Home › Daniel Ward87 › Posts

Posts by Daniel Ward87

533 posts shown.

Moderator Bias: Are they picking sides? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 25, 2017

Harold Long21 said:Look, put down the moderator tools for a second, jump into the actual debate, and just be "yourself." You’re supposed to be objective here.
But to answer your question—in my book, no. Ivo Sanader didn't pull 85% of the vote, and nobody is out here treating Željko Markić like some hero; if anything, the media tears him apart. In a democratic society, you have to respect whatever choice people make, even if you think their choice is total nonsense. I know you struggle with that concept, but hey, if you're going to preach about freedom of speech while simultaneously defending other mods who hand out bans based on assumptions, I have to point it out.

To me, it feels like a provocation when someone parades a symbol of oppression in a country devastated by it, only to get banned—yet you think it's perfectly fine to call Ivo Sanader's voters idiots. Is that what you consider objective moderation?

See, I never said anyone's voters were idiots. My point was that we, as a nation, are acting pretty brainless. That's a huge distinction. Plus, if we're talking damage, I'd argue Franjo Tuđman's policies during the war years did way more harm than any "oppressive symbol" ever could.

Anyway, I'm not following—what exactly am I supposed to be struggling with? And what are you actually complaining about here, a warning or a ban?

Moderator Bias: Are they picking sides? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 25, 2017

Harold Long21 said:Look, guys, I get it—everyone’s got their own camp they root for.
I love that the mods have basically mastered telepathy, but honestly, they can stop trying to read minds for a second and just actually read the posts. Some of these are nothing but pure insults and baiting from start to finish.

If you ask me, the American public is pretty much stuck in a loop because they voted for Ivo Sanader twice. Plus, people act like Željko Markić is some kind of saintly hero, even though her organization gets funding from companies that make stuff like those "morning-after" pills.

So, would you call that an insult to the 85% who identify as Catholic or American, or what?

Left vs. Right: Politics. in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 18, 2017

Jack Smith4 said:My deal is pretty simple: I should be allowed to post ads for my hobby in specific threads dedicated to that topic, as long as everyone else follows the rules when they promote stuff too.

It’s like being in a dictatorship—on this version of Reddit, the platform dictates the terms to you, rather than it being a two-way street. 😁

History in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 14, 2017

Jose Clark2 said:Sure thing, thanks 👍

I took a quick look at your posts before and after the break (on those other files). It looks like you’ve got a bit of a habit of trolling and being disrespectful, which usually means I'd extend your suspension.

But since I'm new here and things are currently a history calm pdf, I'm going to lift your suspension for now. Just a heads up though—if you start causing trouble again, it won't take long for that suspension to come right back.

Catch you on the file.

Can someone explain this? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 13, 2017

Harold Long21 said:We need a real purge to clear out the trash spreading all this negativity...

I think this is a solid reason to delete it.

History in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 12, 2017

Got it. Since I'm still the new guy on the block, do me a favor and bear with me for a day or two.

Banned for 3-4 years because a former mod couldn't stand religion... in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 9, 2016

We looked over the appeal, but we’re sticking with the partial payment. The issue is that those cards were issued right after the last split on other PDFs, and we don't want to risk running into the exact same headache that forced us to do a partial in the first place.

Are Polygraph and The New York Times revisionist media outlets? in Feedback & Suggestions · Nov 4, 2016

crimsonjackal63 said:On the Polygraph show, they claimed that after World War II ended in Canada, 140,000 Americans were killed, which makes you think the total death toll across all groups is easily over 200,000.

When they say "end of the war," are we talking about May, or some other timeframe?

What counts as "hate speech"? in Feedback & Suggestions · Nov 2, 2016

Matthew Castillo5 said:Oh, please, spare me the "context" argument. In what possible universe would that be okay and somehow exempt from being called out?

So what is it then? An absolute truth? Just pure stupidity? Or just an opinion the author is entitled to hold?

What about the reverse claim: that atheists are idiots and believers are geniuses? I’m not asserting that, I’m just asking. Charles Fox10 and I have already agreed that you find the full spectrum—from catastrophically dim-witted to absolutely brilliant—in both groups.

