Posts by rapidnomad512

Fine, the thread was nuked. I wasn't expecting anything else. Naturally, it’s because it "didn't follow the rules."

So let's play by the rules then. My question is right above; I don't have a link, but you know where to find it. I've got the image, and it's right here below.



Is this actually a violation of the forum rules? Or will people get penalized for posting stuff like this about dogs being killed in the news one day? I won't even bother asking about Jews, Mexicans, Armenians, or anyone else... it's a waste of breath.

Look, I just want an answer to this specific question.

Sarah Doyle54 said:Fine. If that’s your logic, let’s make a deal: from now on, on the Politics subforum, you don't call anyone a criminal unless they have a legal conviction. Not Bill Clinton, not FDR, not Joseph Stalin, not Adolf Hitler—not even those resistance fighters who dodged accountability for the exact crimes we're debating here. That's how a civilized society functions, right? We shouldn't be letting random forum users or vigilantes playing judge and executioner decide who's guilty.

Do we have a deal? 🙂

Sarah Doyle54, that is a terrible spin. If we were discussing Unknown being killed and thrown into a pit, sure, we could debate his individual guilt or suspicion. But we are talking about over 130,000 people slaughtered in the most brutal way imaginable.

Trying to play judge and tally up who was "guilty" versus who was "innocent" is just plain tasteless.

We are dealing with a massive number of human beings here, not some single outlier or historical figure.

Watch this to refresh your memory, then tell me how many on those trains were guilty and how many were innocent:

Actually, do something civilized for once: step down from moderation and I'll agree. 😉

Sarah Doyle54 said:Killing people without a trial—that’s the part you’re missing—is a crime, but does that make them innocent? Take a look at your own list and get back to me.

It’s the lack of a verdict that makes them innocent! Until there is one, they are innocent by definition. 😉

Are they guilty? We can speculate all day. But until a judge hands down a sentence, they are merely suspects. Even a federal prosecutor—someone far more qualified than you to determine guilt—has to refer to them that way.

That is how things work in a civilized society. 😉

In those other places, it's just some moderators or executioners standing over a pit making the calls.

Sarah Doyle54 said:I bailed because I realized we were drifting off-topic. If you want to start a whole separate thread about my moderation style just so you can troll and make stuff up, go right ahead.

No need. You said enough. 😉

Now you'll probably claim I'm lying about what you wrote. 🤣

Sarah Doyle54 said:Even though I am... Extremely explicit. She’s claimed multiple times that those deaths weren't acceptable. It’s a textbook case of selective reading, really. Typical.

Since you've... Extremely explicit. Explain yourself. Give me some clarity. 😉 You’re famous for this pattern: you blow up over a single comment, then dig your heels in even when people try to clear things up on Reddit. Even when they explain exactly what they meant, you still refuse to believe them.

Of course you’re going to spin some convenient little tale about mourning the innocent victims whenever someone asks if you feel any remorse. We both know that’s a load of crap. Why should I believe a word you say? You don't even believe the people you're banning, even when they're clearly trying to explain themselves.

The Reddit mods don't carry responsibility—and frankly, they never have—for the individual opinions voiced by users in these threads. Our job isn't to police thoughts; our job is to ensure that violations don't go unchecked. They aren't. Every single one of those posts was sanctioned accordingly.

They aren't yours. Anyone thrown into a mass grave without a trial is innocent, period. In your eyes, there’s a distinction between the guilty and the innocent, but that's a fallacy. Casio already made that clear back when he filed the appeal over those cardboard shipments.

Extract my post, create a thread, and answer the questions. Instead of the locals in that small town in Ohio, I'll be using rebellious Mexicans in my sentences. 😉

Alright, let's see if you're playing by the same rules.

You aren't going to pull that off. We both know exactly why you won't. Jane Doe. 😉

When people start losing arguments on topics where they’ve drifted toward the "other side," they suddenly hide behind this sudden "respect for the victims." It’s funny how that works—this respect was nowhere to be found during the rest of the thread when everyone was busy trashing those very same victims. There were even constant insinuations that conventional protections didn't apply to them, implying it was perfectly fine that they were killed. They act like it's acceptable because these people were considered "enemies of the state"—as if Adolf Hitler was out there murdering his own friends. They suggest it's okay to kill people and toss them into pits just because they were labeled enemies.

And now, suddenly, we have to walk on eggshells? If it's all about "respecting the victims," then maybe it's because the moderator has absolutely no answers to these questions.

