Posts by Daniel Ward87

Alex Wilson4 said:Why does it feel like the right wing always gets banned on the politics boards? And when I say banned, I mean permanent bans or even just temporary ones. It feels like the whole political section has been stripped of all those great conservative voices who actually made things interesting to read. Look at what happened to Viti—it’s a perfect example. Honestly, it feels like the mods just can't handle certain right-leaning users, and by trying to police everyone, they've turned the entire political discussion here into one big, boring liberal echo chamber.

To be real, conservatives tend to insult people, troll, and stir the pot more often, which naturally lands them in the crosshairs for a ban. Even now, there are plenty of right-wingers on the politics board sharing their views quite civilly. The issue usually isn't the opinion itself, but how they go about saying it.

As for Viti—trying to find one of his constructive posts is about as likely as finding a sensible policy from the federal government. A total long shot.

Daniel Ward87

I can't exactly drop a ban hammer on you here even if I wanted to...

Look, I’m not trying to start a fight with you, I was just genuinely asking what you thought about it...

Daniel Ward87

Charles Martin2 said:

I’d actually suggest we ban any mention of how someone was raised at home
and slap a minimum 100-point penalty on anyone who brings up parenting!
I’m calling for this because people keep using "upbringing" as a weapon in debates!!
To me, it’s just a cheap way to insult someone—a total ad hominem attack!!

What does someone's childhood have to do with a point being made here?!
It feels like people only bring up how someone was raised just to be insulting
and stir the pot!!!
If I say Josip Broz Tito was a criminal—what does my upbringing have to do with that!
If I complain about getting bad service at a Starbucks—how is that related to my parents!
WHAT does my upbringing have to do with it!?!?!!?

Let me be clear: it's just a high-brow way of attacking someone's family
by basically saying, "Well, look how you were raised, you're clearly a mess!!!"

Otherwise, you can respond to any argument, statement, or fact by just attacking their upbringing!!!
You could take anything written here and just say: "Your parents failed you!!!!"

We're adults here; let's drop the playground insults and childish jabs!!!!

If anyone else thinks the way people talk about "upbringing" here is nonsense, back me up!!

Are you 100% sure about that bolded part?

Daniel Ward87

crimsonhound80 said:Sam Green73, please 🤷

I actually started a similar thread recently and got flagged for "inciting verbal conflict" or whatever.

It’s either every politician gets treated the same way, or some moderators just have a totally different grasp of the rules in the Politics subforum.

I’d love to post more there, but a few of you mods seem to interpret the rules however you feel like it in the moment.

If I see people calling Kamala Harris, the leader of the US Government, a total tramp or a hillbilly without getting shut down, I don't get why we can't call Obama a "Yugoslavist" as a joke.

Kamala Harris runs the US Government and carries way more weight and responsibility than Obama, who mostly just deals with protocol stuff.

The other thing is that some people overstate his importance, but honestly, I'm just wondering why...😉

Basic manners dictate that this kind of talk isn't allowed in the Politics section. Who are we to stop you or anyone else from saying Kamala Harris is a hillbilly? 🤷 Getting a post deleted says more about the author than anything else. A warning for insults doesn't apply here because that's for attacking users, not public figures. If you twist a public figure's name into an insult, you get a strike, but I don't see the point in handing out strikes just because someone called that unknown guy an idiot.

Calling someone a "Yugoslavist" isn't being edgy, especially when you know Obama is the candidate for the Democratic Party—the group everyone labels as communists or pro-Yugoslavia.

Daniel Ward87

ironmarlin1 said:Even if this is just how things work now, and even though I don't really feel like posting on some far-right sub-section of The New York Times, is it actually okay to tolerate this kind of language:

I get that this style of talking fits right in with the mindset of the mods and the regulars over there, but shouldn't trolling and insults be wiped out? It’s pretty basic. Personally, I’m not a fan of Joan Didion and we disagree on plenty of things, but I’d never think to post nonsense like that. Every time I drift into that section, you can't escape that kind of vitriol. It’s like using extreme political slurs is the peak of civilization for those mods and the crowd they curate (which is why most people with any sense stay far away from that thread). 🤷

You used to get banned yourself ☕. Since you're clearly such a genius for deciding to write at all, do us all a favor—be even smarter and stop reading altogether. It’s obvious it’s taking a toll on you since you've started attacking other users and moderators. The folks over at The New York Times already know the deal, so they steer clear of posts like yours... which honestly just proves how much more intelligent they are than certain others...

