In most cases, you can ask all you want, but the mods, supermods, or admins just won't bother replying to user inquiries...
So I’m asking again—what exactly counts as "persistent trolling" here? My second post in this thread—and get this—was labeled as persistent trolling...
And don't even get me started on what certain users were doing at that exact moment—people who flat-out denied the law, peddled lies, and desperately hunted for arguments to back up those lies... only to start all over again from scratch once they were actually presented with the literal text of the law proving them wrong...
It’s funny how she suddenly can’t find the time to clarify whether she’s just trolling or—get this—"relentlessly trolling," which is apparently her way of labeling my second post on this thread. Because, heaven forbid, I actually had the audacity to ask what kind of qualifications someone needs to run a major city like Chicago...
It’s the same pattern, really. She didn't have any spare time last week to deal with people being sent off for therapy or having their mental health questioned—which, by the way, is a total joke...
But then, suddenly, at 2:00 AM, she has plenty of energy to go hunting for posts she can ban...
All while conveniently ignoring the constant trolling regarding Joe Biden that’s been going on for days—you know, where two Republican Party shills just flat-out deny legal statutes that they somehow manage to cite whenever it suits them in other situations...
Morgan Peterson said:Hilderik didn't get flagged until after I warned him to keep things civil—which was done via a warning without points—and then another warning I posted directly in the thread. Everything is right there in the thread; I haven't deleted anything because the posts are long and packed with info, and I didn't want to erase all that work.
We also talked here, where I made it clear that we can't penalize people just for expressing an opinion, even if you guys think they're wrong. Basically, he was warned several times to chill out and stop being insulting, but he just kept going.
Rhetorical question here—how many warnings does someone actually need before they hit a major strike or a ban? We aren't in kindergarten, guys.
Woobie got flagged pretty quickly after him following a report, but unlike some of you, he actually takes it, fixes his act, and moves on.
If I were to drop ten or more examples here showing how Woobie *didn't* fix his behavior—instead choosing to keep up the childish mockery while hiding behind Ego and ZK—would you vanish from the thread like ZK did when he tried to spin things and dodge facts, or would you just stay silent like Ego?
So, let me get this straight: I get docked 45 points for calling him rude because I called out his nonsense regarding robotics... meanwhile, he spends his time obsessing over my mental state and insinuating that I'm hitting my wife—and gets nothing.
Having an opinion isn't the issue—it's when someone acts arrogant and condescending while feeling untouchable under moderator protection.
He pulled the same stunt in politics, asserting his views without a single shred of fact... then he blew up. He did the same thing in other subforums... and blew up again.
Moving on...
Gingerina... starts arguing about my brain and drags my family into the debate—that's 10 points.
I'll say it again: I get 45 points for being "rude" and "arrogant" simply because I told an arrogant guy he was being rude.
Just let me know when you decide to start debating based on actual facts and evidence instead of just peddling empty platitudes.
Honestly, I feel like we’ve hit some kind of new peak of absurdity here... back when I called out some of the less enlightened folks on this forum for being completely clueless a few weeks ago—that was a 45-point deduction... then, to top it off, Ego tried to pin another 45 points on me over some absolute nonsense...
And then last night? Just straight-up insults and dragging someone's family into a debate that had nothing to do with the topic—and wasn't even mentioned in the thread to begin with—so they slapped me with 10 points that expire tomorrow...
Some people are still stuck in this performative, "look at me" mode—the exact same crowd that was throwing insults around before, joined by a handful of other forum regulars...
Now I’m honestly curious—just what kind of connection does anyone's family actually have to the coronavirus?...
So, what gives, Ego? Where did we lose the thread here?
When it comes to peddling broad generalizations, you guys are all over it...
But the second someone asks a straight question, it’s just radio silence...
Is the urge to protect certain users on this forum really so intense that you can't even provide an answer?☕ Are we honestly saying that acting like the examples above is perfectly fine and standard procedure?
Because from where I'm sitting, that looks a lot like flame wars and trolling to me.
Gerald Chavez7 said:Haven't you seen that thread? Over days and weeks? Everyone is just messing around and taking shots at each other—mostly us mods—so I don't really take it all that seriously. It's effectively just a chat room.
So, rules don't apply there?☕
Have you actually looked at the posts where he’s constantly psychoanalyzing people, while everyone else gets handed warnings for doing half as much?
And did you catch my thread in the banned users section? Where you guys basically ignored about ten different instances of someone being insulted, yet reacted instantly to every single "slight" directed at him?
The criteria here is... interesting, to say the least. Not to mention how my last warning for "insulting" someone—even though there wasn't an insult to be found anywhere—wasn't even pulled until a few hours before my three-day ban expired...
Look, let's be clear: I have zero issue with warnings being handed out, but I have a massive problem with the double standards used to hand them out.
