discussion that wanders away from their specific rules.
I had a similar thought the last time this came up. I actually suggested that we talk to the mods about opening up specific threads or maybe even a separate section where things could be discussed on a more... philosophical level, as you put it. Basically, finding a middle ground with the moderation team. Have you tried sending them a PM with a proposal like that?
rustywalker42 said:1. A total overhaul of moderation policy along with a change in staff. 2. Opening up sub-forums within the Legal section, something similar to how the old "Free Speech" area used to work on the Politics board, but without the current mods in charge.
"Policy change" is just a buzzword at this point. What does that actually mean? What’s the current policy, what should it look like, and what guidelines would we even follow? crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 are doing a solid job based on how the Legal section was originally designed. If you really want to shake things up, you should probably take a formal proposal to them first; if they can't make it work, then you take it higher. On the Politics board, for example, most big stuff gets hashed out via PMs with the moderators.
There is zero chance we're opening some "free-for-all" zone on the Politics board. That old section was basically just a playground for endless bickering and getting people banned. We shut it down after countless warnings because one person could spend all day there just cleaning up the mess from the day before. It felt like a dive bar where people thought they could do whatever they wanted without supervision. So, the answer is NO.
rustywalker42 said:I'm only offering two suggestions because I don't see any other way. I've been running into the same issue on this sub-forum for ages, and nothing ever changes.
Let me ask you this: have you actually sat down and talked to the mods about opening a space to discuss laws or general topics outside of pure legalities? You're coming in here demanding changes, but it seems like you haven't even had a conversation with the people who actually run the show. crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 are moderating exactly how the Legal section was meant to function. Most people seem perfectly fine with that. That doesn't mean things can't evolve, but jumping straight to "overthrow the establishment" is a bit much.
rustywalker42 said:I don't get why none of the admins want to step in and deal with the issues in this sub-forum. What's the hold-up? Why has this problem in the Legal section been ignored for years?
I haven't been an admin for years—it's only been one year for me. My advice? Flesh out a real proposal for this "philosophical" sub-forum. Define exactly what it would cover and what kind of discussions would happen there. Start there.
rustywalker42 said:Your suggestions are solid. How much do you actually know about how the Legal subforum is moderated? Have you checked out posts from the old-timers, guys like hollowtrucker77, sasa80, or PowerLock? I won't list them all. Those users have basically given up on that section entirely. If you want, I can pull up their old quotes for you—no biggie.
Go ahead, why not?
rustywalker42 said:On that subforum, you aren't allowed to have ANY discussion that deviates from what the actual laws state, because any attempt to do so gets shut down immediately and labeled as trolling.
Like I said, this is my suggestion to the mods to fix the issue. There are plenty of people who don't care about debates; they just drop a question and want a straight answer or an interpretation. What you're looking for isn't impossible, there's probably a way to make it work, but it requires getting the moderators on board. It's kind of like when they open a specific new thread on the Religion board dedicated to certain types of discussions.
rustywalker42 said:Maybe open a "Legal Philosophy" subforum, just throwing out an idea here. The whole point would be to allow discussions regarding specific legal provisions or unique situations the law hasn't clearly defined. To me, it's a fascinating area, but every time I've tried to dive into it, the conversation gets smothered. Hopefully, that's a bit more specific.
Now we're getting somewhere. Couldn't this have been sent to the moderators first?
Don't think the admins aren't keeping an eye on this thread; we're definitely watching, but just bear with us for a bit while we dig into what's going on and touch base with the moderators.
rustywalker42 said:D So, I'm suggesting we shake up the LegalZoom subforum. Here are my two ideas:
1. A total overhaul of the moderation policy, including bringing in new moderators. 2. Creating a new section within the LegalZoom forum—kind of like how the Mad House used to work over in Politics—but this time without the current mod team in charge.
Like Brian Edwards6 mentioned, these suggestions are a bit too vague to really dive into.
If you want to change the policy, what kind of rules are you actually thinking of?
As for the second idea, a "Mad House" style section under LegalZoom isn't going to happen for the same reasons that specific PDF was shut down in Politics. Plus, what would people even talk about there? What kind of topics?
The moderator flagged this post as bait, and honestly, after seeing what’s actually going on here, I have to agree. To the OP: please take a second to check out the community guidelines pinned at the top of the thread you started.
Not really. I’m just covering Religion for the time being while we hunt for a new moderator. Once they get settled in—give it a month at most—I’ll likely be heading out.
hiddenbear3 said:Where exactly did I cross the line without getting a formal warning? She docked me 35 points just because I brought up farting—since she introduced it earlier as some universal concept or whatever. I have this habit of telling my family not to pass gas so they don't get annoyed, so she got offended and is now calling me out for being able to get mad at something like that.
Look, forget about me for a second, but what are we actually doing about the report I filed?
Is there anyone higher up than you moderators who can actually make a call here? Because you guys clearly aren't on the same page with the rules, or is this whole thing just a formality to let people vent before everything goes back to business as usual?
There is someone authoritative. Me, for instance.
What’s absolutely certain is that none of the moderators in the religion section take a single person posting there seriously. You can be 100% sure of that. Personally, when I see who posts there and how they act, I honestly don't know what kind of headspace I'd have to be in to take any of them seriously.
You got those 35 points because you earned them based on the topic and the specific rules of that thread. It’s an American legal discussion sub-forum, which is a niche topic with very clearly defined communication standards.
As a mod, all I can tell you is we've already warned you to rethink how you talk in the religion section, otherwise we’ll have to start handing out bans. I personally have deleted a ton of your posts without giving you a formal strike, even though some of them definitely broke the forum's core guidelines.