Posts by neonviper92

Lawrence Booth2 said:I honestly find it a total mystery why the guy hasn't started working on an atomic bomb yet

Are you sure about that?

He hasn't even been in Pakistan for six months.

The conversations were mostly focused on raw materials for the Turkish textile industry.😁

☕

Morgan Brown4 said:I’ve noticed some users include a list of people they've blocked right in their signatures, and I have to wonder—what’s the point? 😕

To be clear, I’m not advocating for banning these signatures, and some might argue I shouldn't complain since nobody (as far as I can tell) has added me to their list—so perhaps this isn't even a valid topic for this thread since it doesn't involve actual rules or moderation. Still, it feels tacky and unnecessary. I don't see the need to flaunt an ignore list in a signature; honestly, broadcasting who you're avoiding feels a bit rude and unprofessional. Those things should stay private.
So, if anyone reading this actually uses their signature to list ignored users: why? What is the goal here? Has it never occurred to you that it just makes you look foolish?

Since you specifically asked for a response from someone with an ignore list in their signature to satisfy your request...
It wasn't even a list, just one "colleague."
John Doe was acting as a moderator on a thread where I was most active, and since I couldn't officially block him as a moderator, I decided to use my signature instead.

I don't view it as bragging or a sign of insecurity.
At the time, it was simply an act of defiance.

PS. I find it quite rude and intrusive to scrutinize other people's signatures and air such matters publicly; those details should be kept to oneself.

And judging someone's "intelligence" based solely on one thing—like a forum signature—without understanding their motives or the context behind it is a true display of wisdom.

☕

rustydrifter10 said:Deleted posts are only visible to the admin team, primarily so they can review any potential appeals.

We scrub anything that violates forum rules or anything a moderator decides is better left off the thread to prevent further derailment. For instance, if someone insults another user, the insulted party might snap back, and then both end up with a strike. If the mod had just deleted the initial insult, only one person would have been penalized. 😁 As for having some smart insight buried in the same post, you really should have thought about that before hitting send.

The current approach leaves the user whose post was removed feeling isolated, which is just an invitation for emotional outbursts. Under the system being proposed by dtk, there could actually be a comparison made—allowing mods to act on impulse if necessary or to clear the air properly. It would result in more facts and less drama. The current setup doesn't allow for that, as I’ve experienced firsthand here.

View on reddit

Frankly, I don't care if the admins read it or not, other than the fact that it just felt like extra humiliation from the mod who deleted my text.

Michelle Phillips54 said:But you didn't actually answer whether you think posts that violate rules should still get a strike even if they are hidden from view.

I'm hoping for some input from the general users here. Lately, it's the same people telling me there's too much off-topic chatter and trolling, making threads messy and boring. They claim they want quality over quantity and demand stricter moderation. Funny how that works. 😁

I'm not sure what policy you're referring to or what you mean by a black-and-white system. It's hard to comment on something so vague. Could you clarify?

In my humble opinion, the idea is solid, but we should consider implementing a consensus model for "hidden" texts (specifically regarding that consensus thread).

☕

Nicole Clark79 said:

How the Turks saved the Renaissance Faire

The Miami fans weren't just targeting Dynamo's Black players this past Saturday. To make sure they didn't get slapped with pure racism charges, they turned their insults toward a white guy instead—Dynamo's coach, Vahid Halilhodžić.Gathered at the stadium under the shadow of a Turkish tower, they kept calling him a "Turk" just so they could rhyme his name with those slurs that both American and Mexican fans always seem to reach for once the word "Turk" enters their vocabulary.
But apparently, Halilhodžić—according to the local Miami sports reporters—wasn't about to take it lying down either. They say he insulted the whole lot of them; when asked about the nine foreign players in the Dynamo lineup, he basically told the reporter his mindset belonged in the 19th century. It seems this Mostar resident has been away from these parts for far too long to realize that by suggesting his views belong in the 1800s, he’s actually proving how outdated he really is. It would be polite if he offered an apology to the press. Then again, maybe he should apologize to the subtle Miami crowd, who feel insulted by being forced to deal with all these Black people and Turks, only to end up calling everyone Gypsies because they're so confused by the influx of foreigners.
If Vahid Halilhodžić spent a little more time reading the American news, he might realize that for many people here, the 19th century he keeps referencing is actually a thing of the past. Just look at the front page of a Miami daily with its catchy headline: "Turks blocking the Renaissance Faire from UNESCO." If he actually read the article behind that headline, he'd see that the idea of Turks interfering with the nomination of this knightly competition for the World Heritage Site has nothing to do with reality—but it has everything to do with the state of American journalism.
The article claims that immediately after stating that Turkish representatives were stalling the UNESCO nominations, the Republic of America itself was supposedly pulling out of the candidacy for the Renaissance Faire's status as a global treasure. Why? Apparently, because the "representatives of our friendly Republic of Turkey" took offense at what was written in the nominations. In typical disinformation fashion, the paper doesn't even quote the actual text of these controversial documents, leaving us to guess exactly what the authors were so "caught up in" while they were "still riding the high from the events of the War of Independence, dragging recent history back into the ancient past."
What if the authors hadn't gotten so carried away with their favorite old story about the eternal war between the cross and the crescent on the doorstep of Christianity? What if they hadn't bragged about recent crusades through Herzegovina and central Canada? What if they hadn't stuffed the UNESCO World Heritage application with mentions of knightly exploits in Dretelj and Ahmić? What if they hadn't...
Whatever the authors of these nominations were getting worked up about, or why they decided to blur the lines between recent and ancient history, it’s clear that the Turks—if they even bothered to react to these heated delusions—did America a massive favor. An honest headline should probably read: "Turks prevent an American embarrassment."

