Posts by mellowotter17

rowdyraven112 said:If the conversion wasn't done, then obviously yes.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

Thanks so much! The conversion didn't happen because I actually ended up feeling pretty sick right before it was supposed to go through.

I’ll definitely be treating everyone at AARP if I end up getting this money!!🎉

I was hoping I could ask the experts on this thread for a little bit of guidance regarding this recent ruling.
Does this decision apply to loans that have already been closed out—not just unpaid ones, but those that were fully settled through forced collection?
To be honest, I haven't been following this discussion very closely because I've been so caught up in my own personal struggles and worries, but if there is any way I could file a lawsuit now to recover some of that money, it would truly be wonderful.

I have yet another question for the experts or those "institutions that actually get things done."

On most American forums, you can vent all you want about the US government, the national soccer team, any Prime Minister, or whoever happens to be sitting in the White House right now... but apparently, you aren't allowed to criticize a fictional character or a plotline from an American soap opera.
What on earth is going on here?
Is this some kind of attempt to disturb the peace, or is there something else at play?

Nathan Turner3 said:That kind of post would just be off-topic, essentially just engaging with someone personally. It’s really up to the moderators to handle users like that, not the rest of us. That's why I feel there should be a clearer distinction between when a moderator is posting as a regular user and when they are acting in their official capacity.

Oh come on, Nathan Turner3, I see your point, I really do, and yes, I agree that it counts as getting too personal, which is exactly why I flagged it. It wasn't marked with any red, blue, or purple indicators, just plain black, and it said something like this:

"but since you're always just purely about hate, spitting venom, and criticizing just for the sake of finding faults—picking apart script errors, plot holes, or illogical focus—there's honestly no point in debating something that nobody is claiming is some Oscar-worthy masterpiece. You guys are taking both the series and yourselves way too seriously."

So, please, just be honest.

I’m well aware that click rates, views, and comment counts are huge financial drivers for the forum owner, but at the end of the day, these things are spoken out loud and read far more often than they are actually written, as we all know.
I'm certainly not trying to make myself "too important," as the moderator seems to think, but I truly believe that any discussion only grows in engagement if there are opposing viewpoints to spark debate.

My post following that one about The Witchin was simply about what happened in the show; for God's sake, it wasn't something I made up or just a random opinion.
You don't even have to watch the series to be able to tell from my post that those events actually took place, and if it gets under someone's skin that I'm pointing out certain plot points because they don't align with their favorite character, well, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less.

I honestly didn't see you making a call like this coming.🍿

But, just for the sake of argument, if I were to flip the script and draft a post that might sound something like this to our lovely forum moderator:

"Since your approach seems to be strictly about hating on anyone who disagrees with you—basically just attacking dissenters while reflexively defending your favorites regardless of how many plot holes or logical leaps they make—it feels pretty pointless to debate you, especially since we aren't exactly discussing an Oscar-winning masterpiece here. You’ve just taken yourself and this show way too seriously."

Actually, that last sentence was plural, so I'm not even sure who else I'd be talking about besides myself. Unless, of course, I've somehow managed to clone myself overnight.

Be honest, would I end up getting a warning card for saying something like that?

Nathan Turner3 said:Giving out warnings for "contributing to the thread" happens quite often, and those warnings don't necessarily have to stem from just one single post. As I mentioned before, this specific post probably wouldn't have triggered a warning if it had stood alone, but it's really more of a result of your recent posting patterns. Honestly, I think a 25-point penalty for trolling is actually pretty lenient, but since you mentioned yourself that it isn't such a huge deal, let's just move past it.

Since the ladies already explained it to you, I'm not a moderator on the TV side, so I don't see the reports, so could you please be a little more specific about what you meant and which post, specifically, you reported and why?

Any banning of clone accounts or permanent bans is done in coordination with me, so I can promise you there weren't any bans issued just because Witch felt like being arbitrary.

I was away over the weekend, but I'm back now, so please excuse my late response.

It was Post 414, as I linked earlier, in the Girl from the Countryside soap opera television thread.

And that right there is the crux of the matter—it wasn't about my "entire body of work" or my "contribution to the topic," as the girls so eloquently put it.

As for the whole situation with the clones, I honestly haven't a clue and it's not really relevant here.