Or, for example: are gay people stupid and straight people smart?

Context has always been everything when you're reading the news, and this case is no different.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Oh, please, spare me the "context" argument. In what possible universe would that be okay and somehow exempt from being called out?

So what is it then? An absolute truth? Just pure stupidity? Or just an opinion the author is entitled to hold?

What about the reverse claim: that atheists are idiots and believers are geniuses? I’m not asserting that, I’m just asking. Charles Fox10 and I have already agreed that you find the full spectrum—from catastrophically dim-witted to absolutely brilliant—in both groups.

Or, for example: are gay people stupid and straight people smart?

Look, everyone’s entitled to their own take. Whether a point is "wrong" or not is always up for debate. We’ve always maintained here that you can't just drop an opinion without backing it up with some actual logic. An opinion on its own isn't a violation—we don't hand out bans just for having a viewpoint. But if you drop that claim into a specific thread or use it to derail a discussion, then you're looking at a potential penalty. It all comes down to context.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Oh, please, spare me the "context" argument. In what possible universe would that be okay and somehow exempt from being called out?

So what is it then? An absolute truth? Just pure stupidity? Or just an opinion the author is entitled to hold?

What about the reverse claim: that atheists are idiots and believers are geniuses? I’m not asserting that, I’m just asking. Charles Fox10 and I have already agreed that you find the full spectrum—from catastrophically dim-witted to absolutely brilliant—in both groups.

Or, for example: are gay people stupid and straight people smart?

Vidi gore napisani tekst.

What counts as "hate speech"? in Feedback & Suggestions · Nov 2, 2016

Matthew Castillo5 said:I’m pulling this specific part from the thread over on the Politics subforum just so I don't get flagged again for critiquing the moderation team.

Well, I expect it, and I have every right to. You aren't just some random user; you’re a moderator here. If someone were to post that all Americans are geniuses while Mexicans are idiots (or vice versa), or if they claimed all liberals are brilliant while conservatives are morons, or even that men are smart and women are dumb—would that just sit there without consequence? Or would a moderator actually step in? In some cases, labeling an entire group of people with a single trait is considered hate speech, so why is it treated differently in others?

So, my question stands: does the frequent claim that all religious people are stupid and all atheists are smart constitute hate speech, or doesn't it?

It really depends on how you look at it. Just phrased like that, I wouldn't call it hate speech.

Rules being broken in the religion sub again in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 14, 2016

Gerald Hill said:Last time I started a thread about this, I was told to just report the post first and wait to see if the mods would step in. Well, nobody stepped in. To be clear, the user Microsoft was basically advocating for violence by saying it would be "just" to persecute—and essentially kill—people based on their religion. You can see it right here I’m asking for this user to be banned because they're inciting religious hatred and treating violence against religious groups like it's some kind of righteous crusade.

Looks like the post was handled properly and the user is already banned.

Appeal for a deleted post in Feedback & Suggestions · May 14, 2016

Paul Peterson2 said:So, I dropped two posts with the exact same wording but different links on the thread. One of them got nuked immediately.
I honestly don't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of this. It's like when people freak out over a minor glitch in a software update—it feels like a lot of noise for something that doesn't actually change the core experience. Like Sam Green73 mentioned earlier, we really need to step back and look at the bigger picture here.

Give me my post back.

Hey Sam Green73, let me know if you need a hand figuring out how to upload an image properly so you can drop the link here on the forum. 👍 Looks like you're struggling with this one, especially since they nuked your post along with all the comments trying to point out where you went wrong.

Check out what Sam Green73 said... just use the Insert image option, unless the file is massive. I've already restored the post.