Daniel Ward87

Charles Jackson5 said:I only used that parallel to point out the lack of principle here. Double standards are the absolute worst thing in moderation. That’s it.
Personally, I actually praised you guys for being more lenient lately regarding things on the edge of Politika, and now I see nonsense being banned again.
Just let people vent—even if they push the limit a bit. Let them write what's bothering them; it makes everyone feel better.

That wasn't some physical defect—it was just his facial structure giving him an unlikable expression during appearances. It's similar to how Mason was called a porcupine because of his eyebrows and hair.
Mocking a physical impairment would be something like Bandić's exhaustion or his facial drooping following a stroke. We shouldn't allow that, and I've actually stepped in twice even though I can't stand Bandić.
And as for "earning" certain labels... am I allowed to call Franjo Harmon a fascist or a war criminal?
By your logic, I assume I can.
And can I repeat it as often as others call Mason a traitor, or Tit the greatest criminal in the history of the North America?

Did you just join the Politics section yesterday or something? 😕 Do you have any idea how many times I've had to hand out warnings to respected, mature, grown-up members of the Politics forum who got flagged just for calling Franjo Harmon a criminal or a villain? Too many. And do you know why? Because they were getting banned for it. Their excuse was always, "Oh, Daniel Ward87 is just censoring opinions..."🙄 We even had a whole debate thread—started by Johnny B. DL—about which specific words count as insults, and it ended badly because what one person calls an opinion, another calls a provocation. Personally, I thought we should hand out warnings for those words, but a fellow moderator decided that would be like trying to legislate speech on a micro scale, so I backed off. Honestly, he was right. Since then, I've been cleaning up those kinds of posts, and that's why the Politics section is a better place now.

Calling Harmon Krivosunik or Mason a porcupine is, in my book, a violation of our forum rules. Now, calling Franjo Harmon a fascist or a war criminal—well, there are certainly people who would characterize his presidency that way. But at the end of the day, that says more about the person writing it than it does about Franjo Harmon himself.

As far as I'm concerned, you keep using your flowery adjectives, and I'll just keep deleting those posts. Whether they're framed as "opinions" or not, those types of comments don't belong here on Politics.

Daniel Ward87

Charles Jackson5 said:Fine then—I’ll start reporting every single post where someone uses terms like porcupine, squid, or lame locksmith. Sound good?
Let's see what kind of weak, half-baked arguments about "character assassination" you come up with then. 🙄
It's honestly pathetic that a moderator can interpret things in such a nonsensical way.

Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍

Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.

Daniel Ward87

Brenda Sanders56 said:I don't think you can really compare the two.

Take Franjo Harmon, for example. He was our first president, and more importantly, he dealt with a visible facial tic—a physical struggle that people often poked fun at. Personally, I’m not sure how tasteful it is to make light of someone's disability. 🤷

On the other hand, Josip Manjko is very much still with us. He’s been active in politics up until recently and likely will be again, but the point is, he doesn't have any actual physical impairments that people use for ridicule.

Honestly, it feels like a huge overreaction over a single warning. Like Brenda Sanders56 pointed out, mocking Krivosunik based on a facial "flaw" is one thing, but handing out a strike would happen to anyone, not just if they were talking about Franjo Harmon.

As for Josip Manjko and Burduš, that label says more about the author's character and their clearly negative take on Josip Manjko. Whether we're talking about real-world etiquette or internet rules, it’s just not cool to talk about people that way. Look, if Josip Manjko is a "Burduš" to some people, I don't want to be in a spot where I have to issue a strike for an opinion. I might delete a post, but issuing a formal strike—well, if we start doing that, then everyone gets a strike every time someone calls a politician a jerk or a loser. If that's how we're playing it, fine by me, but let's be clear about the precedent.🤷

hollowtrucker77 said:redcrane63, were you the one who reported those specific posts?

