Politics / World, The Provence mod, systematic trolling
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Looks like the bullying just won't stop.
KLCCLK, since when did being ironic count as trolling?
On the topic: "Politics/BlsokoPolitici/Why bother explicitly using feminine nouns for professions when it's totally unnecessary?"
Man, I’m actually getting slapped with two warnings for posts that have already been deleted! Seriously?
Best of luck!
Reddit
Looks like Klonka totally skipped over my post. No reaction at all!
Another yellow card:
All the best,
Reddit
So, looking at both posts, it's clearly an ironic jab at this gender ideology that denies biological binary and treats gender as a social construct—something they then try to force people into using a Procrustean method.
So, I've got a few questions for KLCCLK:
(A). If someone can be dead serious about questioning the binary nature of sex, why is it a punishable offense to use irony regarding the same topic?
(B). And if irony isn't supposed to be punished, why aren't my two posts treated with the same seriousness as all those other people advocating for gender as a socially conditioned construct?
(C). Or does this mean it's now illegal to even mention non-binary sex/gender constructs? Unless, of course, you belong to that chosen elite class that the media talks about every single day?
(4). Or is clear irony just automatically flagged as trolling now?
It's worth noting that these posts were made on Dec 28 and Dec 30, while KLCCLK handed out the warnings on Jan 03 at 1:00 PM—just five hours after the last warning from TheProvense on Jan 03 at 8:00 AM.
That really makes me suspect these warnings are just a way for certain moderators to settle scores regarding the thread I started about how moderation works on Politics/World (and other subreddits), where certain people get special treatment while everyone else gets scrutinized over every little thing.
This is especially obvious in threads that oppose Western liberal ideology, which I can easily prove with a mountain of warnings like these two I just caught on exactly those kinds of topics. Any kind of ironic distance—not to mention satire regarding liberalism—gets hit with a pile of warnings.
If that's how it works, then please, just add this to the Politics rules: "Mocking the postulates of liberal ideology is not permitted."
It's important to point out that I've noticed a specific pattern in moderation, which I could demonstrate perfectly if I actually had access to all my warnings, the penalty descriptions, and the discussions. Unfortunately, regular users don't have access to a panel showing more than five previous warnings, and PMs fill up way too fast, so proving this is basically impossible right now. Unless, of course, a super-mod or an admin decides to pull the PM and warning archives from the backup.
Anyway, here’s how the game is played:
- some moderator picks a fight with me for whatever reason and starts handing out bans—whether they actually make sense or not.
- once I appeal and start making a scene, a second moderator takes over the banning duty, then a third one steps in...
- and of course, the rules magically shift to fit the moment. (Basically, they'll punish you for anything just to pad the stats.)
The goal is simple:
- paint the user as a troublemaker.
- rotate through different moderators handing out the bans so nobody can claim there's any bias.
This thread is a perfect case study for all four tactics:
- inconsistent criteria (look at what happened with Sam Alvarez4)
- bending the rules, even digging up old posts for "re-reviews" (shoutout to KLCCLK for providing such a clear example)
- just piling on the bans to prove a user is problematic, aiming for a cumulative ban, then using the sheer volume of strikes to "prove" the user is bad.
- swapping out moderators to make it look like everyone agrees on how much of a problem the user is.
In this whole mess, my hands are often tied because, like I said,
- users don't have access to old bans to actually analyze how the mods are behaving.
- most links in the ban notices are one-way streets that lead to private messages (even if the content technically exists in the archives).
- the only paper trail is the penalty notice in the inbox, which fills up so fast you're forced to delete stuff.
- and often, the banned posts contain links to the exact posts that triggered the reaction, but those links mysteriously "disappear," just like I demonstrated with Sam Alvarez4.
So, the only way I can actually bring this into the light is exactly what I'm doing now: posting everything in a thread like this where the mods don't have the power to delete it.
So, I’m asking KLCCLK to weigh in on questions (A), (B), (C), and (D) above.
And specifically, how does the actual penalty only arrive five days later, after a whole string of bans from TheProvense?
KLCCLK, since when did being ironic count as trolling?
On the topic: "Politics/BlsokoPolitici/Why bother explicitly using feminine nouns for professions when it's totally unnecessary?"
Man, I’m actually getting slapped with two warnings for posts that have already been deleted! Seriously?
KLCCLK said:Hey Jack Cook7,
Yo, just a heads-up—you've caught an Active Infraction over on Reddit.
Reason: Trolling
This Active Infraction is worth 35 points and could land you with restricted access until it expires. Just a heads-up: serious infractions stay on your record forever.
Original Post:
Since you only provided a link to a forum thread without any specific text to rewrite, I can't craft the post for you yet! Please **paste the actual text** from the thread that you want me to transform. Once you do, I'll jump right in and rewrite it using that rambling, punchy, and super casual voice while making sure everything is set firmly in the US.Quote: I don't get it. said:Hey Klonka, are you a guy or a girl? Honestly, as a dude, I don't give gender equality a second thought—I figured that kind of stuff hits a lot closer to home for women, right?
So, why are we still stuck on this whole male/female binary thing? Seriously, why?
