Moderator guidelines for the Scotsman - World thread
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sorry, but I don't see anything offensive here. It’s definitely a bit blunt, sure, but I wouldn't call it an insult.
Home ›
Daniel Ward87 › Posts
Posts by Daniel Ward87
533 posts shown.
Lockheed Martin is flooded!
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Since we've already settled the "Lockheed Martin situation," there’s really no point in dragging this debate out any further, right?
Appeal for partial ban, 2nd attempt.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
mellowraven22 said:miki, after checking in with the new USA moderator, we went ahead and pulled the partial.
Uvijek_spreman, didn't we just talk about this a bit ago? If I recall correctly, nothing had changed yet.
Manchild, since you're asking the same thing for probably the 30th time now, the answer is exactly what it was before.
It's all sorted out.
Moderator guidelines for the Scotsman - World thread
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Bradley Scott2 said:How did I even give him reason to do that?
Isn't it just exhausting having to explain ten times that you didn't actually write something?
Basically, Anton is just twisting my words to make me look clueless. That’s pretty insulting, right?
And if he's being intentional, it shows up in his next post where he claims he read everything perfectly.
It doesn't stop there. To my concise scenario about a potential attack (which is realistic!), he responds with:
"Man, these internet generals are something else.
Why haven't you joined NATO or signed up as an MVP for the USA? I mean, they've been struggling with those Taliban guys for 10 years, yet you think you could wrap it all up in 2-3 days—it’s a shame to let that talent go to waste."
So, he's being disrespectful and questioning my knowledge, even though he hasn't actually argued why my assessment is wrong or anything.
Or he pulls arguments out of context from my chats with others just to mock me without any basis, or asks for details I've already laid out, etc.
Look, let's be clear—he isn't any worse than the rest, and plenty of people here act like experts while knowing next to nothing. You see folks on the forums claiming Iran is going to launch 11,000 or even 300,000 ballistic missiles at their enemies.
But this guy is provoking me and attacking my expertise, and then when I fire back, I'm the one who gets a warning.
Think of it like a legal analogy involving misdemeanor laws.
If someone provokes or insults me, and I snap back, the court will either let us both off or penalize us both. Usually, the one who started the fight ends up getting the heavier sentence.
I don't see Anton getting banned just because he hit 100 points.
I have zero intention of fighting over a warning. I'm a serious user here.
If my opinion isn't valued, or if the standard is such that I deserve a penalty for it, then I'll just stay away from threads where the moderation is like this.
The floor can stay with the people who mostly post unrealistic fantasies and nonsense.
Cheers
P.s.
Generally speaking, on these boards—especially The Scotsman—people get away with all sorts of things, including spreading blatant lies or totally exaggerated data.
They drop links to various disinformation sites that peddle pure garbage.
And nobody ever calls them out on it.
Fair enough. I'll go through the posts again and keep an eye on what you're saying.
Regarding your P.S.
Point taken. However, you have to realize that calling something a "disinformation site" is a pretty broad term, since what looks like fake news to one person might seem like facts to another. But thanks for the input regardless.
Moderator guidelines for the Scotsman - World thread
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Since we're talking Politics, I guess that’s kind of my lane 😁
Could you clarify what you mean by "insulting" or "planting ideas"? To me, this feels like a pretty interesting debate, and I haven't caught any disrespect or manipulation on my end. Sure, maybe that bit about the tanks was a stretch, but let's be real—you definitely gave me some fuel for that one.
Could you clarify what you mean by "insulting" or "planting ideas"? To me, this feels like a pretty interesting debate, and I haven't caught any disrespect or manipulation on my end. Sure, maybe that bit about the tanks was a stretch, but let's be real—you definitely gave me some fuel for that one.
Can someone explain the PowerLock moderation policy?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Case closed.
