Posts by brightpuma

Sophia Thomas7 said:Look, why not just skip the "trolling" ban and go with a custom "disrupting the conversation" strike instead? Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Honestly, I haven't really seen many warnings like that. Actually, I don't think I've seen even one... 🤷

Besides, how much would a warning like that even "cost"? 10 points? 35 points?

I'm with Alex on this one. This is definitely an issue that should have been handled better.

The only thing I'm stuck on is what you'd actually call it based on what you wrote. Where does someone acting intentionally dense fit in? Is that just trolling, or does it count as disrupting the discussion? 🤷

Look, I get it—there are plenty of clueless people out there. But honestly, jumping into a debate when you clearly can't follow along or don't know the subject matter? That feels like disruption too.

Dennis Jackson38 said:And what exactly constitutes "disrupting the discussion"?

In my estimation, many people mistake a genuine disagreement for disruption, particularly when someone offers a well-reasoned, thoroughly explained counterargument that challenges their own perspective. 😁

It's the same thing as trolling. That's why we have moderators to decide which is which... 😉

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Then what's even the point of having another tiebreaker card?

Well, I guess it stops people from arguing over whether someone was actually trolling or not. If they weren't trolling, the moderator just decided they were disrupting the thread, EOD... 🤷

hollowtrucker77 said:And just imagine if we actually had to sit there and debate whether it was genuine trolling or just someone intentionally derailing the whole conversation
😁

Man, you just say the score is tied for both of them and call it a day. 🤷
At the end of the day, that's basically how it works anyway...

Nancy Jones91 said:What are you even talking about? You're just generalizing and being insulting now. I'm no big shot; I was just like you, some guy from America, so I get it and I empathize with people. And again, tell me exactly when I was ever loud or arrogant. Look at all my posts before you judge, otherwise you're just trolling and should probably get a ban per the rules. You need to be objective and look at yourself first, which is always the hardest part...

First off, if you actually read my posts with some comprehension, you'd realize I'm a guy.

Second, I wasn't calling you out specifically. My post was about how things used to be with the expatriate community, especially on those threads about the USA back when William was around and Wog Boy used to get a little carried away.

Also (and this goes for both you and Drew Martin84), you need 100 points to trigger a ban. Trolling gets you 35, insults get you 45, off-topic stuff is 10, and breaking forum rules is 30. So, to hit that 100-point mark, you actually have to rack up several violations in a short window, like a month or so.

Another thing: ignoring a moderator's warning (like a yellow card or penalties 🙄) is handled differently. That usually results in an automatic 3-day cooling-off period, which counts as 100 points right there. I don't get why everyone is acting surprised now. Aren't the rules pretty clear on that... 🤷

Drew Martin84 said:Here are the exact kinds of statements that caused three different people to get a red card. There was no insult involved, merely an expression of dissatisfaction with the moderation, yet it resulted in an automatic ban. It is the most effective way to silence someone.

What seems to be escaping your understanding is that these instances will only become more frequent. This isn't just isolated to one specific thread; things spiraled out of control there because Disney was deleting posts and issuing warnings without any legitimate cause—so it is perfectly natural that people are expressing their frustration there, and that sentiment is beginning to spread. With every new penalty issued, the number of dissatisfied users will only grow.

If anyone here actually understood how to moderate these people, these unjustified bans would be overturned, Disney would apologize and admit her mistake, and perhaps everything could return to normal; instead, the situation will only deteriorate until half of the expatriate community rebels, at which point you might finally have no choice but to replace her.

But as I have already said, I no longer have any intention of participating in such an undemocratic forum, so as far as I am concerned, you may close this topic whenever you wish... this will be my final post.

Hold on... So, you're saying the moderator should apologize just because people are breaking the forum rules and she's enforcing them?🤷 Whether it's insults, off-topic rambling, or trolling, you get a card. It's all against the rules. The only difference is how many points you lose.

And then you have YouTube over there practically begging for it, saying, "...yeah, go ahead, give me a card now, please..."

Unfortunately, if you can't read the rules and follow them, I think you'll find plenty of other "undemocratic" forums out there.🙄

Nancy Jones91 said:I already said this in a DM, but I’ll say it here too: she’s just one frustrated person with mood swings running the show, and her moderation changes depending on how she feels. That's the bottom line. And since you guys are basically pushing all the expats out of the USA, I wonder who's actually going to provide any real info... maybe Disney, since she’s already told people a few times to just go ask the embassy themselves.

