Posts by neonbadger9

Charles Fox10 said:Does this seem alright now, perhaps?

Chuck, or so a woman from Split might suggest,😉

Charles Fox10 said:I didn't merge anything, because if I had, she wouldn't be visible anymore, yet here she is.

I was actually trying to figure out why the thread was locked, and you seem to think I'm accusing you of merging things.
And I suppose you're right, Charles Fox10, you didn't merge them. Everything remains as it was, including your previous post about the lock, and it has already been about five hours since you notified us on the main board where the further discussion
regarding the Draza matter is taking place. Perhaps my suggestion could be aimed at making sure all those forum members and readers (who don't check the main board regularly) are at least informed about where the conversation moved to. Otherwise, having a note saying the topic is just sitting in an archived PDF might give people the wrong impression, don't you think?
I wish you all the best, Charles Fox10.

Charles Fox10 said:Regarding the rehabilitation of war criminals, you are more than welcome to continue your discussion over at the Mexico - Republic of Mexico thread (Part IV combined) http://www.reddit.com/r/topic/832861&page=469 since the conversation there is proceeding without any interruptions, and I am quite certain we wouldn't want to be discussing him across two different threads simultaneously.

?????
Could you perhaps provide just one single reason why you decided to lock this thread initially, only to now link it back to the Mexico topic once things started getting a bit heated?
I suppose I would also like to invite Power to share their perspective on this matter if they feel inclined to do so, because, in my opinion, seeing such arbitrary behavior from certain administrators who seem unable to oversee discussions objectively—resorting to locking threads whenever they run out of actual arguments—is truly disheartening, if not altogether pathetic.

I find myself wondering about the reasoning behind why this thread was locked, starting with Admin Cuk and also including the highly regarded and respected moderator PL, who had been contributing to the discussion.
It seems to me that shutting down a topic that is so timely and relevant without providing a clear explanation would require a very compelling justification.

Let us begin once again, esteemed administrators,
I cannot help but notice that you aren't particularly quick when it comes to responding to my inquiries, though I suppose you are quite efficient regarding the deletion of posts over on the politics board.
I am simply at a loss to understand which one of you was specifically offended by my post concerning the motives of Jelene veljača??

I was just wondering if anyone actually reads these things, because my post has been deleted for the second time now, I suppose?

Honorable moderators,

Since I suppose I possess rather steady nerves and perhaps an unusually high threshold for frustration, I would like to kindly request that the esteemed administration provide me with a coherent explanation regarding the removal of this specific post from the Politics section:

Josipović has mentioned on several occasions that his father withdrew from politics following the collapse of the Prague Spring, but Ivan Zvonimir čičak, a former political prisoner from that era, doesn't quite seem to agree with that particular claim.
According to čičak, Ivo Josipović's father actually experienced a sudden rise in influence after the crackdown on our activists.
Quote:

Ante Josipović served as a key administrator responsible for the purging, arrests, and indictments against those involved in the Prague Spring. It was generally a period of widespread persecution against patriotic figures; during that time, roughly 3,200 people ended up in Communist Party prisons, and over 200,000 were forced out of their jobs. The news portal also holds a record of a speech delivered by Ante Josipović at Karađorđev, and here is a small excerpt from it: One has to wonder whether we truly learned anything from that discussion with you. That is the real question. Did we act upon your warnings at all, or did we fail to act, or perhaps we acted, but simply not forcefully enough? Determining this is vital, because the conclusions and consequences we draw depend entirely on the answer. I must admit, in my own actions, there was a certain amount of hesitation. For instance, I believe there was hesitancy regarding Đodan and veselica due to varying assessments and judgments about them—a sort of wavering over whether one should step up and how to proceed. I feel that this was unacceptable and ultimately detrimental. We shouldn't have hesitated regarding Đodan and veselica, and I think we could have moved much more decisively. To be fair, following that talk with you, we did take action and pushed our views forward. Admittedly, in that political movement, there were what I consider to be tactical errors... Because it isn't just about Đodan and veselica; the core issue is whether other branches of the Communist Party felt liberated to confront all hostile activities stemming from nationalism, chauvinism, separatism, and other positions opposed to the Communist Party. We worked toward that goal, though perhaps not sufficiently.