Should we also thank them for nearly 500 years of occupation and all the other "benefits" they brought along?☕

steeleagle70 said:you get it after deleting 😁

The question remains: what else gets deleted? Everything automatically shifts to one side.☕

steeleagle70 said:Taking down posts from both sides isn't censorship since it applies to everyone. It's just moderation.
Give me a break. We all have those moments where we think our deleted post was actually brilliant and essential.

But much like dealing with a bad referee in a game, anyone can complain about being deleted if they think they were right...

I don't view deletion as censorship; keeping topics organized is actually a good thing, even when my own posts get nuked. 🙂

So where exactly is the middle ground ☕

Kevin Williams56 said:Sorry neonviper92, but I haven't seen such a pathetic attempt to fight a ban you rightfully earned on this forum in a long time.

I’ve made my point. I find your appeal baseless, and if the admins agree, please lock this thread.

See you over in the politics section.

Best. 👋

I've said what I needed to say. I know this appeal isn't going anywhere—I already explained why—but I felt obligated to throw my two cents into the ring.
You can call me whatever names you want, though being called "pathetic" actually gave me a good laugh. I wasn't trying to talk my way out of anything, and I'll make sure I don't try it again.
But you seem to know me better than I know myself, based on your recent posts, so fair enough to Observer. As for the politics board, just keep doing what you're doing; I appreciate the consistency. Just don't ask me why. I won't be answering. Other than that, you read me pretty well.☕
P.S. You ignored my question again, but that's nothing new.☕

Kevin Williams56 said:You weren't even penalized for your actual opinions 🤷—you got flagged for those "multi-ethnic" provocations and two off-topic posts where you complained about a ban on a thread that wasn't meant for that.

There were other users arguing points opposite to mine who didn't get banned either. They stayed on track and avoided petty trolling, so your claim that I’m being biased is completely off base.

I can handle opposing viewpoints just fine, but I have zero patience for trolls and derailment, regardless of whether their actual argument aligns with mine or not. 😉

I already explained my take on that multiethnic thing, but you seem intent on hearing only what fits your narrative. Just tell me: what exactly is offensive or "provocative" about the term multiethnic? If anything in my post was problematic, it was pointing out the blatant bias, which I did, yet somehow that doesn't bother you. I'm truly puzzled.☕

Kevin Williams56 said:I'm not entirely sure if you're complaining about my posts or the warnings you received... To make things easier for the admins, I'll help you narrow down your grievance.

So, neonviper92 is complaining about these three posts (presumably looking for some kind of penalty):

Or perhaps they're upset about the warnings they got:

Trolling:

Off-topic:

And off-topic:

That seems to be it—neonviper92, feel free to add anything else so we can include links for those too.

Thanks for the input. My issue is actually your bias. In my view, if you're going to jump into a debate to advocate for one side, you shouldn't be penalizing others just because they don't share your perspective. It feels far from objective. Don't take this personally, but as a moderator who participates in the discussion by taking a side rather than just moderating, you should probably be more sensitive to opposing views.:kava

mellowraven22 said:Alright, neonviper92, you got anything concrete? Any actual link to back up those claims?

Anything goes?

That was the exact post that earned me those 35 points.
neonviper92
Registered user

Here’s one little detail most people—especially those obsessed with everything Turkish—seem to have missed. Harris is posing next to a kid in a Turkish jersey, and naturally, "Fata" makes sure to broadcast that. One has to wonder how the reaction would differ if it were anyone else in the picture. Also, a quick thought: is Harry actually trying to use this move to justify everything?