Leave the concept of "respect" alone; you don't need to worry about protecting it for us. The people who might feel offended by what's being said here have already done their digging. At the end of the day, they're being told by the Prime Minister and certain "distinguished historians" that it’s perfectly fine that their loved ones ended up in a mass grave. Don't try to lecture us on how to show respect. Just leave the thread open. If someone can't handle being asked direct questions, they should just stay away from the topic instead of locking the whole damn thread. 😉

Nobody is suggesting we scrap anything. Every single thing you see happening here is welcome, and most of it isn't even an issue. This is about "overkill"—it’s about a total lack of moderation. I'm simply calling for some balance, not a ban or the removal of any element that adds value to this forum.

I wasn't even surprised you'd be protected. You people just do whatever you want, honestly. Go ahead, lock it. 😉

northerntiger said:This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence me because the OP can't handle my perspective. Now they’re digging through my posts, nitpicking every single word like it’s some kind of crime. Funny how those same "flaws" never seem to bother them when their own crowd is posting long-winded nonsense. It’s easy enough to see the bias—you just have to look at how the mods hand out praise to anyone who echoes their own opinions. 🙂

No. Your turn.Not shields, just shrouds. Someone else's. Where are the texts?

Let’s not even get into the fact that he’s perfectly capable of cranking out a long-form piece when he feels like it—complete with his own particular brand of nonsense. So, calling it a "sheet" is just a reach. 😁

This is my own writing. It’s not anyone else's.

My approach is simple: I share the articles and links, let people draw their own conclusions, and then offer my take if necessary.

That’s the issue. We aren't here to act as media critics; we're here to exchange actual opinions. We all read the news. It’s one thing when you do it occasionally, but you make a habit of it across almost every single thread. If anyone doubts me, they only need to look at your posting history. Look, it’s fine if you do it once in a while—it’s just your style, whatever. But when you decide to camp out on a topic and drop five or six massive essays on a single page? It’s exhausting.

When it comes to this thread about Kolinda, where 80% of the noise is just mindless cheering and voters acting like they won the lottery, my strategy was simple. I dropped links and pulled snippets from the biographies of the former advisors under Josipović, along with the hand-picked advisors she brought on board. The goal? To see if she actually delivered anything new after all those grand promises. That’s clearly what gets under people's skin. They want her to actually stand by her word. Period. 😁

Look, that doesn't bother me. What actually gets under my skin is having to scroll endlessly just to find an actual conversation. And when the site starts acting up? Having to sit there waiting for your massive, bloated posts to load? That’s what really grinds my gears.

Synthesize those texts and run your own comparison. I have nothing against it—in fact, constructive criticism is exactly what she needs if we want a better President. I’m doing the same thing myself (look at my take on Radeljić). Just send over the link for the rest. There’s also some guy from the right wing driving me crazy with the same old talking points (josipnekibroj), and if this issue isn't settled here once and for all, I’m going to file a formal complaint.

The author of this thread is blatantly lying if they claim I’ve only made one non-ranting post here. For anyone interested in the truth, just look at the history. So much for his supposed "objectivity."

Before this thread even went live, I noticed one of your posts that wasn't just a massive wall of text paired with a comment. Today, that seems to have changed. Whether this specific thread triggered it or not—I won't speculate. 😉

I try to follow the forum rules. I don't just drop links; I provide a summary of the article, especially if it’s from an overseas site. 🙂

z

That isn't the issue. Nor is the thread itself. 😉

Sarah Doyle54 said:Setting ideological divides aside, copy-pasting huge chunks of text is mostly counterproductive. Looking at official complaints and the comments here, it seems people mostly just scroll past walls of text, even in original posts—let alone when they're just excerpts from articles that anyone with a link can read themselves. It's probably because it's much easier to argue with the views, beliefs, and trolling of someone actually present on the forum than with static, transcribed text. Of course, that doesn't mean copy-pasting should be banned. It just feels like for more efficient, dynamic debates, it's better to provide smaller quotes or perhaps a summarized retelling.

Personally, I don't mind it every once in a while. Naturally, it shouldn't exceed half a page—ideally a quarter—and it needs a mandatory comment from the person sharing it. Not a one-liner, either, but a coherent synthesis; a takeaway.
Sure, that's the ideal scenario, and not everyone is capable of it. But bans are never the answer, just like excess is never the answer. The middle ground is always the sweet spot.

