Posts by Daniel Ward87

amberdriver17 said:It’s all great in theory, but let’s try to be a little more mindful and chill with one another here on the boards. If we do that, everyone stays happy and we can actually enjoy ourselves. Cheers to keeping things in context!

So, quick question before we move on: what did crimsonsailor7 actually do wrong if she wasn't breaking any rules? It wasn't her grammar, was it?

crimsonsailor7 said:I just wanted to add that Michael Vaughn2 and I exchanged a few private messages (not that I told him he was playing dumb right out of the gate) where I tried to walk him through what the mods were actually flagging. He kept pivoting to totally different points and bringing up examples that had nothing to do with the actual issue. Eventually, I had to say, "You can play dumb all you want and keep bringing up irrelevant stuff, but the warning isn't going anywhere." So, the goal wasn't to be insulting; I just wanted him to stop spinning his wheels and take the conversation seriously.

Michael Vaughn2 said:Hey, I want to file a zalba regarding a moderator. Instead of starting a whole new thread, I’ll just drop it here, even if it’s not about the scoreboard.

The moderator "crimsonsailor7" sent me this in a PM:

"You can play dumb all you want and keep using those examples..."

It’s not a huge deal, but just two posts before that, I didn't even get a warning—not a strike, just a heads-up—telling me my tone was off.

The reason given for my "tone" was basically this, verbatim:
"Using phrases like: come on, prove it, I'm listening..., write something once you actually have experience, be specific, etc."

So, I'm getting flagged for saying things like "come on, prove it" or "be specific," which are perfectly normal in a legal discussion where evidence matters,
yet the person flagging me gets to say "you're playing dumb."

There isn't a single slur in my messages, whereas calling someone "dumb" is straight-up an insult.

So now I'm wondering: did the moderator mess up? Or is it okay for people on this forum to say "stop playing dumb" without getting sanctioned, while being told "I'm listening, prove it" is against the rules?

Thanks,
M.

Michael Vaughn2 said:Is it alright for a moderator to say "stop playing dumb," and can I use that phrase myself in the future without getting in trouble?

Is that clear enough? Thanks.

crimsonsailor7
Context is everything here, so you can't just label a word as "accepted" or "banned" without looking at how it's being used.

hollowpilot13 said:So if someone pops in here to push back against synchronization, I can't even defend my position because apparently I'm "responding too much," which totally kills any chance at a real counter-argument.

Is this place turning into some kind of dictatorship or what?☕

Nicholas King said:Also, bringing up those 500 points from some other debate and how people reacted to them isn't really fair—how does that even count as an "argument" in a general discussion like this one? 😕

Nicholas King said:In this particular case—though I could probably point to others if I wasn't currently melting from the heat and feeling too lazy to hunt down links—everyone completely ignored the fact that someone actually started this whole mess by getting personal. Insisting on asking, "Wait, were you abused as a kid?" just because someone showed a genuine interest in Judo's childhood isn't just an reach; it's straight-up sarcasm and a total mockery of common sense.

Nicholas King said:Look, if that’s still the official line from administration, we’re looking at a massive precedent here. We already dealt with Tyndall's contribution where he basically told us we were all "writing idiocy" without it being flagged as an insult, and now any insult can just be wrapped up in... It’s like when you think you have a major problem, but turns out it’s just a minor hiccup. Just a little bump in the road. 🙄 This question feels like a total troll move—it’s basically low-effort bait. People have pointed out before that the joke isn't really about the line "I could ask if you're an idiot," but rather the punchline: "but that would be redundant." It's like when someone jumps onto a message board just to vent their interests and starts wishing they had the same thing as everyone else. It’s like when you realize a problem isn't actually a threat—just something you need to manage. It's harmless, really. Asking "is your mom a hooker who slept her way through half of Columbus?" isn't even a top-tier troll—and that’s not just because Columbus isn't exactly a massive metropolis.

brightcrane56 said:I hear you, but the issue of which language or script to use often becomes a major stumbling block and leads to endless bickering. That's why I believe that specific part should be clearly defined in the rules.

Since I don't want to just be a critic without offering solutions, here is my concrete proposal:

Let's paraphrase Article 12 of the US Constitution, which essentially states:

In the United States, English is the official language used in official capacities, along with the Latin alphabet.

In certain local jurisdictions, alongside English and the Latin alphabet, another language or a different script may be introduced for official use, provided it meets the conditions prescribed by law.

We could incorporate it into the Forum.hr rules like this:

In discussions on Forum.hr, the official language is English using the Latin alphabet.

On specific sub-forums, alongside English and the Latin alphabet, another language or script may be introduced for official use, subject to the conditions set forth by law and the specific rules of those sub-forums.

brightcrane56 said:Well, right off the bat, you’d be shutting down the use of language as a tool for provocation. Or are you going to try and tell me that isn't happening? Because I'd love to hear your percentage on that.

And we hand out penalties for using all caps too, don't we? 😉

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.

Nicholas King said:Well, obviously.

The issue here—and I mean this quite specifically—is that neither the owner nor the administration has actually set those boundaries (my apologies if there’s some obscure mention of prohibited languages in the fine print somewhere, though I haven't stumbled upon it yet).

Where, for instance, is the explicit rule stating that "Canadian is allowed, but strictly limited to threads about Canada"?

