Admin System Overhaul
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
How do you not realize you're one step away from getting cut from the PŽK roster? Seriously, please quit this stuff before we actually have to bench you for good.
Home ›
Daniel Ward87 › Posts
Posts by Daniel Ward87
533 posts shown.
Admin System Overhaul
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Henry Hernandez7 said:Why does this feel so familiar!?
Daniel Ward87, just let the majority call the shots.
Nah, because Henry Hernandez7, you clearly aren't hearing a word I'm saying—this isn't some democracy.
Admin System Overhaul
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Henry Hernandez7 said:Basically, users often complain about how moderators handle things—and let’s be real, they mess up more than they should. But when people take those complaints to the Administration, it’s almost always a rubber stamp for the mods.
We need a total overhaul because the current setup just isn't fair.
Here’s what I’m thinking:
- Three Administrators would be chosen by a town hall council (which itself is made up of elected members) consisting of an odd number of people (like 3 or 5). This council would decide whether a user flagged by a moderator is actually in the wrong through a simple vote.
It’s basically the jury system used in major American democracies. Right now, our system feels more like something you'd see in North Korea.
Doing this would make the forum a much better, more honest community for everyone.
Feel free to weigh in with your own ideas.
Nope.
The sad truth about this forum
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
nimblegull23 said:The way we're talking here isn't some regional dialect thing; we're just channeling those comic book characters from Dubravko Mataković's stories.
That’s a wrap on this thread.
Thanks for everything, and take it easy.
Mod is asking for understanding regarding the existence of Auschwitz camp, but I'm getting banned?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Since the admins decided that Mr. Smoogj didn't actually say anything beyond what was already implied in his first post, we're locking this thread.
👋
👋
Mod is asking for understanding regarding the existence of Auschwitz camp, but I'm getting banned?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Ashley Bishop4 said:Here’s a quick rundown of my recent run-in with the moderator Mr. Smoogj (I’m copying this post just in case he decides to scrub it from this thread
.
What he was doing is textbook historical revisionism—basically trying to downplay responsibility for the atrocities committed during WWII. It’s a classic playbook for people like him: first, they try to minimize or relativize the actual history (claiming the existence of Auschwitz isn't such a big deal on its own), then they pivot to attacking witnesses personally—questioning who Branko Lustig is and what right he has to teach our kids—all while insulting me by suggesting I simply don't grasp "democracy" or lack the "analytical depth" to understand his genius. 😂 ...to top it all off, he swapped out his insults for mine and slapped me with a ban for allegedly violating forum rules.
I’m just looking for some clarity from the administration here. Is Mr. Smoogj—the same guy who thinks Auschwitz-Birkenau isn't actually that catastrophic and that it should just be "understood within a historical context"🙂
—really someone whose moderation we should respect given how he handles these topics?
Thanks. 🙂
Honestly, Mr. Smoogj gave you a pretty solid point. Concentration camps are inherently evil; there’s no debate there. But what Mr. Smoogj was driving at is how important it is to look at the chain of events that actually led to those camps existing in the first place. Just saying "Auschwitz was a human catastrophe" is true, sure, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Requesting subforum access: Misdemeanors and Criminal Law
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
No worries at all.
Moderating at the University Bookstore
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Hey everyone.
I’ve been reading through this thread and looking at the posts you flagged, and honestly, I think everyone is getting a little carried away here.
The PDF rules being discussed are pretty straightforward, so there isn't much to debate there. These accusations that a moderator snitched to get someone banned are just ridiculous. At the end of the day, you own your actions—if you get banned, that's on you, not someone else. On that specific thread, more was clear about what went wrong, pointed to the rules, and gave a one-hour window to open a ticket. Besides, even someone like me who knows nothing about betting can see that trying to claim money for a game that's already finished wouldn't fly anywhere.