But having a flood of those kinds of posts in a single thread makes everything unreadable. It's exhausting. And I'm not talking about attempts to silence anyone here; I'm certain people from similar ideological circles find this annoying too, though they might not admit it due to their bias, but let's set that aside. The author can say whatever she wants by summarizing it in her own words, whether in a long post or a short one, and that's perfectly legitimate. That's what's useful and necessary for both supporters and opponents alike. That's how you sharpen arguments and counterarguments. Ultimately, it changes society (since those we write about 😉 actually read this), leading to a cleaner, more organized forum, which indirectly pushes society toward being better. Nobody debates the posts I'm referring to, yet there was plenty of debate regarding the posts my colleague wrote afterward.

Thanks for understanding. 👋

William Bennett53 said:If we ignore the fact that this thread is about a specific user rather than the issue of massive walls of text, I agree. Posts that make a thread impossible to navigate shouldn't be allowed. Now, that isn't an issue if it’s a one-off situation. Maybe in this specific case, all those articles and lists were actually necessary for the debate—if so, fine. But if users were doing this habitually, or if certain threads were being constantly cluttered this way, moderators should step in and shut it down. I believe they mostly already do, but regardless, I'll make sure to flag it.
Thanks for the useful intervention. 👍

The thread isn't about the user; it's about the behavior she triggers. I have nothing against her personally—she thinks differently, and that's fine. But this is her pattern. This is how she posts:

http://www.example-us-forum.com/showpost.php?p=5...&postcount=270

And it's not just once. When she latches onto a topic, she just dumps everything in sight. You can't even hold a real discussion with her because you're expected to debate against entire essays.

I think I saw exactly one (1) post of hers on the Kolinda thread that wasn't formatted like this. This is spam. Regardless of whether the texts are relevant or not, a single link and a few key sentences to support an argument should be enough. I want to see an opinion, not "here is my thought, also here is a columnist's entire article." Because if that's the standard, I'll start doing the same thing—I'll just copy Lovrić, Šol, and a few others and go to town. Suddenly, the page will be filled with two columns from them and two from me. Who's going to read that?

Thanks for acknowledging the complaint. 👍

northerntiger (who’s always wading into politics anyway, but this obsession with Kolinda has crossed a line) just dumps massive walls of text copied straight from news sites, adds a couple of their own sentences, and calls it a day. It’s exhausting. Regarding the Kolinda thread, they’ve essentially buried the whole discussion under a mountain of junk. It makes the thread impossible to read.

A forum should be a place for actual discussion and personal opinions. While quoting sources can give an argument some weight, someone needs to step in and address this spamming.
It’s fine once in a while to share an article you think provides good context, but hijacking a single thread by dumping everything ever written about it in the media isn't "forum participation"—it's just acting like a glorified press clipping service.

If there's an article, provide the link. If people want to read the full story, they’ll click it.

Just look at this page:

I’m calling for the enforcement of rule Quote regarding posts that ruin the forum's readability. This colleague needs to be told to trim the quotes and actually use their own words. We aren't here to act as news aggregators or a repository for press clippings; we're here to see what people actually think about certain topics.

Fine. So the headlines changed, though they still leave this heavy implication that Barack Obama is still in office.
I have a question: what exactly are you planning to put after "11.1" in that thread title? He might not even be president by then.

And let’s get one thing straight—this isn't some "tempest in a teapot." It’s also not about "not underestimating voters by thinking headlines influence them." This is vital. Otherwise, there wouldn't be this much debate over a perfectly logical proposal rooted in basic fairness.

Still waiting on an answer to my question: "Will there be moderation control on that subforum over these next 10 days to ensure moderators aren't using their decisions to favor one specific candidate?"

If the answer is no, just say it clearly and loudly. Stop playing games. Now I’m stuck complaining about a warning, and I’m calling on all forum members getting similar warnings to appeal—vigorously, with arguments, and thoroughly—even if we all know it’s a waste of time. :šešelj:

Let’s get down to business with the specific inquiries from this thread. Either you start working on them and I'll wait, or what? 🤔

Charles Fox10 said:Your vision is skewed because the thread was titled that way from day one.

Maybe. Possible. I haven't dealt with this specific sector before. 🙂 But let's move past that.

Can we standardize the thread titles? We need to strip out the suggestive messaging in the headlines to ensure the game stays fair.