Just for the sake of fairness, would you mind terribly scrolling through those 24 pages—about 462 posts in total, including my fifty or so—and seeing what could possibly be wrong? I'd love for you to look at what led to this opinion from the moderator and her "spokesperson," who suddenly popped up out of nowhere despite the fact that I've never once addressed her personally or even replied to her posts. If it isn't too much trouble, I'd appreciate it, because it feels like the real issue is just the overall impression of the moderator reacting in such a tense and irritable way. Personally, I feel like the reaction wasn't professional moderation, but rather just typical forum drama, and to me, that is the fundamental issue.

Just a quick response to your very detailed post Witches:
I realize all my posts regarding the romance might seem a bit tedious at times, but I promise I’m not just trolling; every single one was sparked by a specific episode that really hit me, so I felt like your reaction to my last entry was perhaps a little overly intense.

I actually had no idea I could reach out to you via private email—thanks for letting me know! I honestly thought I was limited to venting right here in this thread.

Regarding that last sentence you pulled out, when it's presented without context or the knowledge of what actually happened in the episode, it does look quite bad, almost as if I'm downplaying violence against women, which isn't the case at all. Throughout my entire history of writing about soap opera television, I've frequently called out the constant depictions of sexual assault and violence, and I've even posted several times specifically to protest those themes.

In fact, there was one series I completely stopped watching because the violence was too much, and also because the lead character basically got away with everything simply because he was so handsome.

That particular sentence was actually referring back to a point made by user forumašica@Sogo before me, where she mentioned how melodramatic Julia was being while describing the incident. Up until then, through the flashbacks, we hadn't actually seen the reality that Julia was in her late stages of pregnancy and had been severely beaten. At the time, the scene only showed a few slaps and a blow to the stomach, so I wasn't trying to minimize the violence like you're implying, but rather commenting on how overly sentimental her description was.

And yes, I suppose I do prioritize myself quite a bit, and I don't let other people's opinions get to me too much.

@Sandra Adams66/">@@Sandra Adams66, I honestly don't even know how to respond to you, and I don't think I have a single emoji that captures the feeling of: "what is there even to say to that?"

I originally started this thread hoping to address how a specific flagged post just went ignored—one made by a fellow forum member who also happens to be a moderator over at CNN. She actually took issue with my language and ended up banning me for what I honestly feel was a totally harmless and minor comment, but things have clearly spiraled out of control. Now, I find myself heading down a path I didn't quite intend to take, but it's addressing a frustration that has been weighing on me for quite some time.

@Sandra Adams66/">@@Sandra Adams66, you’re practically suggesting we lock this thread down since YOU seem to be the expert on how things should work around here.

Honestly, just take a breather!

I haven't personally clashed with you in any other threads, nor have I ever gotten into a heated argument with you right here, but it feels like you’ve completely lost your way lately... I'm not sure if it's due to some personal hang-ups, groupthink, or who knows what else is going on behind the scenes.
If I could offer one little piece of advice, it would simply be to calm down—that's really all! Unless, of course, you've somehow been appointed as our official spokesperson.

@restlessheron8/">@@restlessheron8 is absolutely spot on!
Nobody has dared to criticize the Faziletkinja topic because it was such an outlier from the start! I talk about the thread itself, yet those who focused on the characters seemed to get incredibly defensive.
I don't have any big plans for now, but... well, the time will come, whether it's within this thread or through the people in charge.
Anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense can see what’s happening, so I'm just waiting to see if anyone else speaks up, and if they don't... I certainly have plenty to say, and not just to the administration.

And, to be perfectly honest, since it seems to be the standard routine with these American soap operas, whether things are shown or left unsaid, I am now bracing myself for a wave of posts from everyone in the "ruling party" who will likely step forward to oppose my writing, my style, my work, or my personality—you name it.

@Sandra Adams66/">@@Sandra Adams66 Your suggestion about me starting a blog was honestly such a great idea and really hit the nail on the head, though perhaps a little late since I actually already run one! It isn't focused on soap operas at the moment, but I suppose I could certainly look into adding some of that flair to my content. On that note, you might want to give some thought to pursuing a career in law if you haven't already ventured down that path.