And again, this guy ended up getting banned from several other sub-forums for this exact same behavior... plural...
So, I'll ask again: Is psychoanalyzing your interlocutor allowed?
Is jumping down someone's throat when they've clearly answered your question—forcing your own "conclusions" onto them as if it's their opinion—also totally fine? Especially when they do it constantly despite being asked nicely to stop?
I'm asking so I know where the lines are drawn...
Otherwise, what's the definition of trolling or flame wars if not exactly this?
Feel free to weigh in, maybe one of the head mods can clarify so we can see what the rest of you think...
Gerald Chavez7 said:This thread is about the moderation of the coronavirus subforum—it’s pretty obvious that everyone’s just going to be here to vent about how things are being handled.
On other threads? Of course not—that's strictly against the rules, and we're pretty consistent about nuking those posts and handing out sanctions when people can't follow directions.
Yeah, honestly, this whole back-and-forth between you two is getting pretty tedious—kind of a slog, actually.
Look, can we just agree to stop playing dumb? Seriously.☕
Nobody seems to be talking about the whole "commenting on the moderators" thing—which, let’s be honest, was pretty obvious from my very first post...
I’m talking about that relentless stalking behavior—the kind where someone just keeps jumping in to mock you with these bottom-of-the-barrel, kindergarten-level insults. It’s pathetic, really. They take their own half-baked "conclusions" and try to shove them down my throat as if they’re actually my opinion, all in some desperate, infantile attempt to get a rise out of me. It's just noise.
It’s exactly the same deal as when he starts up with those "psychoanalyses" of his... So, you're telling me that what he’s pulling with these posts is actually fine? Seriously?
Earlier today, you were all over that moderation thread explaining why psychoanalyzing other users is strictly off-limits—but then I look up at these examples above where he’s doing exactly that, and you’re just sitting there acting like Tom...
Basically, — Why are you playing dumb and treating me like an idiot? You’re acting like you don't get what's happening here, even though it’s pretty obvious—this isn't some high-minded debate about moderation rules. It's just constant, relentless trolling.
It’s doing that to me too—and honestly, it seems like it’s doing it to everyone else on this board as well.
And that’s exactly why he got himself banned from a handful of different subreddits... honestly, it was coming.
Since "psychoanalyzing" other users is apparently against the rules—and we all saw how others got slapped with bans for doing exactly that—I’m curious to see how this particular situation is being handled...
So, here's the deal: Ego was hanging out on the subforum, wiped away everything that clearly points to who they are and which group they're actually protecting, but decided to leave this little gem behind...
Let me be blunt—why is this even being allowed? We’ve got someone relentlessly stalking and baiting people, and yet the moderator is just sitting there letting it happen...
This is just the tip of the iceberg—you really need to see the full thread of provocations here, especially since he was explicitly told to back off... I mean, I've personally sent him five different warnings telling him to cut it out, reminding him that badmouthing the mods is against the rules, and asking him to stop shoving his so-called "truths" down everyone's throats...
..but the stalking continues unabated...
The moderator Ego is perfectly fine with this—which is hilarious, considering how quickly they hand out bans to anyone else for the exact same behavior, something that’s pretty obvious if you look at my own appeal in the banned users section...
It’s pretty obvious—and honestly, you can see it from the old threads over on the Amtrak forums—that this moderator is dodging any real talk about his "rules." He won't touch them because if he did, he’d have to admit he’s just playing favorites and protecting his little circle of buddies...
Can someone out there explain the logic to me? How is it that making personal digs at someone's intelligence or calling people ridiculous goes totally unpunished, yet if you dare to point out how industrial and medical robotics are actually shifting the landscape by automating repetitive tasks and replacing low-wage roles, suddenly that "costs" you forty-five cents in fines?
I’m honestly just curious about the moderation over on the COVID subforum—it feels like people can basically do whatever they want there, from cherry-picking posts to twisting someone's words, not to mention the ad hominem attacks that somehow fly under the radar...
So, get this: I end up with two warnings from the moderator Ego for "insulting" others. The first one was because I called someone unrefined for spewing nonsense...
The second warning was also for "insults," issued yesterday.
And I’m especially interested in this last one—where exactly is the insult here? ☕
On the other hand, over here, it looks like absolutely nothing is happening—no insults, no trolling...
Take yesterday's trolling, for instance, where some user whom Ego clearly protects "knows" everything—he's even talking trash better than the original poster, and he doesn't get penalized once...
The OP here explains exactly what they meant, but the little woobie just won't back down.
We could start right there, or we could move on to how this same guy systematically edits other people's posts to change their entire meaning—again, totally unpunished—or how he constantly attacks his interlocutors...
I really want to know why my post from yesterday is considered a massive insult, yet when you call someone ridiculous, it’s fine...