Here’s my proposal:

- Barack Obama - Candidate for President of the United States
- Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović - Candidate for President of the United States

Anything else is completely redundant on an election forum. Who represents which party or what their current job is can be easily noted within the thread itself.

Thanks.

I see they’ve added "Republican Party Candidate" to Kolinda's title in the thread heading 🤣—clearly an attempt to tether her to the Republican Party's baggage. It just happens to be the exact same tactic Joe is running in his campaign. First off, it’s factually lazy. She’s actually the candidate for over ten different parties. Either list them all or don't bother listing any at all.

By that same logic, if we're going to be pedantic about titles, let's list the full roster of parties supporting Joe in his thread too.

I’m asking the admin to step in and oversee the moderation of threads in this subforum to prevent any abuse of moderator powers for electioneering. For several days now, users have been receiving bizarre warnings and facing questionable moderation decisions.

Take the latest example: a user gets flagged for "off-topic/spam" just for posting an article analyzing Barack Obama's term in a thread dedicated to Barack Obama.

Furthermore, the thread titles are blatantly biased. We see "Barack Obama - President of the Beautiful Coast," while for the other side, it's just "Donald Trump - Candidate for President of the USA." I’m requesting consistency here. Given that Barack Obama is the current president, that distinction is irrelevant for an election-focused forum; he should be listed as a candidate for the presidency of the USA or the Beautiful Coast—whatever you want to call it—but all candidates need to be treated equally.

There are other issues too. We specifically need to look at the warnings handed out to Frank, Chuck, and Clara (who gave a warning to Jonathan Morales), which over the last few days haven't seemed to follow the rules or even basic common sense. I'm not looking to dwell on the past—what's done is done—and the admin can audit the logs if they care to. But what matters is that from today onward, there must be impartial oversight in this subforum. Moderation shouldn't be used to skew the presentation of certain candidates or, more importantly, to enforce censorship—which is clearly the goal here.

That is my request. 🙂

Scott Long71 said:I think the real question is what a user should actually do to avoid getting banned. Honestly? They just need to take a breather, cool off, and re-read the rules. Maybe we should even start a thread titled "How Not to Fall for Provocations and Avoid a Ban" so people can swap advice. Plenty of users manage to pull it off.

You dodged the question. Are you going to lift the ban on Marasovac?

Cut the crap. 😉

Regarding user initiatives—please, if it’s not too much trouble, go find them. Believe me, we have plenty of brilliant ideas that could improve this Forum, but they haven't materialized yet. It’s not just that we aren't listening to the users; we aren't even listening to ourselves.

Maria Barnes, you don't have any "initiatives" left. Nobody is sending you ideas, advice, complaints, or feedback anymore. Everything is sanitized, everything is rigged. People don't bother complaining because they know it's a waste of breath. Go look at how many PDF policy complaints were on page 17 of this sub-forum versus how many there are in the last three pages.

People are just swallowing the nonsense now, becoming increasingly sophisticated at finding loopholes in your damn rules. Others just end up grayed out. Nobody gives a damn about your PDF policy anymore. Forget "initiatives"—they've already checked out mentally.

And you're the one responsible for this mess. You've known for years exactly who you're putting in those roles, and for years, those have been your inner circle. Don't act like you're clueless. 😉

Look, we are going to implement some changes, so we can include those suggestions if they hold weight. 🙂

To start, maybe try opening the doors to the users that you've kept locked. But you won't be able to do that until you prove you're actually ready for change—real change, not just lip service. As long as you keep appointing your best buddies as supermods—people who haven't made a single notable post in politics but happen to be tight with certain supermods—all your "changes" are completely worthless.

You could actually start making changes by coming here and asking which political commenters we suggest you appoint as moderators. You have a handful of young, patient, intelligent, level-headed, and highly capable individuals who haven't been driven to digital suicide by this place yet. It is high time you considered them. 😉

P.S. Please stop trying to sell the story that all the users are to blame. Stop it. We know that isn't true, and frankly, we've heard that tired excuse two million and eight hundred thousand times already.

Since you're here, let's get down to business with a concrete initiative. This endless, vague bickering is useless. Let’s actually do some work and use this opportunity to highlight one of the many systemic failures we face.