Furthermore, regardless of how clever it might seem—since it effectively turns the average reader against what they perceive as "disruptive elements"—this whole tactic of saying, "Oh, you're just trolling again, stop bothering us with trivialities," is honestly pretty pathetic (and I don't mean you—actually, I suppose in this specific instance this isn't directed at you 😁).

brightcrane56 said:But what does "private forum" even really imply? Are you suggesting the forum is used strictly for internal business, or that it's tucked away behind closed doors where nobody can see? If you're arguing that because a private individual owns the platform they aren't bound by any regulations, I have to disagree. Ownership doesn't grant immunity from the law.

Think about it this way: your car is privately owned, but you still have to follow all the traffic laws of the United States while you're driving it, right?

And I wasn't just talking about the web domain; I was referring to the specific guidelines laid out in the forum's own rules of conduct.

brightcrane56 said:Language usage is one of those fundamental pillars of any nation, standing right alongside the judiciary, the school system, the police force, the military, and all the other core institutions. If we start applying a strict "understandability" rule to things like that, we'll find ourselves spiraling into total chaos before we know it.
I mean, sure, I can understand a Mexican traffic cop, but that doesn't give him any right to pull me over while I'm driving on the streets of America. And look, I might understand a Canadian tank driver just fine, too, but he certainly isn't allowed to go rolling his heavy armor around American territory.

When it comes to discussing which language should be used on this forum—which, by its very rules, is considered a specific corner of the American digital landscape—it’s an incredibly complex issue. It’s not really about debating specific topics where a certain language is being discussed; rather, it's about defining what the "official" language of the forum should actually be. In doing this, we have to be extremely careful to respect American laws while also avoiding the trap of accidentally sterilizing our discussions and killing the conversation entirely.

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

slynomad14 said:I’ve only been hanging around this Forum for a few months now, but I feel like I’m constantly running into this vague, undefined concept of "trolling"... Most people here seem terrified to actually give examples, but I’ve never been one to just follow the crowd, so I’m going to lay it out...

Take two users, Herbicidna and Jacob Wood9. A whole bunch of people have called Herbi a troll, but then again, half the threads Jacob Wood9 starts could easily be labeled as trolling too. It looks like the mob successfully chased Herbi off the site, because I haven't seen them post here in a while...

If you look closely at certain sub-sections, it's obvious there are little cliques connected to the mods, which obviously leads to double standards for everyone else on the site—you've got the "untouchables" and then there's the rest of us...

The fix is pretty straightforward... don't ignore the trolling and don't try to rename it either. I'm sure the moderators have plenty of tools to handle people who take arguments too far; just issue a warning, and if they don't listen, hit them with a ban...

briskhound2 said:That is a complete fabrication and a total twisting of what I actually wrote.

I never said anyone should let it fly without a warning—what I was pointing out was that the Movie is categorized as a DRAMA rather than xxx ADULT, just for context. Both of your images are straight-up pornographic. With the first one, you didn't even bother with a warning; you just dropped it right into the chat, and as for the second one, the "warning" you provided has about as much relevance as me trying to find a lost sock in a dark room... I acted based on my understanding of the rules at the time, and I wasn't wrong—which has been explained to you several times now. This whole thing is just noise because the moderators were actually doing their jobs.

If you want to talk about xxx Movies, I'm always down, but don't go calling people uninformed or clueless when that wasn't even the point of my post. You started by dropping a wide shot of female anatomy (which you're now claiming is just an innocent picture similar to certain acts) and then followed it up with a link to oral sex, which you're now acting like doesn't even exist.

Enough from the smart guys.

Unless you're going to address those claims that the Movie sub-forum moderators are restricting communication between users—which is a pretty heavy accusation, by the way—this whole argument is pointless because we're just spinning our wheels...

fadedsailor932 said:Look, they can be different. Basically, the chat just depends on how much the moderator of a specific sub-forum wants to deal with it. Some boards have it, some don't. Those that do follow their own local rules and whatever the moderator decides. That’s why something you say in the Soccer chat might fly, but in the Movie section, you’ll get flagged. Or vice versa.

All the examples and photos are right there in the intro post. There’s NO double standard here, and there won't be—unless you count LjES. They are the highest authority here at Anderlon. As long as those double standards exist, you were just following the rules that (don't) exist yet. So whose fault is it? Definitely not mine.

It’s the same way we could have pointed back to the "highest authority" label:

Our policy is pretty much identical to Google’s or any other mainstream site when it comes to blocking explicit content. It's nothing personal. We aren't targeting anyone; it's just crossing a line, going against the rules, and there are consequences for that.

and:

If you ask me, your ban isn't nearly as bad as having an ad pulled for similar reasons, which has happened plenty of times and is super awkward. These are the rules of the game. Take it or leave it.

The real issue here is that the definition of adult content isn't clearly laid out in the rules, so it's basically left up to the "discretion" of the moderators. It's just like the chat—it falls into that gray area where it's up to the individual mod of that thread to decide what stays and what goes. Add in all the confusion regarding links and warnings, and you've got a mess that isn't the fault of the users or us moderators. It's just a "gray zone" on the Forum.hr where both sides were technically right.
I really hope this gets cleared up so we don't have these misunderstandings anymore.