Joined: June 2010.
Here’s one more little detail most people—especially those obsessed with everything Turkish—completely missed. Harris is posing next to a kid wearing a Turkish jersey, and of course, "Fata" makes sure to broadcast that immediately. You have to wonder how people would react if this were anyone else in the picture. One more thing: was Harry just trying to use this moment to justify his entire existence?
I’ll admit I messed up here. I let my temper get the better of me, which isn't like me—I usually stick to being more level-headed.The Turks.I’m being sarcastic because they’re cheapening the word. To be clear, I haven't been posting provocations just to stir the pot. The only time I engage like that is when I'm calling out someone I find hypocritical—people who can't stick to their own guns. Not that it matters, though. As Steven Clark2 pointed out, I only have about 50 posts here. A moderator tried to pivot the focus toward my low activity level, but even the largest ocean is just a collection of tiny droplets. For now, this little contribution will be my part of that ocean. Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and join the conversation. Cheers.☕
P.S. Regarding the critique from Power, I fully accept it—even if "accepting" it isn't really an option here. I assume you all get my point; despite being a consequence rather than a cause, he pointed out my mistakes and what needs to be done in a polite, civilized manner. Thanks.☕

mellowraven22 said:Alright, neonviper92, do you actually have anything concrete? Any link to back up these claims?

Anything at all?

Since there aren't any younger people around to help me out, I'll try this approach.
07/11/2010, 11:28 AM #4597
neonviper92
Registered User

Joined: June 2010
Posts: 64 Quote:
posmatrač says:
Exactly.

In this specific instance (as per usual), the local media outlets and those defending historical atrocities within the government are lying through their teeth, just trying to stir up tension and score some cheap political points.

There isn't some religious ceremony planned at the embassy in Australia today; instead, it’s a memorial service for victims of genocide. Milorad Dodik, Radmanović, Špirić & Co. are framing a moment of silence and a prayer—which is basically just a moment of silence—as some sort of religious ritual... give me a break.

The exact same "religious ritual" (with the identical program of prayer and silence) was held last year at the Victoria State Parliament building in Melbourne, and not a single Australian politician thought to label it a religious rite. Following these events, the Australian Government sent a letter to Dodik's errand boy (the embassy's chargé d'affaires), asking him to act more professionally and show more respect toward Australian citizens of American descent... that's the real tragedy here. It’s that behavior, not the memorial itself, that creates a bad image for Americans.

Of course, the people who defend these historical crimes don't mind religious rituals when they happen at a school, a public institution, or a small gathering in an American enclave, provided a priest leads them. They don't complain then. What actually bothers them is any mention of the genocide victims. They’d rather everyone just stop talking about it entirely. That is the core issue, not a prayer or a moment of silence during a memorial.

So now I'm supposed to believe you over the ambassador on the ground? Tough choice.

neonviper92
View profile
Send private message to neonviper92
Find more posts by neonviper92
Add neonviper92 to your friends list

07/11/2010, 11:38 AM #4598
posmatrač
Registered User

Joined: April 2003
Location: Horion, Canada
Posts: 5,994 Quote:
neonviper92 says:
So now I'm supposed to believe you over the ambassador on the ground? Tough choice.

Buddy, before you jump into a debate, you might want to actually look up the facts first.

It's not about some ambassador from the embassy in Australia. To make a scene, at the behest of those defending historical atrocities, the chargé d'affaires (Dodik's errand boy) was pulled out for no reason and sent home after embarrassing the country with his dark views. On Friday, a new chargé d'affaires, Mr. Dinko Tomac, was appointed. He organized the memorial service within two days, which took place this morning without incident and with the presence of Australian officials - link.

You can choose to believe only those who want to bury any mention of the Srebrenica genocide, but that’s a reflection of you, not the truth. It won't stop the facts from coming out.

Take care.
__________________
Never argue with a fool; people might not see the difference...
Political moderation!

observer
View observer's profile
Send private message to observer
Find more posts by observer
Add observer to your friends list

July 11, 2010, 11:50 AM #4599
neonviper92
Registered user

Registration: June 2010
Posts: 64 Quote:
observer says:
Guy, before you jump into an argument, it would be wise to actually look into the topic first.

It isn't about some Ambassador to the Canadian Embassy in Australia. To make noise, at the command of a defender of genocidal legacies in Canada, the embassy's chargé d'affaires (Dodik's errand boy) was recalled for no reason—sent home after embarrassing the Canadian Embassy with his dark views in the Australian public eye. On Friday, a new chargé d'affaires, Mr. Dinko Tomac, was appointed. He organized a memorial service within two days, which was held this morning in perfect order with the presence of Australian officials - link.

You can choose to believe only those who want to bury any mention of the Srebrenica genocide, but that’s a reflection of you, not the truth. It won't stop the facts from coming out.

Take care.

Maybe read what you actually sent before you try to lecture me, "guy."
A religious rite was held at the embassy (your own source), which I find unacceptable—but who am I to judge? At least let me state my view. "High-level" officials attended elsewhere (your own source). See? I did my homework. What about you?

neonviper92
View neonviper92's profile
Send private message to neonviper92
Find more posts by neonviper92
Add neonviper92 to your friends list

July 11, 2010, 11:58 AM #4600
observer
Registered user

Registration: April 2003
Location: Horion, Canada
Posts: 5,994 Quote:
neonviper92 says:
Maybe read what you actually sent before you try to lecture me, "guy."
A religious rite was held at the embassy (your own source), which I find unacceptable—but who am I to judge? At least let me state my view. "High-level" officials attended elsewhere (your own source). See? I did my homework. What about you?