Neeeeeext 😁
Neeeeeext 😁
Can someone explain the PowerLock moderation policy?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Susan Price said:Boldano - Look, you're running the Politics and PDF World sub here... but I still don't get your logic, so let me ask again - ...if I don't have the time to hang out on the forum constantly, or if I don't say exactly what you want to hear, am I going to be flagged for trolling just like everyone else? Meanwhile, people who clearly have nothing but free time and happen to agree with you get a pass to post nonsense?
Just wanted to point out that slybison8 isn't some kind of heavy-handed enforcer; there are definitely people with more muscle than him 😁...and honestly, even more than me 😢.
I read through that controversial post, and I’m with Susan Price on this—PFC's post really doesn't fit the vibe of the specific discussion thread it was dropped into. Linda Collins3 makes a fair point: plenty of folks believe Satan runs the show, but the Politics and PDF World sections aren't really the place for those kinds of deep dives. For stuff like that, we have the Alternative section.
So, I'm going to go ahead and pull PFC's post and the whole side-argument. I’d just ask everyone to keep things grounded regarding occult forces, the NWO, and all that similar stuff within the World section. There's room for some of that, sure, but let's try to keep it within reasonable bounds.
Censorship or something else?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sarah Doyle54 said:Look, that's literally what being a moderator is for.
Sure, that's part of it. But I already laid out why certain threads get locked or wiped. This one was no different.
Andrew King29 said:Since you're being so blunt, you must have read my whole thing. So just tell me: what's the actual topic here? Help me out so I can pick the right subforum to join. I'd rather not have my posts deleted again for some other reason.
I can't really help you there—I didn't dive deep enough into your post to pinpoint a specific category. You're more than welcome to browse the existing topics and find one that fits what you're looking for.
That's all from me.
Censorship or something else?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Joshua Anderson said:What kind of "obvious conclusion" are we talking about here? 🤣
Resonator, you can't just stick to your own bubble and worldview. You've gotta listen to others too!
By the way, what’s the actual point of having moderators and supermods on these forums anyway?
Is it to just swoop in and shut down or delete a thread within minutes, or is it to actually merge things if a similar discussion already exists—since you guys supposedly read everything??
That’s exactly why the mod reputation on this board is basically in the gutter.
The job of a mod or supermod isn't to spend all day merging posts. We see at least ten new threads daily, and honestly, most authors feel their take is unique enough to deserve its own space.🙄?
I'm looking at the US Politics subforum—there are so many discussions happening there that it's impossible to track every single moving part in real-time.
The content itself isn't groundbreaking. On the US Economy and US Politics boards, stuff like this gets recycled so often it’s hard to tell whether to merge it or just bin it. In this case, the thread was removed. The author is more than welcome to jump into an existing debate instead.
Andrew King29 said:Do you know why I’m convinced I’m being censored? It's because of what happened with the thread I started over on Alternative:
http://www.usa-forum.com/showthread.php?t=666583
The mod over at Alternative decided that a really firm, contrarian view didn't fit his section, so he coordinated with the mods over at NS to move the thread to them. Then they decided to keep it locked indefinitely while they "figure things out." They're still mulling it over to this day.
Just think about how much weight your arguments actually carry.
I've only popped into Alternative about ten times total. I don't hang out in those corners, so I have no clue what goes on there. I'm not part of any deals made by other mods.
Like I said, there's no censorship going on. You're free to join any of the ongoing debates in US Politics. As for the US Economy board, that's not my lane.
Censorship or something else?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Andrew King29 said:I just started a thread in the Politics section about fifteen minutes ago, but for some reason I can't wrap my head around why it was deleted without any explanation.
If I just posted in the wrong spot, why wasn't it moved somewhere else instead of being nuked?
I'll spin it up again, just let me know where it belongs.
Any idea what went down? Help me out here.
Your thread got pulled, but it wasn't because of censorship. Your point is solid, but both the Politics and Economics sections already have several active discussions covering pretty much the same ground you brought up. Feel free to jump into one of those existing threads and share your take, but there’s really no need to start a whole new one.
