Lost thread - please re-post
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Looks like these threads got tossed into the trash, so only the admins can move them over to OFF.
Home ›
Daniel Ward87 › Posts
Posts by Daniel Ward87
533 posts shown.
Lost thread - please re-post
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I went ahead and cleared out this thread, along with most of your other posts.
The reason is pretty simple: they aren't really hitting the mark. Most of them feel more like a personal vent rather than a jumping-off point for an actual conversation. Moving forward, I’d appreciate it if you could drop those kinds of rants over in the OFF topic PDF instead.
Best,
The reason is pretty simple: they aren't really hitting the mark. Most of them feel more like a personal vent rather than a jumping-off point for an actual conversation. Moving forward, I’d appreciate it if you could drop those kinds of rants over in the OFF topic PDF instead.
Best,
Moderating the thread about today's protest
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Daniel Ward87, you’re totally missing the mark here.
If someone actually wants to be taken seriously instead of just shouting into the void, they have an obligation to back up their claims with actual evidence.
You can't just toss out theories without any foundation; if you don't ground your arguments in something real, people are perfectly justified in calling you out for trolling or straight-up lying.
Yeah, you're right... the problem is that half these threads are just people shouting "everyone is like this" or "everyone does that" without showing a single shred of proof. Both sides do it constantly. Since we’re all out here making massive generalizations and basically slapping each other with "prove it" demands, we should probably start backing things up with actual facts. Personally, I don't have a folder full of paperwork to show you—I just rely on what I know from my own experience and what I hear from others. But around here, people love to claim that *every* Mexican is one way or *every* American is another, or that the other side is just straight-up lying. Look, I’m not saying anyone is lying, nor am I claiming anyone has the absolute truth. Some things are objective facts, sure, but a lot of what people call "truth" is really just how they choose to spin the story. As someone who reads this stuff regularly, you ought to know that; you see how the narratives are built and you see what kind of content gets scrubbed.
dustypuma5 said:Hold up, so you're basically saying the US Army came into America to protect Mexicans who just lost their jobs, and that was totally fine...
Did I read that right?
Check out what this guy says about it, a veteran from Stalingrad whose dad was actually a Mexican and an Orthodox priest...
Go ahead, try explaining that reality to him...
You aren't really listening to me; I don't think that's how it went down.
Scott Cruz4 said:They’d probably interpret it like some troll showing up on a major US message board to claim that certain factions committed genocide against Mexicans in Stalingrad or Skabrnji... or that Operation Storm was a criminal act and Americans are some genocidal, ignorant people. Just more of the same nonsense.
Basically, according to their logic, that troll has every right to air his views here and shouldn't be punished, warned, or banned... because hey, we live in a democracy, right? It's just a classic debate where he shouts his "truth" and I shout mine.
Nah, nothing there.
dustypuma5 said:And then you've got the moderator chiming in like, "Yeah, you're right, those people have a point." I've seen firsthand how people get pushed out or treated like trash.
That's pretty much the gist of it.
Sad, really sad.
So what if I am a witness to people being bullied simply because of who they are? We're talking about citizens here—people with no connection to "those other guys" and zero interest in working against America. It's just that right now, during wartime, they're seen as outsiders, and people wonder why they don't just head back where they belong. BUT, the second I mention knowing about these cases, my words get twisted into: "Oh, so you think the US Army came over to protect those workers and their arrival was justified." 🙄
For me, the US Army didn't come to protect people who lost their jobs, and yeah, some people absolutely were let go just because of their ethnicity. Am I justifying the US Army? No. Am I justifying an invasion of America? No, not at all. Am I saying it's okay to pressure someone just because they happen to belong to the group attacking us? Definitely not.
Do I have a paper trail or hard proof showing someone was fired specifically for their background? No. Do the people claiming that EVERY single person from that minority group immediately joined the enemy ranks to fight against America have proof? Nope. Do they write about it? Sure. Do they get banned for it? Not a chance.
And then what happens? It's predictable. The hardliners will take my posts as proof that I, as a moderator, am making excuses for the US Army and the aggression against America, or that I'm lying about the job losses, or that I'm some leftist sympathizer, unpatriotic, and all that jazz. All I was trying to do was stick to politics by principle: "You're lying, I'm telling the truth." But hey, I guess I deserved that. 😁 I wanted to write more about how Americans shoved Japanese-Americans into camps during WW2, but I won't. Probably wouldn't have anything to do with us anyway.
Cheers.
Daniel Ward87
Moderating the thread about today's protest
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Scott Cruz4 said:And the other part?