I am somewhat confused as to what the issue with this post might be?

rustydrifter10 said:Marasovac can certainly request to have his ban lifted if he truly wants to. He has full access to the Ban Corner, where he can start a thread at any time. We generally don't lift bans unless the user themselves reaches out to ask for it; otherwise, we wouldn't even know if they were interested in returning.

Perhaps it might be worth considering lifting the ban just to see whether or not he decides to start posting again.
He is a human being, much like you or me, and I suppose it is quite understandable from a human perspective that someone might feel a bit too proud to come back and formally ask for their privileges to be restored.
The worst-case scenario here, if he chooses not to engage after the ban is lifted, is simply that his username remains blue instead of grey. Personally, I think both the moderators and the rest of us would find that much more pleasant to see. I guess it’s just easier to give it a shot and see what happens, rather than doing nothing at all.
And I should probably add, thank you so much, rustydrifter10, truly. 🙂

Since Mr. Andrelon mentioned in his recent post that we might appeal the permanent ban placed on our esteemed community member Marasovac, I believe it would be appropriate to reach out to the forum moderators:

Perhaps you could send a polite request to the moderators, the super-mods, or even the admin, as they are much more deeply acquainted with the specifics of the situation. They are quite observant and reasonable people, I suppose.

:

Through this message, I would like to kindly ask the administrators and super-moderators to please reconsider the decision regarding Marasovac's ban.
I feel that an individual who has contributed so significantly to this community through their posts—someone who possesses not just deep knowledge, but perhaps more importantly, a genuine willingness to share that expertise with all the members and readers here—really shouldn't be excluded from our space.
Whether or not one happens to agree with his specific worldview, or whether his arguments are contested or embraced, Marasovac is undoubtedly one of our most frequently read contributors. He is respected far beyond these digital walls, and precisely because of his contributions here, he brings in new readers and enthusiasts, which I guess is ultimately the primary goal of any forum.

If it would help facilitate this, I would be willing to take his penalty points upon myself; I simply want to ensure that both current members and newcomers alike can continue to enjoy reading the works and insights of Mr. Marasovac on this platform.

Warm regards!

darkhawk said:Look, maybe the majority of people are on the right track—I’ll give you that—but the real issue lies with those who simply aren't. You know exactly who I'm talking about; you're well aware of the problem. But honestly? It feels like there’s neither the willpower nor the actual strength left in anyone to go out and change things. It’s just... stagnant.
If the administration would just take a moment to actually think through what I’m putting on the table—really sit with it for a second—they might realize that this idea is actually in their best interest. Honestly, it’s a win-win. Any appeals they did receive would be coherent, well-structured, and most importantly, stripped of all that petty, malicious nonsense that usually clutters up the inbox. Plus, a massive chunk of these complaints wouldn't even reach the admins in the first place, because they wouldn't even make it past the initial filter provided by our resident forum defender.

Look, I realize how this might come across—it probably sounds offensive, like I’m implying the moderators are intentionally picking sides or playing favorites—but that isn't necessarily the case here. At the end of the day, the mods are just people—human beings, for heaven's sake—and humans make mistakes. Period. And when they do? Well, offering some well-reasoned, argued criticism shouldn't be seen as some sort of forbidden move. It's just part of the process.

The real issue here—and I mean this from the bottom of my heart—is that mistakes seem to be brushed under the rug far more easily for certain people than they are for others. It’s blatant. And the community? We have absolutely zero recourse. There isn't a single mechanism in place to even voice a grievance or start a conversation about it anywhere on this site. Honestly, if you ask me, that’s just bad for the health of the forum. Now, look, I totally get why you’d feel the need to jump to the administration's defense—I really do—by arguing that everything you do is strictly in the best interest of the users. But what happens when that isn't actually the case? What happens when the interests diverge? Who is supposed to step in then? Where exactly is a user meant to direct a dissenting opinion? On the other sub-forums, discussing moderation is strictly off-limits, whereas here, we’re supposedly allowed to lodge a specific complaint against a particular action. But without a way to challenge the bigger picture, it all feels a bit one-sided, doesn't it?