Cody already got banned, so I don't see any reason to hand out extra strikes.🤷

Daniel Ward87

Steven Reed said:Don't troll. 😉
No matter how much effort you put in—it’s simply impossible to turn this thread into anything resembling a joke. 😉

Steven Ruiz—I’ve gotta hand it to Desiree; unlike you or mistywolf17, she actually had the guts to admit she was wrong.
Daniel Ward87, this behavior is frankly embarrassing for a moderator—whether you choose to admit it or not, it’s the plain truth.

Look, let's be clear: this isn't a joke... who's even joking? You guys are claiming we were being intentionally arrogant and basically spitting in everyone's faces, but I'm saying that's just not true... And where are you getting the idea that I'm saying we didn't deserve the penalty? We did, and we got it...

Daniel Ward87

Nicholas King said:This is a pretty weird way to handle a thread.

At the end of the day, what you actually intended doesn't matter. What matters is that this whole thing came off as an arrogant "we can do it, you can't" flex—basically, just because Ivy can do it, doesn't mean Jon Bon Jovi can. The biggest issue is how the apology was phrased, using "sol faking vat if we ignored the rules"...

Good luck with that. I'm out of here.

If this were just about acting entitled, we wouldn't have been penalized 🤷 and yeah, sol faking vat. We missed the mark, we got hit with a penalty, so what? If you think it's unfair, then just say it and complain normally instead of doing... this. Plus, I'll say it again: since when is a single post considered a chat?

Daniel Ward87

Steven Reed said:I have never whined about a single warning I received, whether I deserved it or not.
People who intentionally flagrant the rules usually face a 100-point penalty—and lately, in many cases, a permanent ban from that specific PDF. To be perfectly clear, I've seen people get permanently banned over just a few posts on that PDF (stuff that wouldn't even bother a decent mod).
And yes, if I believe mods who break the rules should face harsher sanctions—especially when they do it maliciously or just to be jerks—so be it.
If you actually bothered to read my posts, you'd notice an unusual amount of consistency 😍
you aren't your average users!!!!
you are the moderators tasked with upholding the standards of this forum, not making a mockery of them!
I am still genuinely stunned by your attitude—and I hope your admins are too.

Then go ahead and stay consistent to the bitter end. Who said we shouldn't be punished? We have been—we've taken the strikes. My issue is just how you all insist we were being intentionally smug or arrogant to justify much harsher penalties 😕. That’s not how it went down from my perspective. We were punished exactly how the moderators of this sub-forum decided we deserved to be...

And honestly, the generalizations being thrown around here are pretty wild...

Daniel Ward87

Nicholas King said:Yeah, right—I'm apparently incapable of doing anything, yet I have to constantly second-guess my own sentences, wondering if someone's going to misinterpret them as some kind of provocation.

They don't. It’s not like you all signed some lifelong moderator's oath. If you can't handle the heat, simply get out of the kitchen. It really is that simple.

When moderators decide to bend the rules, they should be hit with even harsher penalties precisely because they hold the title of moderator. 🙄

Absolutely.

What about that whole forum mantra, "the rules apply to everyone equally"?

Three words: two-day unpunished chat.

Seriously though, how can you claim someone was participating in a thread if they only dropped a single post? 🤷 That’s either off-topic or just breaking subforum rules... You really think I should personally catch a 3-day Ban just because I was "intentionally being provocative," as marčelina puts it...🙄

Honestly, everyone here keeps preaching about not generalizing, yet this isn't considered generalizing? If it is, then it needs to apply to everyone, since the mods are part of the community too. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with it.👍

Daniel Ward87

Linda Rodriguez38 said:you guys should've gotten those 300 points instead—since you were INTENTIONALLY being obnoxious and poking the bear... we just wanted to show everyone who’s really running things and exactly how much trouble you can stir up!

🤣🤣 At that point, we were just messaging with Steven Ruiz, and if you really think we were being arrogant on purpose...🙏🙏🙏

Honestly, you've got a point... I know for a fact that most moderators do this intentionally. They act smug, basically spit in the faces of regular users, and mock people when they complain about getting banned... not to mention the blacklists and everything else. 👍

Daniel Ward87

Kyle King4 said:🤣

I haven't read anything stupider in a long time. No offense.