I'm done with this argument and done with how this forum is run. Like someone else mentioned, I solved my own problems. Moving to a new country is the ultimate test of willpower and grit...

Best,

It's funny how it always turns out that only the expats from the USA are being "pushed out." We're just supposed to forget that, right? Based on my experience with that thread, those same users are usually the loudest, most arrogant ones, looking down on everyone else... ☕

Look, it's great to have them around and get their info, really. But I'm not some dog that needs to be kicked around just because I’m some nobody from America daring to ask a question to the local nobility... 🙄

ambermason16 said:brightpuma, you hit the nail right on the head. It starts with Australia and Canada, then Germany follows suit—it’s a total reign of terror against newcomers and moderators alike. They are insufferable, acting like they're untouchable. Honestly, it's embarrassing when people carry that kind of ego into their real lives and still claim to represent Americans. The constant noise, the endless drama, and the screaming matches in those three specific threads have been going on for years! The sheer amount of toxicity and bitterness thrown around, the public threats, the secret ones, the absolute horrors... I was honestly stunned when I first took on a moderator role for the diaspora.

The most pathetic part of this whole mess? The very same losers driving this entire trainwreck are the ones opening these threads, swarming like a pack of wolves to attack the moderator just because she’s doing her job. And she did it perfectly: strictly by the book, but with more humanity than was probably even necessary. When she responded, she was peaceful, clear, and polite—she even left room to admit if she were wrong (which she isn't) and offered an apology upfront just in case. But that doesn't matterrr... no, what matters is surrounding her and systematically attacking her on a personal level, over and over again. They drag the topic out as long as possible just so the whole world can see what terrible players they are, acting like Henry Moore2 isn't worth the breath it takes to speak her name.

Unfortunately, yeah. Sometimes it feels like people just dump all their frustrations onto the forum. I get where they're coming from, to an extent, but I don't think we should let it slide.

The saddest part of this whole thing is that the very people driving this entire trainwreck are the ones starting these threads, attacking the moderator in packs just because she’s doing her job. And she did it perfectly: strictly by the rules, but with more humanity than was probably even necessary. She responded peacefully, clearly, and politely—even leaving room to admit if she were wrong (which she wasn't), apologizing in advance just in case.

Actually, looking at it now, she showed way more patience than most moderators I've dealt with during my "casting" days. There was a warning issued, and besides, you aren't supposed to critique moderators in the main threads; there's a specific section for that. In my view, they absolutely deserved the penalty.

Also, the fact that she left space for the possibility of being wrong says everything about her approach to moderating. I have a feeling some of these complainers would be pretty shocked if they tried that same approach on another feedback thread.

But that doesn't matter... right? It's all about surrounding her and systematically attacking her on a personal level, over and over. Dragging the topic out as long as possible so the whole world sees what "terrible players" they are, while claiming Henry Moore2 isn't worth the breath.

Honestly, I think this feedback section has grown too big for one person. Henry Moore2 could really use another moderator—maybe nominate a few good folks—to help manage things here.
I expect the situation will only get worse because the number of people using this thread is going to climb. Right now, migration to Canada through the WH program is surging, so more people are coming here for info, and that won't stop. Plus, as we move closer to more integration within the EU, more doors are opening, so more people will be hitting this thread looking for immigration advice.

I mean, this has honestly become ridiculous. 🙄

Look, if you can't hold a civil conversation, you don't deserve anything more than a few days' suspension. From what I've seen during my time following and posting on the diaspora forums, there's constant friction whenever the topic of Australia comes up. Why? Who knows... 🤷

Also, I'm not sure how much this has to do with the specific topics or the people involved, but I've noticed that a lot of folks living in those areas—you know, Canada, Australia, Germany, etc.—can be pretty aggressive toward anyone just looking for info or trying to start a discussion.
All these forum members are great sources of vital, interesting info, but they really need to dial back the attitude.

Given the current state of affairs in America, it’s predictable that more and more people will head over, asking questions and seeking guidance. A lot of people can't see any path forward other than moving abroad.
But when they join an Australia thread and Vilko tears them apart about what they actually expect, or tells them that unemployment exists there too, or that their "knowledge" is useless because there are fifteen other requirements they haven't thought of... then they go to the Germany thread and get the same treatment from Actros or other users like MaliZeleni and Ivo R... well, of course people are going to be frustrated.