Maybe Klonka is just bouncing around the 60 mark, so does that mean we've officially scientifically discovered gender categories now?
Do you even realize how aggressive and discriminatory that question of yours actually is? 🙂
PS: Klonka, I’m totally backing you up on this. These intrusions are absolutely insane. Honestly, I'm just disgusted that stuff like this can even happen in 2017. We seriously need to band together and actually do something about it next year.
Best of luck!
Looks like Klonka totally skipped over my post. No reaction at all!
Klonka
🤣
Another yellow card:
Quote: KLCCLK said:Hey Jack Cook7,
You just snagged an infraction over on Reddit.
Reason: Trolling
-------
-------
This Active Infraction is worth 35 points and might mean you lose access until it expires. Serious infractions stay on your record forever.
Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=67251957Quote: Lord Byron said:In a society where a whole bunch of traits are still being pushed in mainstream media with stuff like "do it like a man!", any push for equality is honestly pretty welcome.
Yeah, that’s straight-up discrimination. 👍
We should probably pass some Human Rights laws to ban all that and only allow statements like:
"Go ahead and do it like one of those 60 gender-fluid identities that you couldn't care less about and will totally ditch the second another group offers you enough cash."
The movie "Die Hard" (which is actually a mistranslation if you think about it, but let's roll with it) should really be translated as:
"Evidence of how the paleo-animal leftovers of our distant, primitive binary ancestors refuse to rationally accept the progress of civilization—specifically, the idea that violence is unnecessary to achieve what's obviously only possible if you possessed at least one third eye."
All the best,
So, looking at both posts, it's clearly an ironic jab at this gender ideology that denies biological binary and treats gender as a social construct—something they then try to force people into using a Procrustean method.
So, I've got a few questions for KLCCLK:
(A). If someone can be dead serious about questioning the binary nature of sex, why is it a punishable offense to use irony regarding the same topic?
(B). And if irony isn't supposed to be punished, why aren't my two posts treated with the same seriousness as all those other people advocating for gender as a socially conditioned construct?
(C). Or does this mean it's now illegal to even mention non-binary sex/gender constructs? Unless, of course, you belong to that chosen elite class that the media talks about every single day?
(4). Or is clear irony just automatically flagged as trolling now?
It's worth noting that these posts were made on Dec 28 and Dec 30, while KLCCLK handed out the warnings on Jan 03 at 1:00 PM—just five hours after the last warning from TheProvense on Jan 03 at 8:00 AM.
That really makes me suspect these warnings are just a way for certain moderators to settle scores regarding the thread I started about how moderation works on Politics/World (and other subreddits), where certain people get special treatment while everyone else gets scrutinized over every little thing.
This is especially obvious in threads that oppose Western liberal ideology, which I can easily prove with a mountain of warnings like these two I just caught on exactly those kinds of topics. Any kind of ironic distance—not to mention satire regarding liberalism—gets hit with a pile of warnings.
If that's how it works, then please, just add this to the Politics rules: "Mocking the postulates of liberal ideology is not permitted."
It's important to point out that I've noticed a specific pattern in moderation, which I could demonstrate perfectly if I actually had access to all my warnings, the penalty descriptions, and the discussions. Unfortunately, regular users don't have access to a panel showing more than five previous warnings, and PMs fill up way too fast, so proving this is basically impossible right now. Unless, of course, a super-mod or an admin decides to pull the PM and warning archives from the backup.
Anyway, here’s how the game is played:
- some moderator picks a fight with me for whatever reason and starts handing out bans—whether they actually make sense or not.
- once I appeal and start making a scene, a second moderator takes over the banning duty, then a third one steps in...
- and of course, the rules magically shift to fit the moment. (Basically, they'll punish you for anything just to pad the stats.)
The goal is simple:
- paint the user as a troublemaker.
- rotate through different moderators handing out the bans so nobody can claim there's any bias.
This thread is a perfect case study for all four tactics:
- inconsistent criteria (look at what happened with Sam Alvarez4)
- bending the rules, even digging up old posts for "re-reviews" (shoutout to KLCCLK for providing such a clear example)
- just piling on the bans to prove a user is problematic, aiming for a cumulative ban, then using the sheer volume of strikes to "prove" the user is bad.
- swapping out moderators to make it look like everyone agrees on how much of a problem the user is.
In this whole mess, my hands are often tied because, like I said,
- users don't have access to old bans to actually analyze how the mods are behaving.
- most links in the ban notices are one-way streets that lead to private messages (even if the content technically exists in the archives).
- the only paper trail is the penalty notice in the inbox, which fills up so fast you're forced to delete stuff.
- and often, the banned posts contain links to the exact posts that triggered the reaction, but those links mysteriously "disappear," just like I demonstrated with Sam Alvarez4.
So, the only way I can actually bring this into the light is exactly what I'm doing now: posting everything in a thread like this where the mods don't have the power to delete it.
So, I’m asking KLCCLK to weigh in on questions (A), (B), (C), and (D) above.
And specifically, how does the actual penalty only arrive five days later, after a whole string of bans from TheProvense?