So according to Marcelina, that's how it goes...🤷

Daniel Ward87

Nicholas King said:You already hit me with the first argument: there is a massive difference between when moderators act up versus when regular users do.

Secondly—let's just assume for a second that the rules apply equally to everyone. Can you honestly, without even blinking, tell me that "regular" users could just chat away for two days straight and only walk away with a mere 30 points?

First, you're right, but I touched on this in my last post... mods are just regular users with extra responsibilities. Some people here seem to think mods should be on duty 24/7, policing everything perfectly... and most actually do. But when they start acting like "just another user," that's where things change—that's when an automatic Ban happens. That's the core of it.

Second, it depends on the specific chat session. I left a single post on that thread; do you really think I deserve a three-day Ban for that? You can't call one single post "chatting." You can't generalize like that; every situation needs to be looked at individually. That’s my take...

Daniel Ward87

Steven Reed said:Exactly 😍
because the moderators are supposed to uphold the rules, not break them and turn them into a joke.
It's pathetic that you don't see it that way.

It’s honestly sad how you guys act like moderators aren't part of the community too...Regular users break the rules all the time and take the cards and Bans, while mods have to deal with all kinds of nonsense while trying to stay chill, level-headed, and rational—every single day. But the second a mod slips up on the rules, they deserve an even harsher penalty just because they happen to be 🙄

What's with this whole "rules apply to everyone" thing? You guys throw that out constantly, but suddenly the tune changes when it involves the mods. If you're going to preach consistency, then actually be consistent.

Daniel Ward87

shadowpilot8 said:The sheer amount of grinding you people do never ceases to amaze me. 🤣

Listen, fellow moderators, I believe this is what the rest of the commenters are actually looking for:

Yes, people were chatting on the KZB, which isn't permitted, and it turned into a tasteless joke.
Yes, the KZB mods messed up by not closing the thread immediately with a warning and some bans.

But those are the only mistakes. As for everything else, IMHO, the penalties were appropriate. Though I suspect you’d much rather see Steven Ruiz's ban extended and everyone else banned too. 🤷

Basically, yeah 👍 ...

Daniel Ward87

Linda Rodriguez38 said:they should've just given them all a 3-day Ban
get it now? Including you—because y'all knew perfectly well that was NOT allowed

marčelina

troll or not, I shouldn't have to clone myself just to say what's on my mind

🙄 Come on, don't be a hypocrite... How many times have you broken the Lions Club rules without getting slapped with an instant three-day ban? Nobody is disputing what we did, but when the moderators mess up, there should be an immediate 3-day ban—no questions asked. When "regular" users screw up, well, that's where the debate starts.

Daniel Ward87

Steven Reed said:You all got sanctioned because the users revolted and after AXMi made it clear they had no interest in stepping in to moderate, even if they agreed the behavior was unacceptable. Therefore—please—there is no excuse for what went down.

Oh, sure. If you try to offer a different perspective that doesn't align with the original one, suddenly it's an "excuse"... give me a break. I respect your take, 👍, but I'm just not buying it...

Daniel Ward87

Linda Rodriguez38 said:Steven Ruiz The thing is—you guys AREN'T just regular forum users, right? Honestly, you should be facing way tougher sanctions because the vibe you're putting out there is just... wow. Such a bad look for everyone!
No offense intended!
Even after getting banned—you guys just wouldn't stop chatting for free, would you? 😂
Daniel Ward87Honestly, thanks for the concern—really! But maybe the only thing that actually bothers people is that I’m not an idiot and I actually have the guts to say what's on my mind?

Wait, what happened to Marčelina? Anyone know the scoop?

You've got it wrong. ☕ You think the mods handed out warnings first and then people kept talking, but that's not how it went down. Everyone was talking, then Apple stepped in, handed out everyone their warnings all at once, and shut the thread. So, it's not true that people were ignoring warnings to keep chatting... Get it now?

Daniel Ward87