Just to be clear—we're talking about a user who, without any penalty, dragged my family into the argument and made defamatory claims about domestic violence...
Even that didn't earn him a warning from Ego...
Now I’m just sitting here waiting for the usual head-in-the-sand routine, much like what happens over on Amtrak...
But burying the truth isn't going to make someone's incompetence or blatant bias in moderation disappear...
I caught onto this one too—"thanks to the Republican Party"... I was just reading how some local Republican was bragging in The New York Times about how he saved jobs because of The White House...
Funny enough, they didn't mention that the guy pays his workers just slightly more than minimum wage...😬
Yeah, well, he only employs people in five different cities, so it's not exactly a national miracle...
No thanks, buddy, I'm not going to decide who gets to post on this forum.
I'm just deciding who I'm actually willing to spend my precious time debating.
Since you still haven't managed to prove that you were even following the conversation before jumping in like some paratrooper with delusions of grandeur, I'll just say goodbye and leave it at that.
👋
Sure, let me know once you actually come up with some real arguments to back up your claim that Plenković's cabinet reshuffles are just the result of "third-party" maneuvering...
Go ahead and say goodbye, but hit me up when you find some actual logic...
Until then, feel free to keep spouting nonsense to defend your ridiculous talking points—you know, that whole "new situation, new rules" routine...
I'll be right here calling out your nonsense...
And don't kid yourself about having a choice... the guy paying you to write this stuff is making the calls... you're just a hired hand... doing a lousy job at it, but hey, that's on whoever's signing your checks...
granitetinker6 said:Look, I've been debating this with other folks on the forum, and they're the ones who can ask me for clarification, not you.
You're the one who jumped in first trying to lecture everyone about arguments, theses, and opinions.
Maybe once you actually prove you've been following our discussion with any level of comprehension, then I might give you a little attention and show you how much you're actually missing regarding the subject you decided to dive into.
So, go ahead, I'm waiting—list those specific points for me. 🍿
So now we're letting trolls decide who gets to talk about what? That's just great...
Hahaha... pure comedy.
Come on, kid—maybe start by figuring out what a forum actually is and why we bother having them in the first place...
Once you've done that, then we can get back to this...
granitetinker6 said:Look, I've been debating this with other folks on the forum, and they're the ones who can ask me for clarification, not you.
You're the one who jumped in first trying to lecture everyone about arguments, theses, and opinions.
Maybe once you actually prove you've been following our discussion with any level of comprehension, then I might give you a little attention and show you how much you're actually missing regarding the subject you decided to dive into.
So, go ahead, I'm waiting—list those specific points for me. 🍿
...sure, right after you lay out the actual logic behind your claim that Plenković's cabinet reshuffles are just the result of "work" being done by third-party interests...
The thing is, your claim was the one that started this whole mess, yet there isn't a single shred of evidence to back it up...
Now it all makes sense...
Someone who doesn't grasp the basic concept of an online forum is obviously going to struggle with the idea that their opinion isn't an objective fact or an axiom, despite how hard you try to pass it off as such...
So, lesson number one: learn what a forum is and what its purpose is...
granitetinker6 said:Colleague, either you weren't really paying attention to the debate or you just don't quite grasp what an actual reasoned discussion looks like. Honestly, I'd lean toward the second one since it seems like you're mixing up and failing to distinguish between basic concepts like an argument, a thesis, an opinion, and a counterargument...
Feel free to prove me wrong if you think I've misjudged you. Go ahead, lay out three specific theses that were brought up during this part of the debate, and then tell me which two were countered and which third one wasn't.
☕
Sure, I'll get right on that—immediately after you present any actual evidence to support your claim that Trump's cabinet reshuffles are just the result of "working through" third-party options...
The thing is, you're the one who threw that claim out there first, yet there isn't a single shred of supporting logic to be found...
And yet, here you are, trying to justify that total garbage by making excuses like "well, it's a new situation, so we need new rules."
granitetinker6 said:Oh, I didn't forget a single thing.
We're talking about specific things that actually happened during a certain timeframe, and more importantly, we're looking at the fallout from those events in the period that followed.
Oh, you definitely forgot...
For starters, why don't you try showing some actual logic—you know, an evidenced cause-and-effect link—between your claims and reality?
Because right now, you're just hammering away at this idea that the self-destruction of three guys from the bridge party who didn't see the shakeup coming—along with Crnoja—somehow forced Donald Trump to reshuffle his cabinet years later. It's a reach.
The issue with you—as usual—is that you lack actual arguments, so you just try to shove your personal opinion down everyone's throat as if it were some kind of objective fact.
And then it all just devolves into those tired old excuses like, "well, it's a new situation, so the old rules don't apply." Just total nonsense.