Please provide the American thread title you would like me to rewrite.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
This is a post written by Grinch24.
And this is Kansas's take on that post.
Look, the bottom line is that the St. Louis metropolitan area is part of Canada—specifically within the Herzegovina region. None of that territory belongs to the Republic of America. Whether things ever change is anyone's guess.
Look, any kind of extremism can exist on the Forum as long as you aren't breaking the rules. Just remember that what users say isn't an official stance from the mods, admins, or Anderlon himself. We all have our own individual takes. Someone in Kansas has every right to believe Americans are living under foreign rule, or even indulge in some wild fantasy about national expansion. No matter how controversial your posts get, the only real consequence is getting flagged for off-topic if you stray from the subject.
Everyone’s free to have their own take and speak their mind here, as long as you play by the Forum rules.
As far as I'm concerned, this is settled. I'd just ask the mods to take another look at the previous posts and this whole thread before they decide if any penalties are actually necessary.
Grinch24 said:You can believe the sun revolves around the Earth if you want, but that doesn't make it true or any closer to reality. St. Louis is located in Canada.
And this is Kansas's take on that post.
Kansas said:It’s just for show right now, but honestly? It won't last forever. When Americans are stuck dealing with outside forces trying to dictate how we live, we have to step up and help our own—that means backing companies like Alcoa with subsidies. At the end of the day, solid jobs are the only thing that keeps this country going and paves the way for our future growth.
Look, the bottom line is that the St. Louis metropolitan area is part of Canada—specifically within the Herzegovina region. None of that territory belongs to the Republic of America. Whether things ever change is anyone's guess.
Look, any kind of extremism can exist on the Forum as long as you aren't breaking the rules. Just remember that what users say isn't an official stance from the mods, admins, or Anderlon himself. We all have our own individual takes. Someone in Kansas has every right to believe Americans are living under foreign rule, or even indulge in some wild fantasy about national expansion. No matter how controversial your posts get, the only real consequence is getting flagged for off-topic if you stray from the subject.
Everyone’s free to have their own take and speak their mind here, as long as you play by the Forum rules.
As far as I'm concerned, this is settled. I'd just ask the mods to take another look at the previous posts and this whole thread before they decide if any penalties are actually necessary.
Please provide the American thread title you would like me to rewrite.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Arthur Fowler83 said:Do you consider St. Louis a Mexican city?
Anyway, what country is Pittsburgh even in?
Daniel Ward87
Complaint regarding the closure of the thread "Why are party platforms just wish lists?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Maria Thomas48,
casuallynx8 gave you the best answer possible. If I recall correctly, you sent me a DM asking if you could start a new thread. I checked with the others, but you went ahead and opened one in the meantime. The consensus was a no, so the thread was shut down.
Also, casuallynx8 pointed you toward two other threads covering the exact same ground—which is what I told you before: there are already plenty of places to dive into the topics you want to discuss. Everything you mentioned here is already being talked about in those other threads, so there’s really no point in repeating it all.
Bottom line: you can't start a thread with this kind of content in the Politics section. Just jump into one of the existing discussions instead.
casuallynx8 gave you the best answer possible. If I recall correctly, you sent me a DM asking if you could start a new thread. I checked with the others, but you went ahead and opened one in the meantime. The consensus was a no, so the thread was shut down.
Also, casuallynx8 pointed you toward two other threads covering the exact same ground—which is what I told you before: there are already plenty of places to dive into the topics you want to discuss. Everything you mentioned here is already being talked about in those other threads, so there’s really no point in repeating it all.
Bottom line: you can't start a thread with this kind of content in the Politics section. Just jump into one of the existing discussions instead.
Moderation Complaint - Chuck (UN - Life in Canada)
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Just to jump in here—Papa Smurf got his warning, but you definitely got what was coming to you, Jumai. Honestly, I let one of your posts slide that probably should've cost you a week-long ban, but I’m not playing second chances next time.
