Susan Price30 said:Also, if possible, could an admin please take a look at the deleted posts from user in that thread mentioned above? There was some seriously nasty, non-stop bullying going on there.
Thanks a bunch, cheers!
Tabula Rasa got hit with a permanent ban. Honestly, looking at his track record on this Forum, he earned it.
You’re gonna have to give me some specifics. Which topic? What was the actual post about? I can't really make heads or tails of this without more context.
I gotta be honest, I’m not really following this comment. What are you actually complaining about—the thread being locked, a post getting deleted, or something else?
Henry Hernandez7 said:I’m not trying to start a debate over who’s right—honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole pride parade thing—but I did notice MOMYGAY complaining about the moderators here.
So, I gotta ask, what is actually going on with the mods over on the football board? It seems like way too many people are calling them out for being total tyrants.
If you're including yourself in that group, then sure, you've got a point.
Since you clearly have a grudge against the football mods, I'm locking this thread. MOMYGAY can take those complaints to the proper channel if they want.
In this case, I think Brian Edwards6 handled things the right way.
If you're selling an original copy, that's totally fine—though we do have the Marketplace section here on the forum which is basically built for that kind of thing. But hey, no biggie.
If I remember correctly, every book comes with its own copyright notice, which means unauthorized copying is a legal issue. This especially goes for anyone trying to mass-produce and sell bootleg copies. We don't allow that here because it's essentially illegal activity.
That said, there's nothing wrong with mentioning you own a specific book and letting people reach out via a thread or a DM if they want more details. It's just the public advertising of counterfeit copies that breaks our rules.
You should probably just say it out loud at this point: you're basically using ideology as a convenient excuse to hand out bans. It’s a pretty massive blunder, honestly—even the folks over at ZgSash didn't see that coming. Like I mentioned before, if you're going to ban someone just for having a username like "Marshall forever," you really ought to require approval from the other admins and the editorial board of Monitor (since they actually own this forum), and then make sure that rule is explicitly laid out in the terms of service.
Thanks for listening. 🙂
That’s a total lie.
The guy got banned because he made a burner account just to stir the pot over in Politics. I told him straight up that he couldn't post here using that specific handle, so he's more than welcome to make a new one. But if he keeps posting the exact same stuff, he's going to get banned regardless of what his username is.
Nice makes a fair point; if he had picked a different name, he might not have been flagged immediately, but with posts like those, he would’ve caught a moderator's eye pretty fast anyway, and the result would be identical.
@Nicholas King - look, I don't owe anyone an explanation for everything. As an admin, I have certain tools at my disposal, and I use them when they make sense, in coordination with the rest of the mod team. It’s tough when so much of the actual conversation happens in private messages, leaving you guys seeing only half the story, which leads to a lot of wrong conclusions. I don't need to air all that out here, and even if I wanted to, I can't because I won't leak private info.
steelskipper5 said:Basically, the admin just doesn't want to justify their decision or explain to the members which specific rules were broken so we don't end up in this exact same mess again. ☕
Sure, the rules say what they say. But that kind of clause is supposed to be a last resort—you know, for those weird situations where the actual rules somehow fail to cover something. And look, we already have rules about acceptable usernames. So, when someone gets a permanent ban for a nickname that doesn't even violate the existing rules—but instead falls under "administrator discretion" (which covers pretty much everything else on this site, including things like deleting half the forum just for kicks, something an admin actually did once in a historical moment)—it leaves a really bad taste in everyone's mouth. It feels like nothing has really changed since the days of ZgSashov's administrative arrogance and ego.
I'd really love to hear Nice weigh in on this. ☕
As an admin, I've already explained my reasoning. If you and a handful of others don't like it, that's on you. The rules clearly state what can happen, and everyone agreed to them when they joined. My responsibility is to Anderlon; if you want to go complain to him, be my guest. If he actually lets you, trust me, I'd be happy to hear it.
Since you aren't an admin, you don't get to decide when "emergency measures" kick in just because you're missing the full picture. I'm not obligated to show you my hand, and frankly, I'm not allowed to.
Nicholas King said:In other words—if you ask me—the Forum editors haven't actually decided that removing Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc is warranted.
Thirdly, I suppose it boils down to this: Marshall's party not good, while Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc are good.
As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and lock it.
In other words, the Forum staff will handle each case individually whenever they see fit, without giving any heads-up—just like the rules you agreed to when you signed up.