Dammit, things are rough in America right now and people want to emigrate, but a huge chunk of the feedback they get is: "Don't come here, it sucks here too." Even if they're talking about two completely different kinds of suck... you know what I mean. 🤷

Henry Moore2 said:ambermason16 used to be a moderator for the expatriate community for a long time, so she really knows her way around some of the regulars here. She’s always happy to step in and help out if I’m away or just can't get to the moderation duties myself.

Drew Martin84 just joined us recently, so I'm not entirely sure how his experience with specific users translates to things here.

Look, honestly, I don't know the specifics of what happened. But I do know that when I had an issue, you actually helped me resolve it—unlike some other moderators. So, in my book, you're definitely not running some kind of "dictatorship."

Maybe I have a few gripes about how that sub-section is run, but I think it’s just a difference in opinion on certain issues. Nothing more than that.

Alex Barnes8 said:No, I think it’s actually the exact opposite.
With today's Family Law, parents are forced to use the entire "toolbox" rather than just whatever is fastest or easiest.

How can you use the whole toolbox if they're only allowed one parenting method—the one based on positive reinforcement? You're forgetting that no type of punishment is actually permitted under that law... meaning, nothing like a time-out, or taking away an iPhone, or banning TV/computers/etc...

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:I’ve only skimmed part of this thread, so I might have missed it, but here’s my take: stripping a kid of their phone, computer, and TV access—it’s way more brutal and painful than any slap they could ever get.
If you lay a hand on a child, you’re an abuser. Period. There’s no middle ground between being an abuser and just letting them run wild when they act up; those are the only two options.

Is there some magical law out there that stops a parent from taking away things they actually paid for? What do we call a parent who does that? A thief? No, because let's be real, they bought the stuff... 🤔
Besides, kids under 13 aren't even allowed on Facebook without parental permission, yet there are tons of them doing it anyway. 😉>

Anyway, MK can get pretty flooded with trolls who hide behind "reasonable" posts just to derail good discussions. Sometimes they're hard to spot because they all act like they're smarter than everyone else.

Under Family Law, all of that is considered child abuse. People forget how broad Family Law actually is. ☕

Linda Price5 said:You are spreading falsehoods; physical discipline and abuse are not the same thing. An elderly person isn't an abuser just because a senile grandmother loses her temper once and gives them a quick smack, but that smack is still violence and is prohibited under Family Law.

From what I've observed here, nobody has claimed that every single strike is abuse, but every instance of physical punishment is violence, and all physical punishment is illegal in the US.

Moderator Charles Fox10 has been encouraging physical punishment of children, which is prohibited by law.

That is precisely what this topic is about.

rustydrifter10 said:Under American law, hitting children is prohibited.

🤦

Things can always get worse. To me, the idea that a child should be happy because they only (yuck) get hit occasionally—just because things could be even worse elsewhere—is absolutely terrible. 😢

Among other things, yes. Physical abuse falls under Family Law. So does psychological abuse and all sorts of other stuff. You might not believe it, but almost all the ways kids are disciplined today fall under violating that "wonderful" Family Law.

What most people don't get—including the ones who wrote the law and the ones who follow it to the letter—is that the law itself doesn't make much sense.
Raising a child is, to put it bluntly, a lot like putting together furniture, say an IKEA cabinet. When a kid is born, just like a cabinet you bring home from the store, they have all the components needed to reach their full potential. To help them get there (both the kid and the cabinet), you need tools. For a cabinet, that means screwdrivers, hammers, pliers, levels, and so on. With a kid, the tools aren't as obvious, but they exist and vary.
People who build furniture know you use a screwdriver way more than a hammer. In fact, it's in your best interest—if nothing else to keep the neighbors happy—to use the hammer as little as possible. It's exactly the same with a child. It's in your interest to use positive reinforcement as much as possible, and in those extreme cases, use punishment as sparingly as possible.

The point of the comparison is this: just as it's incredibly hard to build a cabinet using only a screwdriver, and totally destructive to use only a hammer, it's incredibly difficult to raise a child using only positive reinforcement without any discipline, just as it's counterproductive to use only punishment as a method of upbringing.

Not long ago, a parent had a whole "toolbox" of parenting methods—rewards, consequences, all sorts of ways to get results. Today, thanks to this butchered version of Family Law, that same parent is lucky if they’re even allowed to hold a screwdriver. Sometimes, being left with nothing at all feels like an upgrade.

bluemason3 said:I'm not an expert on the law, but I have this nagging feeling that it actually prohibits kids from being out unsupervised during those hours without parental permission.🤔

Or am I just getting things mixed up?🤔

Yeah, that's pretty much it...