Sandra Adams66 said:you seem to be interpreting the reactions your work provokes as nothing more than a desire to bicker. 😢 😢
it isn't even on my radar to do that, or anything remotely similar. I'm just talking—well, trying to, which usually takes two people, doesn't it?

as far as the 'technicalities' go, a warning can be issued for a single post, and if I recall correctly, that’s usually how it works; the post reports are visible to the colored nicknames assigned to that specific section of the PPDF, and since L3gu isn't one of them, they wouldn't have seen it; honestly, I don't think your grievance is clearly stated, because the core issue seems to lie in the title itself. 🤔 if you're going to claim there's some sort of vendetta involved, you really ought to back that up (especially since, in my opinion, Sandra Kern38 is a pretty (pre)mild moderator). There is absolutely nothing unusual about receiving what you call a collective warning, nor is there anything strange about it happening twenty minutes after the post was published—the moderator happened to be looking at the thread at that moment, and despite other users repeatedly asking you to get back on track over time, you just didn't take the hint. Even if you had received the warning twenty-four hours later in a specific instance, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

I'm not suggesting you should be kicked from the thread, as you put it, but it would probably be a good idea if you (finally) started listening to the other participants and actually sensing the vibe of the topic.

So, that's all. No hard feelings, please.

Seriously, I truly, deeply do not want to argue with you!

Your interpretation of how moderation works doesn't mean much to me; I have no clue who's on vacation or who's working, or how warnings are typically handed out versus when they aren't. I know the rules, and I haven't insulted anyone or intentionally caused chaos, even if that's how the moderator perceives it. My opinion and my way of expressing myself remain the same; perhaps the topics and the people I'm talking to are different, but that's just not something I can control.

I genuinely don't care, and I have zero intention of finding out how or in what cases collective or individual warnings are given, or who is away on holiday and such. And please, let's not be patronizing here; don't try to teach me how to post in this thread. To be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in "listening to my interlocutors" because I don't write for them.
The urge to write comes from within, you know what I mean?
And of course, I don't plan on returning to this thread; the forum has much more interesting topics than this one about sapunica. This was just a little distraction for me, nothing vital or necessary.

@Sandra Adams66/">@@Sandra Adams66, I was actually going to suggest you just put me on your ignore list, but then I saw your reply.
I didn't start this new thread because of my ban, but rather to address the report I filed regarding the post about The Witch.
So, that’s really the heart of the matter.
As for the ban itself, I’m not particularly upset by it, though it feels quite silly to me; it clearly wasn't issued for a single comment, but seems more like a judgment on my overall "vibe" or style of posting.

I don't always sit through every single episode from start to finish, but I’ll catch a rerun in the morning sometimes and share my thoughts on what I saw.
The reason I'm reaching out to the Supermods isn't actually about the ban, but about those little warning flags and the fact that I got flagged for a post that had only been up for fifteen minutes—and honestly, it wasn't even an insult, just me pointing out a factual detail from the show.

And just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against any other woman on this forum, regardless of how they write, their personal style, or their grammar, and for that same reason, I'm not bothered by people's opinions of me or my writing style.
I have zero interest in getting into a back-and-forth argument with you or trying to prove anything, which is why I opened this thread, and I truly feel bad if you intend to keep this up, because I just can't get behind that kind of interaction.

P.S.:

Honestly, it wouldn't be a huge deal at all if I just stepped away from this thread; it's certainly not the most important thing in my life, especially if you, the moderator, or other ladies here feel uncomfortable because of how I express myself.

However, that doesn't mean I'm okay with receiving unfounded criticism just for sharing my perspective.

Anyway, there you have it. Simple as that.

Whether I enjoy this series or not has absolutely nothing to do with any other users on this board; I haven't directed a single word at any specific person, but rather I've just been sharing my own negative take on the main characters, which is something I feel entitled to do.

The fact that this might come across to you all as bickering doesn't mean I'm actually fighting with anyone, because I'm not arguing with the community—I'm critiquing the plot and the characters themselves.

Criticizing how the characters are written or how the story unfolds isn't the same thing as picking a fight with fellow members, so let's not get our wires crossed on those definitions.

Having a different perspective shouldn't be treated as something unwelcome.

I truly am sorry if my comments dampen the viewing experience for anyone else, but I'm certainly not denying any of the little details that make the show what it is, nor do I want my critiques to be dismissed entirely.