Who says we can't talk about Josip Broz Marshall or The Party? On this site, there are endless threads about him and—get this—communist atrocities. And if you follow those crimes back to their source, they lead straight to the guy at the top, which in this case is Josip Broz Marshall, rather than someone like Pol Pot or the late Saddam Hussein. There’s definitely a time and place where discussing his legacy makes sense. But honestly, given how recent all these revelations about communist crimes in America have been, I think it's smarter to head off any potential drama by just not letting certain usernames post here under those specific handles, right?
Just to be clear, using the name Marshall Party isn't my way of glorifying any crimes. In fact, I haven't even claimed he was solely responsible for everything.
As an admin, I don't really care whose birthday you're celebrating.
Nicholas King said:I think there's been a fundamental misunderstanding here—it isn't actually about what the final decision will be, or whether it might eventually change. The core issue is that the Forum rules explicitly state, as the single applicable rule in this specific instance:
no one is going to get banned or run into trouble with the moderators because of a "username that violates the rules," since—aside from the first two items—these are merely recommendations rather than strict mandates.
It seems somewhat peculiar, if I may say so, for a ban to be issued on this platform for something where the rules explicitly state that no one will face a ban. So, we aren't even talking about some vague, undefined gray area; we are looking at an action that runs directly contrary to a clearly stated rule.
Now, I have no issue with an administrator exercising discretionary power to permanently ban any username they deem inappropriate for whatever reason—but if that’s the case, it really ought to be clearly formulated and documented as an actual rule. That way, everything remains transparent for everyone involved. Though, I suppose they should probably provide at least a rough definition to clarify what constitutes an "inappropriate" name (for instance, what would happen to a serious, highly active user like Stane Dolanc?).
The way I see it, nobody is going to have an issue with a "rule-breaking username" as long as they follow the guidelines listed there: Use a name that's easy to pronounce, Don't use names of American public figures, Avoid using hyphens instead of spaces (_ or -), Try to avoid numbers in your handle, and Start your name with a capital letter.
Regarding the admin's discretionary power, that’s actually covered in the general terms: "Your account may be modified or removed from the Forum if the Forum editorial team decides such action is justified. These rules are subject to change at any time without prior notice."
cyberTITO - last active 10/24/2008. comunistito - last active 01/23/2010. drox-marshall - last active on: 04/23/2009 drugtito - last active on: 05/28/2008.
I didn't go through every single one, just picked a few names at random. Some of these users have zero posts and haven't been online in ages, so they aren't really saying anything. The issue starts when they actually begin posting.
Furthermore,
Adolf. H. - last active on: 10/12/2008. Adolf Hitler - last active on: 05/10/2011, has one post Adolfo Hitler - last active on: 09/06/2009
As far as the names that hit close to home historically go—well, Saddam and Co. don't really apply here, so I won't dwell on them. Looking at the last activity dates, you can tell how serious these people are about their handles. You’ll probably try to argue about the universality of dictators, war crimes, and all that. But look, we live in America, and we have our own specific history to deal with. Even though I get why it's controversial, I want to avoid any unnecessary drama that could stem from a user's nickname. So, my stance on the Marshall Party remains the same.
Mickey Mouse, you're still getting a penalty on soccer. You've already been given all the explanations you need from several different moderators and admins.
Henry Hernandez7 said:Look, rustydrifter10, I get the whole clone situation, it's just frustrating getting hit with three strikes without anyone actually giving me a real reason why. I didn't earn a single one of those, so being sent to the corner feels a bit much. Just to be clear, when I went after the admin team, I wasn't aiming at you; you're pretty much the only one here actually trying to answer people and point out mistakes, whether it's the mods or the regular users.
Everyone else seems to lack that sense of responsibility, mostly just flexing their power because of their titles.
Those warnings were earned. Saying stuff like "Why are you even stressing about this?" or "Stop talking nonsense..." is a perfectly valid reason to get flagged since that kind of talk is totally useless and adds zero value to the discussion.
You’re entitled to feel like you didn't deserve any of those strikes, just like I’m entitled to feel like you belong on a bench in the NFL. Honestly, the mods over there probably deserve a participation trophy for their efforts.
hiddenfox64 said:you're still full of it. you slapped me with a ban just because I flagged you, then started sliding into my DMs and besides, Juventus has 28 titles http://www.legaseriea.it/en/serie-a-tim/albo-d-oro don't get too comfortable in that mod seat, either.
Did you actually report those messages as inappropriate? You can flag DMs using that little triangle icon just like you do with posts.