Alex Barnes8 said:So what's the issue? 🤷

The law generally applies to all family members, whether they're working adults or kids. It doesn't really make a distinction there. Based on what's been said, withholding things like the TV, a computer, or a phone would also count as violence.

So be it.
If it's excessive and lacks any real reason, then that kind of punishment is basically just mistreating the child.
☕

It’s pretty obvious you don't have kids of your own to be asking stuff like this... 🤷 at least not any old enough to actually be out in the world yet.

Alex Barnes8 said:Exactly what I said.
Obviously, you aren't allowed to unlawfully isolate a child or restrict their freedom of movement. I guess that goes without saying.

I guess I'm just wondering what exactly you find so strange about this.

If that weren't explicitly stated, I guess some parents would probably just keep their kids locked up at home for a hundred years.
Some people probably shouldn't be allowed out in public at all. I guess.
We all knew people who were never allowed to go anywhere. It was pure abuse, really, and I guess it just stunted their social and personal growth.

Every single detail needs to be documented. I guess if things get misused, there should at least be a paper trail for reporting.

There isn't really an in-between here. It's one or the other... and restricting someone's freedom includes things like banning them from going out and stuff like that... 👍

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:So, let me get this straight: banning someone from going out—you know, actually hitting the bars, grabbing a smoke, dancing, or just hanging with the crew until 5 AM—is considered breaking the law now? Are we really at the point where a parent has to let their kid go wherever they want, whenever they feel like it, just to stay legal?
It’s the same story every single time: if a kid can't even step foot out the door without cash in their pocket, then the parent is basically on the hook to fund it. They just have to cough up the money.

🍿

Blocking someone from using their own property—or even just trying to pull that stunt—is a massive red flag. It’s a blatant attempt to strip away someone's autonomy and control over what they rightfully own. Taking away someone's right to control their own paycheck or the property they earned through hard work or inheritance—that’s abuse. Forcing someone into economic dependency by blocking them from working or withholding the money needed to run a household and take care of the kids? That's just another way to exert control. It's all part of the same pattern.

Look, a smartphone, a laptop, or any other gadget isn't exactly a fundamental right for a kid—not like freedom, food, or basic necessities. And while we're on the subject, does anyone know if there's anything written here regarding property earned through one's own labor? 🤔
Kids earning their own money? Is that even a thing anymore? 😲

It’s a bit of both. Under Family Law, a parent can technically bar a kid under 16 from being out late at night—say, between 10 PM and 5 AM, if I recall correctly—but they can't really stop them from going out entirely.

A phone, a laptop, or anything like that isn't exactly a basic right for a kid. It’s not like freedom or food, you know? Those are different. Also, does it say anything here about property earned through one's own work? 🤔
Kids earning their own money? 😲

The law generally applies to everyone in the household. It covers both the adults bringing home the paycheck and the kids. It doesn't make a distinction between the two. Based on what’s written here, withholding things like the TV, a computer, or a phone counts as violence too. Isn't that right?

Linda Price5 said:And apparently, they're allowed to eat ice cream whenever they feel like it, too. According to the fine print.

Alex Barnes8 said:Excessive punishment isn't allowed, since anyone could easily cross the line into extreme or improper manipulation.
It’s not the same thing to ban a kid from going outside for one day versus locking them in the house for three months (or banning them from leaving entirely, which has happened in those pathological cases), using the same excuse.

I don't think the law prohibits occasionally banning cartoons or video games.

And besides, parenting isn't just about punishment. 🤷

Violence Against Women Act

Domestic violence includes any form of physical, psychological, sexual, or economic abuse, specifically:

– physical violence, meaning any application of physical force regardless of whether an injury occurred,

– corporal punishment and other ways of treating children in a degrading manner under the guise of discipline,

– psychological violence, meaning the use of mental coercion that causes fear, vulnerability, anxiety, or loss of dignity; this includes verbal abuse, verbal attacks, insults, swearing, name-calling, or any other form of harsh verbal harassment, stalking, or harassment through any communication means, electronic or print media, or by communicating with third parties, unlawful isolation or restricting freedom of movement (referred to hereafter as stalking and harassment),