Back when the political debate centered on the trial of Gotovina and the other generals, Marasovac made an immeasurable contribution to the discussion. You can see his specific arguments, written years ago on this platform, reflected directly in the reasoning used by the International Criminal Court for the acquittal.
During that entire period, there was another user who, in a very subtle and insidious way, constantly worked to undermine him. This individual would frame posts to suggest Americans were inherently genocidal, argue that Gotovina was guilty, and insist we should have accepted the initial conviction. Marasovac reacted several times—quite heatedly—and was naturally punished for it. He called this user out as a bad actor working with a hidden agenda, essentially a plant designed to sabotage us. Even though his accusations were obvious from reading the posts, the moderators ignored the warnings that this user was trolling and instead penalized Marasovac for his aggressive reactions. They turned him into a rebel. He realized appeals were pointless, so he adopted a scorched-earth policy: fight everyone and wait for the hammer to fall. Ultimately, that moderator behavior led him straight to a permanent ban. To make this even clearer: while that agitator was posting, the moderator (who is now a supermoderator—not Dorinan, but someone else) held the exact opposite view. Back then, I personally thought, "Gotovina is nothing more than a common thug."

And what happened? Gotovina was acquitted. That agitator revealed his true colors: it turns out he was an attorney working for the legal team of Sava Štrbac, exactly the kind of person Marasovac had accused him of being. Suddenly, that moderator started celebrating Gotovina. If anyone ever pulled up his old posts to point out his previous stance, he’d just issue a warning or a ban to silence them. Meanwhile, Marasovac remained the rebel, and we ended up losing him. We lost a man who was a pillar of this community—someone with an incredible memory, deep data, and links to historical events. He was practically a walking encyclopedia on certain topics. People from outside this site used to come here specifically to read his contributions. Now, because of these moderation tactics, the result is this: the agitator is gone, busy writing academic papers elsewhere, and Marasovac is gone. Meanwhile, the moderator who once called Gotovina a thug is now his most vocal defender. Brilliant work. Truly.

So, tell me—and tell everyone else—was it a good move to lose Marasovac? Answer us: Will you lift Marasovac's permanent ban and reach out to ask him what went wrong and how to fix it? Or will you simply label Marasovac an idiot who doesn't know how to behave, allowing moderators to push their own political agendas through enforcement and turning our best contributors into rebels who live by Rule 15?

Let’s be clear: Are you going to lift Marasovac's ban?

And what is your plan to prevent moderators from turning high-value contributors into rebels? How will you ensure they become constructive, polite users who actually draw people to this site instead of driving them away?

Note: This tactic of dismantling the community is incredibly insidious. It isn't one single event. It's a series of small erasures, a warning here, a strike there, constant provocations and flame wars, followed by treating users like trash during the appeal process. That is how you get the end product we see today. You think this is good management?

Scott Long71 said:People listen, whether their opinions matter or not.

You show up here and post. Fine. But why ask questions you already have the answers to? That’s just being tedious, and frankly, you’re violating rule number 15. If you ask things that are blindingly obvious, you're playing dumb, and we both know you aren't. It doesn't fly. Just like this

Your questions are rhetorical—you already know the answers. Besides, all of this has been covered elsewhere; it should be common knowledge by now. I suspect what you actually want to know is why Dorian was promoted to supermod, right? He was appointed because I believe he can handle the job. That applies to any appointment of moderators, supermods, or admins.

So, other than trying to insult me, you haven't actually answered anything. All you did was decide that Dorian would be a good supermod. Fine, that's your call. But I'm asking about my rights as a user—specifically, am I allowed to question your decisions, and if so, how?

Actually, I think you're the one breaking rule number 15 here, but hey, it's your right to think that.

My questions aren't rhetorical; they are subtle and precise. You know exactly what I'm talking about because you spin the same narrative whenever it suits your interests. Do you want me to dig up your old posts?

It’s the classic case of saying one thing and doing another—selling smoke and mirrors, as they say. When users start migrating to other sites, you suddenly tell them they're important. But when they try to actually be important, you snap at them that you make the calls and things will go your way.

Make up your mind, Maria Barnes: are we important or not?

And since you love statistics so much, look at the last two years. How many initiatives to improve this site were launched and actually adopted? How many times has the direction of this community been questioned, and how many times has that direction actually been corrected because someone presented a solid idea?

Maybe you aren't around enough, so the answer might surprise you.

The conclusion? There are very few, and they are incredibly limited. If those discussions aren't happening here, where are opinions actually valued? Did you open some private sub-forum that I can't see, or is it only visible to your inner circle?