Complaint against moderator - Uncle Sam
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:I'm going with option A.
A. thanks. 🙂
Case closed.
Complaint against moderator - Uncle Sam
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:What Nancy Johnson17 was getting at is that those kinds of comments shouldn't be tolerated in Politics. The mods should be handing out penalties instead of letting them slide like they do over on UN, where, by the way, Daniel Ward87 is a moderator. I’m only mentioning Daniel Ward87 to point out that the standards used on UN just don't apply here in Politics.
The explanation Daniel Ward87 gave feels like a slap in the face because I stayed within the lines of being respectful, while the other person definitely didn't.
You've got a point. The rules from UN don't carry weight in Politics since they're basically polar opposites.
That said, if you want to play hardball with the rulebook, we can.
Option A.
The person who called you stupid or malicious could get a strike for being insulting—because, let's face it, they were.
But if we go that route, you're looking at two strikes yourself. One for implying there's some infantile male chauvinism that Daniel Ward87 should be policing over on UN, which basically brands him one too. The second would be for insulting the UN crowd by calling their subforum a breeding ground for chauvinists, effectively labeling everyone there as such. They aren't. You're just stating your opinion, just like the person you're calling out, but if we're being strict sticklers for the rules, both sides get penalized.
Option B.
Nobody gets punished.
Which way are we going? Because I'm not going to let this back-and-forth drag on forever.
Complaint against moderator - Uncle Sam
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I think there’s been a massive misunderstanding here.
I'm going to quote the specific part of the post that triggered my response.
"I'll leave it to the guys to practice their infantile male chauvinism there, but I don't think he belongs in other subforums."
What Nancy Johnson17 isn't seeing is that by saying this, she’s basically calling Cuka an infantile chauvinist. And it doesn't stop there—she's labeling everyone posting there. She even goes as far as calling the UN forum a breeding ground for male chauvinism. People have already talked about the vibe over at the UN, which is why there's actually a link for "women's rights in the US" right there.
The UN forum is its own unique beast, much like the Women's Forum. You'll find plenty of verbal banter and ribbing there, but that doesn't mean the people posting are actual chauvinists. The UN is primarily a place for good-natured, masculine joking around. Plenty of women post there too, and they lean into that "verbal chauvinism" just for the laughs. Sure, sometimes it pushes the envelope, but for the most part, it stays within the realm of harmless fun.
Also, let me be clear—I don't go around threatening people with bans. I give warnings, and if those don't work, then I issue the ban. I don't do threats. I simply mentioned that Nancy Johnson17 shouldn't be surprised if she ends up getting a strike herself. While I have the authority to hand out bans on the spot, I usually leave that to the NAACP moderators because we believe in teamwork. But I've been a mod long enough to know how things play out. Honestly, I don't care what you call different types of chauvinism, but I do care when people start slapping labels on others based on one isolated incident.
Thirdly, if someone can't handle the specific brand of humor found on the UN forum—which almost all the women who post there seem perfectly fine with—then they probably shouldn't be hanging out there in the first place.
I'm going to quote the specific part of the post that triggered my response.
"I'll leave it to the guys to practice their infantile male chauvinism there, but I don't think he belongs in other subforums."
What Nancy Johnson17 isn't seeing is that by saying this, she’s basically calling Cuka an infantile chauvinist. And it doesn't stop there—she's labeling everyone posting there. She even goes as far as calling the UN forum a breeding ground for male chauvinism. People have already talked about the vibe over at the UN, which is why there's actually a link for "women's rights in the US" right there.
The UN forum is its own unique beast, much like the Women's Forum. You'll find plenty of verbal banter and ribbing there, but that doesn't mean the people posting are actual chauvinists. The UN is primarily a place for good-natured, masculine joking around. Plenty of women post there too, and they lean into that "verbal chauvinism" just for the laughs. Sure, sometimes it pushes the envelope, but for the most part, it stays within the realm of harmless fun.