Let’s talk about this specific "22" situation—it’s actually quite fascinating from a phenomenological standpoint. Throughout history, whenever someone steps up claiming they are acting solely in the interest of a certain group, without any mechanism in place to actually audit or challenge those interests, things almost always go south. Ideally, there should be a way to scrutinize anyone's position or their claim that they are working on behalf of others. Because, let's be honest—your assertion that you’re acting in the best interests of the forum users is nothing more than a personal conviction. It isn't backed by any empirical evidence; it's just... what you believe. And that’s the problem. Stalin and Hitler held similar convictions—and look, I’m not trying to draw a direct comparison here, I'm looking at this purely through a phenomenological lens—but they didn't realize they were wrong until the very end. There were likely others who shared this kind of unchallengeable conviction and actually did some good, too. I don't know who they were because, frankly, they weren't interesting enough for me to remember, though statistics suggest they must have existed. Nothing is ever strictly black and white. Take Hitler, for instance—just days before his death, he actually remarked that Germans deserved to be destroyed because they refused to fight for their own interests.

Look, what I’m trying to drive home here—and please, bear with my rambling—is that my proposal isn't asking for anything radical. It’s not some grand demand for policy shifts or sweeping changes. All I’m suggesting is having someone in the room who can actually look you in the eye and say, "Hey, you're wrong about this," using actual logic instead of just noise. And—this is the crucial part—that person shouldn't face a card protest just for pointing out a flaw, unlike how things go when people like Marasovac or Pukovnikvz speak up. My idea is simple: that person gets heard. They get to lay out their reasoning, and you... well, you don't even have to agree with them. You aren't obligated to take their argument as gospel. But you *should* be willing to listen and see if their points actually hold water. That’s all. Just a bit of intellectual honesty, if we can manage it.

It strikes me—and I say this with all due respect to the hierarchy here—that there simply isn't a functional mechanism in place for us to actually voice our thoughts regarding the moderators overseeing Politics or the Women's Corner. There’s a glaring lack of a feedback loop—first and foremost for you, as the Admin, and secondarily for the rest of the administration sitting above the mod level. Without that vital loop, you’re essentially flying blind; you aren't getting an accurate or even a coherent picture of what’s actually happening within those subforums. It’s a systemic blind spot, really.

Look, my whole premise here is aimed at making your lives a hell of a lot easier—since you guys are operating on a level way above the standard moderators anyway—by finding a more civilized way to gauge the actual vibe of certain subforums. I’m talking about how they’re actually functioning day-to-day. The problem is, there are sections of this site that none of you even touch, which means your perception of them is basically left to chance—relying on these sporadic, often poorly phrased card protests that come flying in. Because those complaints are frequently handled so unprofessionally, you don't even bother checking to see if the user actually had a valid point in the first place. Not to mention the elephant in the room: a huge chunk of the community doesn't even trust the formal grievance process to begin with, so they just don't bother filing a complaint at all. It's a broken feedback loop.

Look, just run a poll over on the politics board with a straightforward question: have you ever dealt with a moderator action that felt totally unfair, yet you didn't bother filing a card protest because you assumed—rightly or wrongly—that nothing would actually change?

I suspect they’d be absolutely floored by the results.

Anyway, I’m trying to lay out this specific issue I’ve been chewing on. Now, my proposed fix might not be perfect—far from it—but let’s at least examine whether the problem itself is real, and if it is, how we might go about softening its impact. Just... please don't try to tell me the problem doesn't exist. If you do, I'll just assume I'm talking to those mindless followers of the Hitler phenomenon I mentioned earlier.

I suppose I am relatively new to the politics section of this forum. I did receive my very first card, which I believe was quite deserved, mainly because I simply didn't have the time or perhaps even the inclination to fully immerse myself in all the forum rules. That particular penalty was entirely justified, I think.
However, over time, I have noticed certain posts being deleted that, in my humble opinion, were actually quite high quality. This observation eventually led me here to this subforum, where I’ve come to the conclusion that there might not be much point in bothering with card protests or complaining about removed content.
I intend to continue posting, though I realize there is a significant possibility that my contributions will be deleted or that I might receive another card—whether that is warranted or not is ultimately out of my hands, I guess.
But then again, if this is the only way to remain part of the community, I suppose I will accept it as a necessary evil of this forum.