If there is no such sub-forum, and if there are no such initiatives here, then the problem is clear: someone is treating the entire user base—except for a small clique—as if they fall under rule 15 or are simply too stupid to understand.

So, clarify your answers from the first post. Give me straight answers without the condescension, and send me links to these initiatives that you or anyone else supposedly listened to and implemented. It seems to me you only embrace new ideas when an exodus starts, and even then, you just offer empty platitudes. Tell people what they can actually expect, and let them decide whether to stay or leave.😉

Someone needs to shut this thread down. Maria Barnes is still active on the Forum, so maybe she can actually step up and answer some questions for once.

The administration—led by Maria Barnes—calls the shots on who gets moderator or supermoderator roles. Let’s be clear: this isn't a democracy, and we don't hold elections in the public section of the Forum. Dorian.Gray was selected because he actually knows his stuff. He understands the landscape, stays active, follows the guidelines, and serves as a supermoderator for the Politics board. To the admin team (Maria Barnes included), that was more than enough justification to appoint him. Honestly, it would be a class act if you all gave him a fair shake before jumping to conclusions about his competence.

Look, we built this Forum. It belongs to us. If the admin and her inner circle are operating under some kind of dictator complex, then let’s lay all the cards on the table. This isn't a democracy—you run the show—but don't mistake that for total silence. We’re here to debate. That is the entire point of a Forum. We should be discussing how this place is managed, tossing out ideas, making suggestions, and actually listening to what the users have to say. Period.

Either shut this sub-forum down or stop pretending there's any freedom here. It’s pointless. Nike set this whole thing up with a zero-to-twenty-four-hour surveillance clock anyway.

So, I have a question for Maria Barnes:

Who are these forum users, and what’s their actual purpose here?
Do people on this Forum actually listen to what we have to say, or is it all just noise? Does anyone here actually give a damn about our input, or are we just shouting into a void?
Does a forum even need users? And if so, what kind?
What’s the actual purpose of this sub-forum? And more importantly, who is the authority here responsible for actually looking at these ideas and turning them into reality?
What can users actually do when they’re fed up with the admins and mods? Is there any real recourse when the leadership isn't cutting it?
Are we actually allowed to vent our frustrations anywhere on this forum? If so, where exactly? Because it’s pretty clear I can't say what I want here anymore.
Why is this forum so sanitized? And more importantly, who’s pulling the strings?
What’s the actual vision for developing this Forum? Let’s be clear: this isn't some private project spearheaded by Maria Barnes. It’s a democracy run by the users.
Has the right to speak been stripped from the users? Is our ability to weigh in on how this Forum is run being revoked? I am asking this clearly and loudly.

People have been speculating forever that this is just some private club where Maria Barnes calls all the shots. He’s denied it a hundred times, preaching about how much he values the community and how we are the "lifeblood" of this place. Then, his hand-picked inner circle shows up and tells us to shut up because they hold the power and it’s a private forum. Fine. Maybe it is. But even a private business lives or dies by its customers. If this is strictly a private operation, then stop the games and tell us exactly how our input is valued. If it’s truly a closed shop, let us know so we can decide if contributing anything at all is even worth our time.

The admin who turned this forum into some sterile, sanitized zone needs to step down. She clearly doesn't grasp the fundamentals. A forum is supposed to be a community—a collective of people interested in specific topics engaging in actual debate. That’s the bedrock. This isn't a corporate boardroom; it's about that raw, free-spirited internet energy that defines how things work here. Private management should just provide the framework for that freedom to flourish. Their only real job? Create an environment where people can actually talk, then scrub away the radical outliers. Simple.

The problem starts when private interests try to hijack a free platform. They want to control the base, dictate how content is created, and manipulate what people see. We’ve seen this play out on this Forum far too many times, and frankly, here we go again.

And finally, I want an answer from Maria Barnes: Do the users here actually have the right to voice their opinions about a moderator, super-moderator, or admin? Or has that right been stripped away entirely?

Or should I put it this way: does a free spirit within this forum have the right to question the framework they’re operating in and offer an opinion, or is the structure strictly a matter of private initiative that must be accepted without question?

Lately, it feels like total anarchy has taken over this place, and I’m putting that squarely on the admin. It’s high time we start discussing her removal, along with the moderators who backed her play just to grab control of specific sections of the Forum to serve interests that clearly extend far beyond our borders.

Don't bother locking this thread; I'll just keep starting new ones until I get some straight, unambiguous answers.