Regarding the issue with quoting mods, George Barnes25, the rule is simple: don't comment on or quote moderator warnings within the thread. If you have an issue with a warning, just shoot a DM to the mod or start a ticket here. Breaking that rule can lead to sanctions, though whether someone actually gets penalized is entirely up to the moderator. That said, I do agree that more could have toned down her tone in those warnings. It also gets a bit confusing when a mod switches between acting as a community member and acting as staff. Personally, I use blue text whenever I'm writing in my capacity as an admin/mod, and everything else is just my opinion as a regular user. If everyone followed that, we wouldn't have this confusion, so I highly recommend it.
As for this whole "clan" thing, it's incredibly hard to call. I'm not a regular over at BetMGM, and to give a truly objective opinion, I'd need to spend more time there to see if there's any truth to it. That's why we always say: post the controversial links so we can actually discuss them; otherwise, it's nearly impossible to catch anything.
If you want strict adherence to the rules, they have to apply to both sides. If we go too far that way, we risk making the board feel sterile, which I don't think anyone wants. But finding that line is up to you guys, since you're the ones living it every day. My advice to the mods would be to soften their communication style a bit. As for everyone else, just read the rules and try to coordinate better with the mod team.
I’ve been reading through this thread and looking at the posts you flagged, and honestly, I think everyone is getting a little carried away here.
The PDF rules being discussed are pretty straightforward, so there isn't much to debate there. These accusations that a moderator snitched to get someone banned are just ridiculous. At the end of the day, you own your actions—if you get banned, that's on you, not someone else. On that specific thread, more was clear about what went wrong, pointed to the rules, and gave a one-hour window to open a ticket. Besides, even someone like me who knows nothing about betting can see that trying to claim money for a game that's already finished wouldn't fly anywhere.
Regarding the issue with quoting mods, George Barnes25, the rule is simple: don't comment on or quote moderator warnings within the thread. If you have an issue with a warning, just shoot a DM to the mod or start a ticket here. Breaking that rule can lead to sanctions, though whether someone actually gets penalized is entirely up to the moderator. That said, I do agree that more could have toned down her tone in those warnings. It also gets a bit confusing when a mod switches between acting as a community member and acting as staff. Personally, I use blue text whenever I'm writing in my capacity as an admin/mod, and everything else is just my opinion as a regular user. If everyone followed that, we wouldn't have this confusion, so I highly recommend it.
As for this whole "clan" thing, it's incredibly hard to call. I'm not a regular over at BetMGM, and to give a truly objective opinion, I'd need to spend more time there to see if there's any truth to it. That's why we always say: post the controversial links so we can actually discuss them; otherwise, it's nearly impossible to catch anything.
If you want strict adherence to the rules, they have to apply to both sides. If we go too far that way, we risk making the board feel sterile, which I don't think anyone wants. But finding that line is up to you guys, since you're the ones living it every day. My advice to the mods would be to soften their communication style a bit. As for everyone else, just read the rules and try to coordinate better with the mod team.
PDF Policy - PARTIAL
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Nah. Just because you got a partial score on some political debate doesn't mean you can't actually contribute something useful somewhere else.
PDF Policy - PARTIAL
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
It's because both the mods and the admin team feel like you aren't actually adding anything to the Politics section, and honestly, you just can't seem to play nice with the moderators regarding your warnings. Since you’ve been complaining about every single strike, thread move, or lock, we were stuck between two options: give you a partial ban or overhaul the entire Politics moderation team. Take a guess which way we went.
The partial ban stands. We won't be revisiting this decision for at least 6 months.
The partial ban stands. We won't be revisiting this decision for at least 6 months.
What does this post have to do with "harassing forum members"?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
driftingfalcon3 said:I haven't insulted anyone, especially not Red Sparrow, even if my tone can be a bit blunt or sarcastic sometimes (I’ll admit that, but it’s totally fair and definitely NOT malicious!!!). Red Sparrow and a bunch of his crowd love to take that as an insult. But we all know what actual insults look like, which is exactly what wand1 keeps doing. That’s just how he operates on this forum—he lives to offend. I don't play that game.
You might not be insulting people, but you're skating pretty close to trolling. The warning was pulled, so let's just call it even.
👋
Zelenskyy - Why was my post deleted?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
This post is basically walking the line between trolling and just being straight-up rude. Honestly, Jose White18 was actually being pretty reasonable.