Also, let me be clear—I don't go around threatening people with bans. I give warnings, and if those don't work, then I issue the ban. I don't do threats. I simply mentioned that Nancy Johnson17 shouldn't be surprised if she ends up getting a strike herself. While I have the authority to hand out bans on the spot, I usually leave that to the NAACP moderators because we believe in teamwork. But I've been a mod long enough to know how things play out. Honestly, I don't care what you call different types of chauvinism, but I do care when people start slapping labels on others based on one isolated incident.
Thirdly, if someone can't handle the specific brand of humor found on the UN forum—which almost all the women who post there seem perfectly fine with—then they probably shouldn't be hanging out there in the first place.
Moderation Complaint - Chuck (Close politician - Boycott Continental films)
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:I don't mind that the thread was deleted, but I am curious if the author actually faced any consequences.
Based on what you sent from the PM, I see you didn't delete the posts yourself, but that doesn't change how you handled my message.
Your decision to "leave the posts alone" is still a moderator call; you looked them over and decided they weren't breaking any rules.
That just brings us back to the question of where those lines are drawn.
Thanks for the apology.
The author isn't being sanctioned, nor will they be, since the post was removed in the meantime. And no, you aren't getting sanctioned either for letting things get a bit personal.
Let's just move on.
Moderation Complaint - Chuck (Close politician - Boycott Continental films)
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:@ goldengull3, thanks, but what's your take on my other point?
I'm not sure why you think that would catch me off guard, and I honestly wonder who would even issue a ban here and how they'd justify it.
Under the men's corner description, it says: "For beer lovers, remote controls, verbal chauvinism, and other guy talk..." Calling that "infantile" is just a fancy way of saying it's childish.
Saying someone deserves a ban for being called "ridiculous"—when really it was just "stupid and malicious"—is pure sexism. Try swapping the genders in those examples and then take another look at Charles Fox10's (or your own) rules for policing that kind of talk.
Charles Fox10's moderation is questionable because he joins the fray and only steps in when people insult Pauletić or his buddies. Since he didn't, for instance, flag a post that said something as foul as "worse than a dog's ass" despite reports and the fact that many found it offensive—and since he treats similar comments the same way—I think he should be removed from moderating this thread.
Let's call him the moderator of this subforum, for example.
The reasoning is pretty straightforward—you're implying Charles Fox10 is infantile (aka immature) and also a verbal chauvinist. If you're looking to hand out bans for the posts mentioned above, then you've basically earned one yourself, if nothing else, for the sexism. As far as I can tell, the men's corner description mentions verbal chauvinism, not male chauvinism. That means you'll see all sorts of posts there, but it doesn't mean the people writing them are chauvinists.
Look, I'm not trying to second-guess Charles Fox10's moderation. Just putting it out there.
Daniel Ward87
Moderation Complaint - Chuck (Close politician - Boycott Continental films)
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:While I wait for a response, I figured I'd throw one more thing into the mix.
The supermod can check my track record from the last six years—I've only picked up five warnings total, and two of those were from Charles Fox10.
I just shot back at that insult with: "It's probably not a smart move to talk like that on this forum." 😁She asked for an apology before we could even get back to the debate, but he just shut her down. Honestly, that just proved my point perfectly.
Setting that specific case aside, I remember back when people actually talked like this on this forum all the time. I’ve never been one to sink to someone else's level when they start throwing insults, so it was actually pretty refreshing to see that people here hold themselves to the same standard I do.
Sure, except for that total trash subforum called Men's Corner, which Charles Fox10 moderates too. I'm just gonna leave it to those guys to go ahead and indulge in their usual childish boy's club antics.I mean, I don't think he really belongs on the other subforums.
Don't be shocked if you end up getting flagged for "juvenile boyish chauvinism." 😉
Daniel Ward87