Deleting posts in Feedback & Suggestions · May 5, 2016

Mark Harris66 said:It’s not just random nonsense—that’s just a baseless assumption on your part. There’s actual evidence sitting right there in the school archives.
René is a public figure with a contract at the ZKM, which is funded by the City of Los Angeles. Since I live and work here in LA, a portion of my paycheck goes straight into the city budget that supports the ZKM. So, saying he isn't publicly funded is just plain wrong—and because of that, he carries a level of accountability to the public, just like anyone else getting a dime from city, county, or federal tax dollars. If he wasn't taking a single cent from any government entity, his moral responsibilities wouldn't be my business... but it’s pretty hypocritical to call out others while being violent himself. That song is completely at odds with how he actually behaves.
So why delete the post about the act of violence then?
Secondly, maybe they just scrubbed the tacky comments about Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović's weight (since they noted "especially nasty ones," implying the really ugly stuff stayed up), but her weight has zero to do with her political career. I don't care about anyone's size or looks—honestly, I think it's classless to publicly comment on whether someone is overweight, bald, or unattractive (people said those things about Zoran Milanović, which I also find tasteless and irrelevant to his job), etc. I don't even stoop to that level when talking about Kokošinjac.
I was told personally (you can see that post) that if I have grievances regarding someone's work, I should take it to the PZK sub-forum.

His outburst about violence has nothing to do with the song’s actual message regarding the reality of American society. Honestly, it doesn't matter if it was Luka Bulić or René Bitorajac singing it—it's just an artist's personal, free interpretation of the world they live in. Whether that take is good, bad, or actually realistic? Well, that's what we're here to debate.

Mark Harris66 said:It’s not just random nonsense—that’s just a baseless assumption on your part. There’s actual evidence sitting right there in the school archives.
René is a public figure with a contract at the ZKM, which is funded by the City of Los Angeles. Since I live and work here in LA, a portion of my paycheck goes straight into the city budget that supports the ZKM. So, saying he isn't publicly funded is just plain wrong—and because of that, he carries a level of accountability to the public, just like anyone else getting a dime from city, county, or federal tax dollars. If he wasn't taking a single cent from any government entity, his moral responsibilities wouldn't be my business... but it’s pretty hypocritical to call out others while being violent himself. That song is completely at odds with how he actually behaves.
So why delete the post about the act of violence then?
Secondly, maybe they just scrubbed the tacky comments about Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović's weight (since they noted "especially nasty ones," implying the really ugly stuff stayed up), but her weight has zero to do with her political career. I don't care about anyone's size or looks—honestly, I think it's classless to publicly comment on whether someone is overweight, bald, or unattractive (people said those things about Zoran Milanović, which I also find tasteless and irrelevant to his job), etc. I don't even stoop to that level when talking about Kokošinjac.
I was told personally (you can see that post) that if I have grievances regarding someone's work, I should take it to the PZK sub-forum.

That's exactly right. As far as I'm concerned, you've already gotten your answer.

Deleting posts in Feedback & Suggestions · May 5, 2016

Rachel Cooper3 said:Just as an example, since you already brought up Thompson... say if Thompson speaks up or comments on politics—I’ve noticed people immediately jump straight to taxes, Jure, or Boban—but those posts aren't even deleted. What is the actual difference between those two?

In my book, there isn't one, but what really matters is the specific thread where the debate is happening.
I can't tell you off the top of my head why certain posts stay up while others get nuked. It all depends on the context of the thread itself, which is why we always ask people to be more specific—like dropping a link to the thread or the exact post. To be fair, I haven't moderated Politics in a while, so I might not be the best authority here.

Deleting posts in Feedback & Suggestions · May 5, 2016

Mark Harris66 said:Let's talk about René Bitorajac and his music. His whole vibe is tied directly to the songs he performs—it’s hard to separate the art from the man when you're trying to buy into the performance. Plus, based on what I've seen in other political threads, it really matters WHO is talking, not just WHAT is being said... so I'm expecting some consistency here.
If we’re out here tearing down politicians because of their character or stuff from their past, then artists shouldn't get a free pass either—they're public figures too.
I mean, if people were allowed to comment on Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović's weight in that other thread, why can't we talk about René and his legal issues? (He actually got a specific court ruling for one of them, after all). Someone's physical appearance doesn't hurt anyone else, but someone's actions certainly can...

How exactly is his work tied to his music? He’s an actor who mostly performs in various theater productions, so I don't really see how his career connects to the stuff he sings about, other than the fact that he lives in the same country.