And honestly, I still feel that the moderator here tends to be more subjective than objective, much like her approach to many other topics we've discussed so far.

The fact that you all happen to agree with her doesn't really change anything for me, because, well, I disagree, and I believe I have every right to feel that way.

I imagine that this whole discussion about the soap operas might not be a huge priority for you supermoderators, and perhaps some petty squabble over household chores doesn't seem like a big deal, but I’d kindly ask if the supermoderators could take a quick look after they finish their day jobs. I’m hoping you can see if there's any actual merit to the report I filed against a user who happens to be a moderator, and whether my own warning flag, which she handed out in retaliation, actually holds any water.
Everything else I mentioned regarding the climate within the soap opera threads and the spoilers is just my own personal experience, so I realize it doesn't directly affect you—I get that. However, believe me when I say it really hurts the overall vibe of the forum, and because of that, most topics feel less cohesive, except for those few that seem intentionally blown out of proportion with some pretty questionable motives.

I really need to correct a quote from the post above; I mentioned that the issue was actually with the series song of life, but that’s not quite right—it’s actually about Girl from the Village. My apologies if I caused any confusion!

I would like to ask a CNN supermoderator or perhaps another senior administrator to please look into the increasingly tense and frequent reactions from moderator Sandra Kern38 regarding my posts on the TV forum for soap operas, and occasionally over on Unseen.
Based on everything that has unfolded so far, I can’t help but feel that the moderator is personally targeting me and trying to get me banned.

To give you some context, looking back at yesterday's activity in the song of life thread—which is the Turkish soap opera I've been following lately—the moderator actually took a jab at me personally in one of her posts. She implied that I am being malicious, argumentative, and suggested that I'm making too much of myself as a user. I am officially reporting that post.

Here is the link:
http://www.reddit.com/quote

Shortly after that, once the series had wrapped up properly on TV, I posted a comment about the plot developments and was slapped with a penalty in less than twenty minutes. Her reasoning was as follows:

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Dear mellowotter17, You have received an infraction at Forum.hr. Reason: Trolling ------- how much more are you going to obsessively talk about money???? Haven't you moved past that yet? Are we going to count cash until the end of the series? Does anyone actually care, or have you not noticed by now? Yet, you just keep insisting. You are disrupting the flow of constructive discussion on this thread. That is trolling. ------- This infraction is worth 25 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire. Original Post: http://www.reddit.com/quote Quote: Why does the righteous Huso always have to be the first to find out all of Hulija's secrets? How is that poor guy supposed to keep quiet now; his conscience won't let him rest! And from what I can see, Hulija also "earned" quite a bit from Mehmet! Mahir stole those first half a million Euros and gave them back to Hulija (half was probably gold and half was cash), and now her sister Filiz is insisting on the return of the full half million. Mahir earned a cut too, 5% every single time. Well, I suppose this is proof that Filiz took the money, but we can discuss that later.

To me, this feels like pure vindictiveness and a failure to manage personal emotions and animosity toward a user, which is something I simply don't expect from a moderator.

Even before she jumped into this specific thread, she was commenting on other users' posts in the main soap opera threads in a way that clearly implied she was talking about me, though honestly, this isn't even the first time she's done this. She does it in the Chat, on the spoilers, and in other threads where her friends hang out.

http://www.reddit.com/quote

She constantly devalues comments made in the main soap opera threads by using very biased language.

It makes me wonder—and I am asking the supermoderators here—isn't this forum meant to be a place for expressing opinions, including critical ones? Is this forum intended to be a fan club for specific actors, characters, or couples where nothing critical can ever be said about them?

Are certain threads essentially private chat rooms for specific groups of users?

Is someone who doesn't like certain actors or finds flaws in the plot considered a "disruptor of the peace"?

Is only praise and worship of the actors considered acceptable writing for a soap opera thread or the spoilers section?

If that is indeed the case, then please just state it clearly in the subforum rules and be done with it.

Furthermore, I truly believe that differing viewpoints encourage discussion rather than stifling it, contrary to what the moderator implies.
Perhaps there is a sensitive soul out there who thinks playing in the sand isn't fun unless it's done exactly their way, but I really don't think that should be a moderation issue.