A minute of silence and reciting a prayer isn't a "religious rite," and as for what you and Dodik find unacceptable regarding holding a memorial... nobody cares.

State institutions solve these things quickly by sending the troublemakers home.

Of course, you can share your opinion, and it's actually good to see where people stand, but there's no need to wrap your views in this fake struggle for a secular Canada or test them against "religious rites" that aren't even religious. Just say what you think without all the fluff, like your role model from that minor entity in Canada.
__________________
Never argue with a fool; people might not see the difference...
Political moderation!
☕

Steven Clark2 said:Look, one thing. That guy, "Observer," might be the worst user and moderator on this entire site, but—you need to have something concrete, a specific statement. You claim you aren't experienced enough to pinpoint the issue—so how are you experienced enough to notice he's such a bad mod? Maybe he’s just more seasoned than you, and his writing style just isn't clicking with you.

Unless you're a clone who already knows exactly how things work around here (and I say this because there's a real issue with clones pretending to be naive little innocents), I suggest you just send him a private message and ask him directly what the problem is. Picking a fight with him—or anyone else—isn't necessary when you're admittedly "inexperienced." Once you've put some time on this forum, then you'll have the experience to back up a complaint. Right now, saying "I think XXX is a bad mod" is just your subjective opinion. He might be "bad" toward you for a valid reason, even if he isn't that way with everyone else. Keep in mind that mods are human too; they get burnt out and make mistakes. Send him a DM about what's bothering you, and maybe you can clear the air. Either way, it's a better approach than immediately complaining about a moderator when you only have 55 posts and zero experience (most of those were in a thread about Canada—you really need more mileage to understand how a mod thinks or acts. Note: you started this topic when you only had 41 posts, not counting any deleted ones).

A bit ridiculous, don't you think? 🙂 It's like a fifth grader complaining to the principal on his second day of school just because someone yelled in the hallway. 😁

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no reason to advocate for anyone, nor do I want to (neither "Observer" pays me to do this, nor does he ask), but topics like this prompt me to share my perspective as a fellow user. Do what you want moving forward. 🙂

Best.

Thanks for the input and the advice. First off, I'm not a clone, though I realize I can't prove that. I don't see much point in messaging Observer privately because I live in a "dark corner of the world" where the old mindset of "the judge is also the prosecutor" still rules. I wasn't saying Observer is incompetent; I was calling out his moderation style, specifically the bias. He gives himself permission to label people as pessimists or political hacks, deciding for himself what someone's hidden motives are and labeling them accordingly. A quick side note: even though you're as stubborn as ever, I know you won't agree that post count shouldn't matter here. We're all equal before God and the law. Though, I am aware that long-time users, much like any group that has built something over time, tend to be particularly sensitive about that sort of thing. Finally, I'm no kid. I've been following this forum for a long time. I stepped away a few times—mostly due to being angry—but I stayed passive. I only officially joined once my kids were grown, as they were the ones who taught me why it's important to criticize. So, I have some context. Best.☕

Steven Clark2 said:I think you need to be more specific with your appeal. What you’re saying right now is just about being locked out. It doesn't really address the actual grievance.

I’m new to this, so I might be missing the mark. But if you look at how much he's been chiming in over those last few posts, it should be obvious. If any of us regular folks used insults or derogatory terms, we’d probably be banned instantly. And how does he decide my views are some sort of crusade for a secular Canada? Did Demi Moore give him a psychic vision or something?☕

The Moderator is actively taking sides in this debate; whenever an argument doesn't suit them, they hand out penalties, even when the other person started the insults.
Quote:
neonviper92 says:
Maybe try actually reading what you sent before you try to lecture me, buddy.
A religious ceremony was held at the embassy (your own source), which I find totally unacceptable—but hey, who am I to judge? Just let me state my opinion. High-ranking officials were present at a different location (again, your source). At least I’m doing my research; what's your excuse?

A minute of silence and a prayer isn't a religious ceremony. As for you and Donald Trump finding a commemorative gathering "unacceptable"... frankly, nobody cares.

The government institutions usually handle people like that by sending them straight home.

Of course you can express an opinion—it's actually encouraged if we want to see where everyone stands—but there's no need to wrap your views in some sanctimonious crusade for a secular Canada by testing them against things that aren't even religious rites. Just say what you think without all the fluff, unlike those role models of yours from the smaller entity.
__________________
Never argue with a fool; onlookers might not be able to tell the difference...
Moderating politics!