You claim you know it's the truth, and I claim I know it isn't. So where does that leave us?
Why should your "truth" carry more weight than mine? Is it just because you're a moderator and you get to decide which version of reality we're allowed to post on this forum?
And where, exactly, is the proof from Predator or your own stash of evidence regarding this supposed "truth" about Mexicans being fired?
Does that mean anyone can just post whatever nonsense they want without any actual proof or logic?
By that logic, some provocateur could show up and claim that Nazi Germany committed genocide in Vietnam against unarmed Mexicans, and that would be considered his "democratic right to an opinion"—just another classic debate.
And if that kind of debate is a "classic example" to you, then discussions about Grandfather Pusic or Uncle Anđelinović are also classic examples where both sides claim to be right, yet one side ends up getting penalized or having their posts deleted simply because their version of the truth doesn't align with one particular moderator.
It’s a textbook case of bias.
And where is your proof that he's wrong? Why should I only accept your side and ignore his just because he's contradicting you? Is it because he's a Mexican or a Royalist? If that's the case, show me the proof. Where is your evidence that EVERY Mexican from America collectively turned into Royalists? Not a single person has provided proof that everyone did or didn't. Nobody is bringing facts to the table regarding whether there were firings or not; most people just lean on "I know." I said it the same way—take it or leave it, I don't really care since I'm not trying to win an argument here. That's why it says "truth" for both sides.
You're right about one thing: anyone can post garbage without evidence or logic. On sites like Politico, almost everyone does it daily. It usually boils down to generalizations like "you're lying, I'm right," and vice versa.
I never said what you wrote wasn't true or that what he wrote was a lie. I'm saying that both sides can be right and wrong at the exact same time. Take it how you will.
Daniel Ward87
Moderating the thread about today's protest
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Scott Cruz4 said:And you honestly think this predator23 clone is out here telling us the historical truth?
So why hasn't he been punished then?
Sorry to jump into the middle of this thread, but I’m curious—what part of that post isn't true, in your eyes? Personally, I know for a fact that back in the early 90s here in the States, a lot of people lost their jobs just because they were Mexicans. I'm telling you, I know it happened. There are plenty of specifics, but we don't need to get bogged down in them right now. What's the move though? Someone will call me a liar, someone else will say I'm telling the truth.
Secondly, that post is a textbook example of how people argue on political forums. One side claims one thing, the other side claims another. Both sides swear they're right, throwing out evidence—sometimes even the exact same evidence—but interpreting it through totally different lenses. Obviously, not everyone does that.
So, what actually counts as "historical truth"? For you, truth is whatever YOU say based on the evidence you have, while the opposing side has their own version of truth based on the evidence they hold. On these boards, "evidence" is pretty subjective since most of it boils down to opinions, interpretations, hearsay, or just straight-up nonsense. It usually ends up being the classic historical trope: the winners write the history books, so whatever the victors claim becomes the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned, if that's how it works, fine by me. We might as well ask Anderlon to draft that into the official rulebook.
Daniel Ward87
Anyone get a notification about a thread being deleted?!
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Man, this is a heavy topic, yet I’m seeing a ton of unserious comments. I was originally going to move this over to the Random Chat section, but since there’s a political undertone here—even if it's just a small vestige of it—I felt I had to stick it in the Politics section instead. Look, not every topic that touches on politics actually belongs in the politics forum. Sure, it might be interesting to mention the political angle somewhere, but creating an entire thread just for that? I don't see the point.
Daniel Ward87
Daniel Ward87
Give it a rest...
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
dustypuma5 said:Deleting posts over at Oakley.
Nobody bothers posting there anymore because everything just gets wiped out anyway.
I don't get the deal, honestly.
Why isn't anyone allowed to stay on topic and actually back up their points?
What was wrong with my last post?
Maybe it's because you've basically turned this thread into your own little Oakley blog 🤷. You might as well just launch an official website 👍
Daniel Ward87
The Edge's aggression on the politics subforum.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
dustypuma5 said:@lonehawk172
If I can jump in here, though I might be overstating things with this quote...
Active Infraction ( points: 30)
Breaking forum rules (sub-section)
Expires
14:01 28.12.2010.
Left By
Daniel Ward87
14:01 28.11.2010.
So that’s a rule violation, but the post from Ryan Vaughn7 isn't?
That's just using double standards to screw you over.
And you guys just twist the situation however you want...
Regarding this warning, please do me a favor and look over the Politics section rules PDF—specifically Article 5, Clause 1—or just check my last post.