Mark Harris66 said:Let's talk about René Bitorajac and his music. His whole vibe is tied directly to the songs he performs—it’s hard to separate the art from the man when you're trying to buy into the performance. Plus, based on what I've seen in other political threads, it really matters WHO is talking, not just WHAT is being said... so I'm expecting some consistency here.
If we’re out here tearing down politicians because of their character or stuff from their past, then artists shouldn't get a free pass either—they're public figures too.
I mean, if people were allowed to comment on Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović's weight in that other thread, why can't we talk about René and his legal issues? (He actually got a specific court ruling for one of them, after all). Someone's physical appearance doesn't hurt anyone else, but someone's actions certainly can...

If Marko Perković Thompson had sung this song, nothing would have changed. Are you seriously suggesting René isn't worthy of touching on these themes? Most of what he's singing about is just a blunt reflection of how things actually work in our society. Sure, the song generalizes a bit, but to me, his music hits just as hard as those American Tragedies you see floating around on Facebook.

Look, I agree that credibility matters and who's talking is important, but personally, in this specific case, the fact that it was René doing it instead of someone like Luka Bulić doesn't change a thing for me.

Mark Harris66 said:Let's talk about René Bitorajac and his music. His whole vibe is tied directly to the songs he performs—it’s hard to separate the art from the man when you're trying to buy into the performance. Plus, based on what I've seen in other political threads, it really matters WHO is talking, not just WHAT is being said... so I'm expecting some consistency here.
If we’re out here tearing down politicians because of their character or stuff from their past, then artists shouldn't get a free pass either—they're public figures too.
I mean, if people were allowed to comment on Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović's weight in that other thread, why can't we talk about René and his legal issues? (He actually got a specific court ruling for one of them, after all). Someone's physical appearance doesn't hurt anyone else, but someone's actions certainly can...

Honestly, speaking as the moderator for Politics, I think the real issue lies more with the themes celebrated in the song rather than René himself. The problem isn't René; it's what he’s singing about and how it’s being portrayed. That’s where the core of the debate really sits.

Mark Harris66 said:Let's talk about René Bitorajac and his music. His whole vibe is tied directly to the songs he performs—it’s hard to separate the art from the man when you're trying to buy into the performance. Plus, based on what I've seen in other political threads, it really matters WHO is talking, not just WHAT is being said... so I'm expecting some consistency here.
If we’re out here tearing down politicians because of their character or stuff from their past, then artists shouldn't get a free pass either—they're public figures too.
I mean, if people were allowed to comment on Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović's weight in that other thread, why can't we talk about René and his legal issues? (He actually got a specific court ruling for one of them, after all). Someone's physical appearance doesn't hurt anyone else, but someone's actions certainly can...

People might toss out a comment about Kolinda's weight here and there, but I've personally wiped out more posts that were nothing but digs at her size. Most of the conversation focuses on her role as a political figure and public persona. So, while a little comment might slip through, we don't allow full-blown debates about her weight because that's just not what this thread is about.

Requesting a breakdown on politics in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 21, 2016

Daniel Miller422 said:I’m just trying to get clarity because the moderator stated this was an undeniable fact (to recap: hundreds of houses and cars being blown up in every single city)

No moderator ever said that, so you're clearly making things up. Moderato just mentioned that those kinds of incidents have happened, but definitely not on the scale you're claiming. That user who was pushing that narrative got banned for trolling and being abusive, so the mods actually did their jobs properly.

Requesting a breakdown on politics in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 20, 2016

Joseph Allen71 said:Let me be clear: I’m not interested in reading any revisionist garbage claiming we started all this ourselves or that we provoked conflict through crimes that forced those poor Mexicans to react. Honestly, I’d rather just ignore that nonsense altogether and imagine our moderators actually care more about our little slice of America than they do about some massive neighboring power.*
.

Seriously though, what about the rest of us?

Regarding the post you're talking about, check out the response given by lonebadger6; I can back up a few of those points too. While the user moja-kucica is definitely overstating things in their post, some of what they mentioned did actually happen. Just not nearly as extreme as they make it sound.

As for the part of your post I quoted, I don't see anything resembling what you're describing in this thread. We might be looking at different posts since you didn't specify which one you meant.