I don't want to get too carried away with this topic just yet, but there is quite a bit of chatter happening outside of the forums regarding the specific way people write and how things are moderated on those American soap opera boards.

So, it looks like they hit a 90% vote for independence.

"According to the California government's update on their X profile, out of the 2,262,424 ballots that weren't seized by the Spanish authorities, 2,020,144 were cast in favor of secession."

I can't help but wonder, what actually happens next?

Things might get pretty ugly tomorrow morning.

Drew Brooks8 said:Our officials announced that the police and military, working alongside units sent from several other countries, turned everyone back—including journalists and volunteers—who were then fined and banned from entering.

I’m talking about you guys! And I really hope there are some Americans in the mix too, assuming we're actually smart enough to be included in that group, right?

It looks like over 2,000 people have already made it through, though whether they were actually intercepted by the Mexican authorities or just slipped right past them is anyone's guess!
And where does this leave us? If a few thousand more clear the second checkpoint, and then thousands more at the third... it feels like we're losing any sense of control, and honestly, does anyone even know the true number currently in the country??

Of course, they aren't planning on staying in North Mexico; the goal is to push through toward Mexico and eventually make their way into the States. But if we assume the government actually finds some backbone and decides to step in, how are they even supposed to move? There aren't any free trains anymore, the subsidized bus routes are gone, and nobody is jumping into an expensive taxi.

So, how are they expected to navigate this "southern route"—just by walking? And what kind of chaos are they going to cause along the way?
Are they just going to block major highways or go wandering through farmers' cornfields?

I really wonder, who is actually going to be the one to step up and say enough is enough? Or better yet, who's going to stand their ground and tell them to stop right there?

These migrants find themselves operating purely on instinct, mostly just trying to survive, and they've clearly realized that there is much more power in a massive crowd than there is in any single individual or small group—it’s just basic physics, really—so I have to say that while they might not have been orchestrated or led this way yet (though I certainly have my doubts), they are now perfectly primed for manipulation, which seems pretty obvious to everyone at this point; it’s essentially a game of large numbers.
They are being wielded like a weapon, and we really need to keep our eyes open to that reality.

You know those old jokes about a potential conflict with the Chinese, or those sayings about how you'd better hope a few million Chinese people don't all surrender at once during a fight?
To me, it feels like they are fully aware by now that nobody in the European Union actually wants them there and that they aren't exactly welcome, yet the influx continues... so why is that happening? Do they honestly believe they'll just "find their way" and enjoy a better life?
Actually, I don't think that's the goal at all.
The real objective is to establish their own state within the territory of the European Union, and they intend to achieve that through these massive surges into the specific countries they've targeted.
So, like I mentioned before, whether these people are working behind the scenes here in America or right in front of our faces, neither scenario is good for us.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that every single migrant is personally plotting this, because from what we see on the news, some of them seem almost entirely unaware of the bigger picture; most just have certain programmed mantras running through their heads, some have genuine dreams, and others honestly seem to have nothing going on upstairs at all.

As for who is pulling the strings, we've already speculated about that, but I've started to think it might not even matter.
We're looking at three main players: Americans, Russians, or Islamic leaders.
And really, does it make our lives easier to figure out exactly *who* is doing it, or should we be asking *why* it's happening so we can address the root cause or at least prepare ourselves for what's coming?

One possibility is a financial weakening or the total dismantling of the European Union (which seems quite likely), another could be religious in nature aimed at undermining Christianity (though that feels less likely since the European Union isn't quite as deeply Christian as people assume, and you'd expect the Pope or other high-ranking Christian officials to at least issue some kind of protest, yet they remain silent, which is strange), or perhaps the most probable reason is the creation of a single state, one people, and one religion.
We can fight against any of these scenarios, but only if we speak openly and maintain firm stances; things like sugarcoating the truth, playing nice, or the betrayals carried out by political elites only serve to fuel this exact trajectory and help the very elites who decided to put this plan into motion.
Maybe all of this sounds like a conspiracy theory to some, but it isn't... at least not entirely. These events didn't just start spontaneously by accident; they are being planned, which makes it a conspiracy, and since it is actively unfolding right before our eyes, it's no longer just a theory—we are witnessing a conspiracy in practice.