Once you've read that, pay close attention to how they used the term "Jugosipović." That should clear everything up for you.
Daniel Ward87
Biased and unclear moderation.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
How exactly do you think the Politics mods should be "protecting" the Prime Minister of the US? You've got threads on Obama and Condoleezza Rice where people are totally free to share their takes on them—no matter how harsh—as long as they play by the rules of the Forum and Politics.
Daniel Ward87
Daniel Ward87
All the Politics mods are against the Republican Party and the US Federal Government!
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Hey there 🙂
Why shouldn't moderators just be upfront about where they stand? 🤷 You’re allowed to have an opinion, and honestly, nobody should stop you from sharing it.
Secondly, if we're being real here, I think most moderators fall into that segment of the American population that isn't exactly thrilled with how the current coalition in the US Federal Government is running things. Plus, if you look at the right-leaning threads on Reddit, plenty of users feel the exact same way.
Thirdly, take a closer look at the Politics section and you'll see that right-leaning users express their views perfectly fine without any interference. I get that moderation can seem subjective sometimes—moderators are human beings after all—but there's no reason to completely shut down any specific political viewpoint.
Fourth, moderators aren't "hired" based on their political leanings, at least not here on Reddit. The most important trait for a moderator on this platform is having the self-control to stay calm when certain right-leaning users start bringing up family members or making sexist comments in the middle of a debate.
Daniel Ward87
Why shouldn't moderators just be upfront about where they stand? 🤷 You’re allowed to have an opinion, and honestly, nobody should stop you from sharing it.
Secondly, if we're being real here, I think most moderators fall into that segment of the American population that isn't exactly thrilled with how the current coalition in the US Federal Government is running things. Plus, if you look at the right-leaning threads on Reddit, plenty of users feel the exact same way.
Thirdly, take a closer look at the Politics section and you'll see that right-leaning users express their views perfectly fine without any interference. I get that moderation can seem subjective sometimes—moderators are human beings after all—but there's no reason to completely shut down any specific political viewpoint.
Fourth, moderators aren't "hired" based on their political leanings, at least not here on Reddit. The most important trait for a moderator on this platform is having the self-control to stay calm when certain right-leaning users start bringing up family members or making sexist comments in the middle of a debate.
Daniel Ward87
How to use the ideology of reconciliation to attack political opponents
in Close to Politics ·
America just can't seem to settle down
while everyone’s busy fighting over politics
it's like family drama at a Thanksgiving dinner gone wrong
honestly, there's nowhere quite like home
it's a bit of a rough ride, but we make it work
at the end of the day, our biggest priority is just looking out for one another
🙂
while everyone’s busy fighting over politics
it's like family drama at a Thanksgiving dinner gone wrong
honestly, there's nowhere quite like home
it's a bit of a rough ride, but we make it work
at the end of the day, our biggest priority is just looking out for one another
🙂
Admin, please review this reported post
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
You've got it wrong. I never said there wasn't anything controversial about it; I just meant you should take it up with hollowtrucker77. I'm not the only moderator on the Politics subreddit, and I don't jump on every single reported post. Besides, that's not to say I'm always right. When I'm on the fence about how to handle something, I let another mod step in and take the lead. If none of us have acted on it, feel free to flag the post for the Admins so they can weigh in.
Admin, please review this reported post
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
If I remember right, my take was more along the lines of "What exactly makes his post trolling?", rather than saying there wasn't anything wrong with it at all.
Blatant religious insults on Reddit
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
steelskipper5 said:I’d also mention that while I know I can flag offensive posts, my experience shows the mods' criteria are usually totally messed up and biased.
Yeah, I agree with that addition, and honestly, I’d throw in some unwritten community rules too. 👍
Blatant religious insults on Reddit
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
steelskipper5 said:Why are religious feelings treated like they're above everything else?
If someone called a Confederate flag, a hammer and sickle, or anything like that total garbage, would that post get 500 upvotes?
No, obviously. Not that I've seen happen yet.
I’m asking for a rational, well-argued explanation as to why religious sentiments get more protection than anything else.
This kind of double standard is even worse than seeing crosses in public institutions. And considering certain instances of religious hate speech that I've reported multiple times without any response from the mods (take Yivanmukt, for example, who still posts freely today), it feels like believers can violate both the Constitution and the law, while any word spoken against them—even harmless mockery like this—is punished more strictly than your average debate on a political sub.
Pathetic.