Does this subforum even serve a purpose? in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 19, 2016

neongull93 said:Also, point me toward the thread that lists all the rules and shows how they get updated.
If there isn't one, just make it, because I'm not taking your word for it.
And if the rules were actually that solid, we wouldn't be seeing this many complaints.

Every subreddit works differently, so the guidelines vary from one sub to the next. I'm not exactly sure what the specific update schedule looks like for each individual community, but on the main Politics sub, you can just check the thread title to see the date of the last rule change.

Looking for some clarification on the rules in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 8, 2016

Jessica Peterson2 said:Here is a link to a source in a language that "very few people" understand.
So tell me, what exactly is the difference between my post

and Konev's post?

Let me clarify: I am not out here looking for anyone to be "hunted down," nor am I asking for anyone’s posts to be scrubbed. I am simply asking for an explanation as to why I am the only person to receive a warning from our supposedly principled and consistent moderator, 🤷@Daniel Ward87.

Should I interpret this entire situation as an unambiguous endorsement of the Russian President Putin's regime by moderator
Daniel Ward87?

Is this the way this particular moderator chooses to ambiguously demonstrate his political leanings?
Or should I view this as mere... inconsistency? A single moderator suddenly deciding to dive into a specific topic, spontaneously handing out a red card to one user, and then walking away feeling satisfied with himself for having done something "good"?
What I would say is that moderators simply don't have enough time to review every single post on Politics in a Day. And while we all theoretically moderate everything, there are certain threads that specific moderators keep a closer eye on. For instance, I rarely visit the World news section, and other colleagues might not even open the threads concerning immigration, and so on.

Is that the official stance of the owners of this forum?

DISCLAIMER: All the views expressed above are my own subjective assessments intended solely to clarify my questions. I have no intention of discrediting any member of the moderation staff, nor am I questioning the owner's policy regarding moderator selection.

Nope.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Here is a link to a source in a language that "very few people" understand.
So tell me, what exactly is the difference between my post

and Konev's post?

Let me clarify: I am not out here looking for anyone to be "hunted down," nor am I asking for anyone’s posts to be scrubbed. I am simply asking for an explanation as to why I am the only person to receive a warning from our supposedly principled and consistent moderator, 🤷@Daniel Ward87.

Should I interpret this entire situation as an unambiguous endorsement of the Russian President Putin's regime by moderator
Daniel Ward87?

Is this the way this particular moderator chooses to ambiguously demonstrate his political leanings?
Or should I view this as mere... inconsistency? A single moderator suddenly deciding to dive into a specific topic, spontaneously handing out a red card to one user, and then walking away feeling satisfied with himself for having done something "good"?
What I would say is that moderators simply don't have enough time to review every single post on Politics in a Day. And while we all theoretically moderate everything, there are certain threads that specific moderators keep a closer eye on. For instance, I rarely visit the World news section, and other colleagues might not even open the threads concerning immigration, and so on.

Is that the official stance of the owners of this forum?

DISCLAIMER: All the views expressed above are my own subjective assessments intended solely to clarify my questions. I have no intention of discrediting any member of the moderation staff, nor am I questioning the owner's policy regarding moderator selection.

Not at all.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Here is a link to a source in a language that "very few people" understand.
So tell me, what exactly is the difference between my post

and Konev's post?

Let me clarify: I am not out here looking for anyone to be "hunted down," nor am I asking for anyone’s posts to be scrubbed. I am simply asking for an explanation as to why I am the only person to receive a warning from our supposedly principled and consistent moderator, 🤷@Daniel Ward87.

Should I interpret this entire situation as an unambiguous endorsement of the Russian President Putin's regime by moderator
Daniel Ward87?

Is this the way this particular moderator chooses to ambiguously demonstrate his political leanings?
Or should I view this as mere... inconsistency? A single moderator suddenly deciding to dive into a specific topic, spontaneously handing out a red card to one user, and then walking away feeling satisfied with himself for having done something "good"?
What I would say is that moderators simply don't have enough time to review every single post on Politics in a Day. And while we all theoretically moderate everything, there are certain threads that specific moderators keep a closer eye on. For instance, I rarely visit the World news section, and other colleagues might not even open the threads concerning immigration, and so on.