– sexual violence, meaning sexual harassment,

– economic violence, which involves damaging or destroying personal or joint property, or preventing or attempting to prevent the use of personal or joint property, as well as withholding rights or preventing access to personal income or assets earned through work or inheritance, obstructing employment or work, forcing economic dependency, or withholding funds necessary for household maintenance or care for children and other dependents within the household.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, we can have a discussion about parenting, but let's keep it to the designated sections for that. The real sticking point here is how far people are willing to go when it comes to commenting on corporal punishment. As it’s nicely laid out right here, we can certainly talk about the topic, but there is a massive line between discussing it and actually glorifying or encouraging violent methods. I'm not saying you can't even mention it. In fact, I think it's better if we talk about these things openly, but we absolutely cannot be out here praising or recommending methods that are illegal under US law.

I’m not quite sure what the definition of a debate is, but if only one side gets to share their thoughts, then it isn't a debate. It’s something else entirely.
It’s kind of like claiming you have a democracy when you can only vote for one political party. 🤷

Timothy Robinson2 said:You can keep going until Linda Price5 decides she likes it. 😁

Someone told me that when they were kids, they used to listen to classical music by pressing their ear right against the speaker of a record player. I guess that’s how things work here—you can only discuss certain topics if you stay within the lines, because undercover cops are basically patrolling the sub-forums.

So, discussions about race, sexual orientation, parenting... they're fine, as long as you don't cross the line set by the agents on duty, since apparently someone told them some article somewhere says a certain thing is harmful.

Anyway, I read those articles. The idea that spanking a kid on the butt or fingers is harmful is about as proven as saying using a cell phone is harmful. It’s just not recommended, so people try to avoid it, but it doesn't exactly show any massive, devastating effects.

People can check that out for themselves in their own neighborhoods. In mine, I'm pretty sure almost everyone got swatted at once or another, and not one of them turned out to be a criminal or an abuser. You've got all sorts of people—doctors, lawyers, engineers... a smack on the butt didn't influence their life choices one bit. Honestly, I'd say non-verbal, non-physical communication—just the way their parents acted—had a much bigger impact than those hits. At this rate, I expect Family Law will soon make it illegal for a parent to even come home tired from work or something. 😁

Long story short... topics where activists have hijacked both science and practice...

Exactly. So what, 70-80% of us who were raised contrary to that Family Law all turned out to be delinquents, addicts, or screw-ups? 🤷

hollowtrucker77 said:And just how far can this actually go?
Is the end goal just rolling our eyes and acting disgusted at the whole mess?

If anyone here has actually taken the time to sit down and read through the Family Law, please, by all means, point out just ONE parent who hasn't broken it already.
And if you manage to find one, I’ll happily return the favor by pointing out a parent who couldn't care less about their kid and should probably be facing prosecution for neglect.

Well, actually, if you really dig into that law, you realize that’s pretty much all you can do. Because any other way, you're breaking the law. Whether you limit a kid's freedom by grounding them, withhold an allowance as punishment, or monitor where they go and who they hang out with—all of that violates that wonderful Family Law if you follow it strictly to the letter.

Aaron Harris2 said:As an MK moderator (though I didn't manage to catch up on this thread last night, given it was only just opened), I wish to state my position clearly: I am firmly opposed to any form of physical abuse or corporal punishment directed at anyone, and most especially against children.
Furthermore, I believe that censoring the opinions of users on this forum is a deeply harmful practice, one that runs directly contrary to the recent directives from the forum owners regarding a more relaxed approach to moderation. To be precise, I am referring to the deletion of someone's lived experiences and personal perspectives. While I certainly do not condone calls for violence or similar behavior, which absolutely ought to be penalized, we must protect discourse.
For the reasons stated above, I have closed this topic, and if you ask my opinion, it shall remain so. If you desire a sanitized, clinical discussion, you are welcome to take it to a specialized child psychology PDF or perhaps join a dedicated group on Facebook.

Long live MK!

And which one would that be? You definitely can't hash this out on RiD.
Maybe we could talk about it here on a thread Lisa Hernandez3 linked over at Psychology, or perhaps in a legal/politics section where people actually discuss why a certain law is good or bad...

Nicholas King said:Actually, it would be the height of hypocrisy if he somehow managed to prove that those self-appointed moral guardians 🙂actually tolerated chauvinism and everything else on that list.

Correction. I’m talking about rustydrifter10. Since she’s an admin, she basically let MK act like a PDF that was "above the law" until yesterday.