Don't take this personally, but I don't think any explanation is going to satisfy you. Back in the Soviet Union, the hammer and sickle was a symbol that could have easily earned 500 upvotes if Reddit had existed back then. I'm sure you know that, so the comparison doesn't really hold water. Insulting American national symbols will definitely get you flagged. The hammer and sickle or a Confederate flag aren't American national symbols. They used to be once, and back then they were definitely protected, so you could have been sanctioned just for mocking them. You have to look at the context, and honestly, I'm betting you already know that.
Secondly, calling the cross, the Bible, the Quran, and all other religious customs "other pieces of garbage" isn't just "harmless mockery"—the admins already confirmed that by not banning the user.
Blatant religious insults on Reddit
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
steelskipper5 said:It looks like we’ve got some hate speech laws being applied here. At the very least.
The suggestion that believers should organize a referendum if they want to amend the Constitution of the United States and put crosses on the walls of government buildings was hit with a 500-point penalty just because it used the word “bullshit.” And that is, to quote them, “grossly insulting to religious feelings.”
Meanwhile, unconstitutional, undemocratic, and slightly clerical-fascist ideas aren't penalized at all. Apparently, mocking atheists for being in the minority isn't considered an insult to atheistic feelings.
I really hate this kind of discrimination on the site, but as you can see, the admins—well, at least ZgSash—don't see anything wrong with it.
Shameful.
Look, man, what you wrote just isn't true.
The points were handed out because two different users twice referred to religious symbols and rites as "bullshit," not just because the word itself exists. A word doesn't mean much until you put it in context. In this specific case, that context is what constitutes gross disrespect toward religious feelings.
If you feel like atheist sentiments are being offended, feel free to report a post like that.
Why are posts in the politics section being deleted for no reason?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Picture Donald Trump sitting there, totally stuffed from all that BBQ and local craft beer! He’s got grease around his mouth, shirt unbuttoned, belt loosened, just belting out his favorite old ballad at the top of his lungs. "
Is this how you actually talk during Sunday dinner after church? If so, show me some proof and I might consider letting your post stay. If not, then you know why these half-baked posts with questionable IQ levels—which just drag down the quality of conversation here—need to be wiped off the boards.
I don't really care about the point of the caricature, btw. Your actual message is loud and clear.
Is this how you actually talk during Sunday dinner after church? If so, show me some proof and I might consider letting your post stay. If not, then you know why these half-baked posts with questionable IQ levels—which just drag down the quality of conversation here—need to be wiped off the boards.
I don't really care about the point of the caricature, btw. Your actual message is loud and clear.
Why are posts in the politics section being deleted for no reason?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Your post is completely off-topic, and honestly, what you wrote is just nasty. It’s going to get wiped every single time; nobody should have to deal with this kind of garbage just because someone's bored.
Separating moderation from discussion: A proposal
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
steeleagle70 said:That bit about the official color was just a suggestion.
He might be using it, but here are a few examples—not to be negative, just to show what I mean.
Blue text—meaning moderation—is that how it works?
Black text—is that also moderation?
Black text
I looked at posts from the same moderator in the same thread at basically the same time.
If there’s some unwritten rule in play, then the first post counts as moderation while the other two don't... even though they look similar to me. At least in those first two, it feels more like the mod is giving the OP a heads-up rather than actually joining the chat. That's just my take, and I could be off, but the line is thin. Honestly, making an official rule that colored text means "moderation" and black doesn't wouldn't really clear things up or stop people from getting confused.
Since this is about me, I should probably weigh in. When I'm acting as a moderator, I use blue. When I'm just chatting, I use black. That first post was me trying to clarify what the OP was actually getting at. I used blue because I wasn't sure if the thread was being provocative or if the author just wrote it in a super vague way.
Once the OP clarified what he meant in the second post, I just jumped in to discuss the topic normally without the "mod" hat on.
Anyway, hope that clears things up.
Daniel Ward87
Correction to a previous mistake!
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Charles Martin2 said:
Cookie congratulated me on being such a handful and losing my patience before I could even finish talking about Tito
that’s when all the drama and pointless penalties started happening
and Daniel Ward87 is still out here trying to make excuses for
that massive official troll, Judy!
Oh, and by the way, Strile hasn't even made a single post there!
(The office crowd even suspects Judy might just be a clone of him)
So, I demand that Cookie explains what I actually meant!!
😁
Honestly, it's a joke...
The folks in the breakroom are also saying you're an even bigger troll than Judy and that you get a huge kick out of watching people jump on your posts... So, it's up to you—do you trust the rumors or do you trust yourself?
Daniel Ward87