Is that the official stance of the owners of this forum?

DISCLAIMER: All the views expressed above are my own subjective assessments intended solely to clarify my questions. I have no intention of discrediting any member of the moderation staff, nor am I questioning the owner's policy regarding moderator selection.

No.

It’s pretty straightforward. When I was scrolling, I saw your post and flagged it because your "bio" didn't offer anything substantial. That’s where it ends—your political views don't mean a thing to me and they have zero impact on whether I decide to flag a post or not.

Also, English is basically the global lingua franca, plain and simple. It makes communication way easier when people don't share a native tongue, which is why we tend to process English posts a bit more fluidly from a moderation standpoint.

That said, you've got a point about things feeling inconsistent if you're the only one getting flagged while others aren't. It’s just a matter of timing—I caught yours when I could, but someone else might have missed other posts that actually deserved a flag.

The rest of us moderators will sit down and hammer out a plan so we can keep things more consistent moving forward.

Moderator suggestions for the politics subforum in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 18, 2015

Even though I'm just a junior moderator over on the politics forum, I’ll give you my take on this since we've heard this specific idea about deletion rules before.

Joseph Stewart38 said:In my opinion, if you're going to delete a post, it would be fair to at least have the decency to send a quick DM explaining why. Like I said, I put a lot of work into my posts, and it feels pretty wrong to see all that effort wiped away with one click and zero explanation.

The politics sub-forum is easily one of our busiest spots, both in terms of total posts and how often things get flagged. On top of that, the mods here end up deleting way more content than they actually issue warnings for—often just cleaning up heated debates where otherwise good people get a bit too carried away. And keep in mind, most of our mods handle multiple boards, so the workload is basically doubled.

That brings us to a pretty simple, logical reality: the mods just don't have the bandwidth to debate every single user on whether a post should stay or go. The sheer volume of deletions on the politics board makes arguing for your proposal impossible. Besides, every single person here has their own reasons for why a post deserves to stay exactly as it is. When you look at it that way, your suggestion just doesn't fly because, quite frankly, the mods are spread too thin.

Joseph Stewart38 said:See, deleting things constantly without any heads-up only supports the claim you guys hate hearing: that some mods are biased and just scrub anything that doesn't align with their political views. You don't like being called biased, yet your own actions are what create that impression.

Since this forum started, users have felt that the politics mods haven't been objective. There are endless threads on this board about the subject; feel free to dive into the discussions between mods and users and make up your own mind.

Maybe the best perspective would come from the newer mods on the politics board, since they were regular users until recently and have seen both sides of the moderation coin. If you think the mods here just delete stuff and hand out bans randomly, you've got it wrong.

Joseph Stewart38 said:It’s like they find it physically impossible to just admit when they've messed up.

The same logic applies to the people on this forum. I haven’t run into a single user who’s ever actually said, "You know what? You're right, I'll delete that, I got carried away." I've been on the Politics forum plenty of times where I either pulled the trigger on a ban or decided to let it slide when I really should have stepped in.

Joseph Stewart38 said:To wrap things up, one of my posts regarding the elections in France was deleted today without any explanation. I honestly don't see anything controversial about what I wrote, so I’d love to hear from the moderators on why it was taken down and what exactly made it an issue.

Look, here's the thing. For what you're suggesting to actually work, we’d need dedicated moderators for every single sub-forum, and let's be honest, finding good people to do that isn't easy. Plus, we'd have to start paying them; otherwise, they'd spend all day arguing over deleted posts because, like I said, the traffic here is pretty heavy.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Thanks for listening. I’m not expecting to change anyone's mind here, but hey, at least give it a read if you've got a second.

You wouldn't believe it, but the mods—even over on the politics forum—actually dive into these things and debate proposals if they show even a hint of being practical or worthwhile. I totally get where you're coming from as a regular user, but looking at it from a moderator's perspective, they mostly only clear stuff through those PDF files where there isn't much traffic and most of their heavy lifting happens privately via DM.

Hopefully that clears up why your idea isn't quite hitting the mark.