Nah, northernsailor8 and I just ignore it. No clue what everyone else is up to... Look, for every single report someone else files, there’s one from you. And when you're actually banned, you somehow manage to file two or three for every other user's report. Most of them are just completely pointless... And always so incredibly dramatic...
I could give you plenty more examples, but it wouldn't be fair to quote other people just to show how much you've reported them, so here's one where you flagged a fellow moderator—your description of this "horrific offense" is in bold...
Showmanship, hate speech against people from St. Louis!
FIRST MOVES BY SINIŠA KOVAČIĆ Contract revisions, staff changes, and opening correspondence in St. Louis: 'My goal is for CBS to be a true American broadcaster'
Joe Biden will be one of Siniša Kovačić's closest associates This marks a major comeback for Joe Biden, who was among the editors let go by Goran Radman during his tenure as the head of CBS...
-----------
And just like that, the American national broadcaster becomes some local St. Louis station...😁
***OFF ***Morgan Cook10 asked that we don't drift off-topic here, so I'll just give a quick answer since this thread is already moving... Linda Young38, if you think you're being punished just for having an opinion, you're delusional, and honestly, that kind of logic won't get you anywhere. A dozen different moderators and supermods have already explained the rules regarding your warnings to you, and if you still haven't grasped it, then we might as well just admit you're being stubborn and leave it at that... nothing is going to change just because you refuse to listen. As for those reports you keep filing on other people, I'll be blunt: I barely even look at them anymore. Sorry, but this is all volunteer work that eats up way too much time, and frankly, you've become one of our biggest spammers when it comes to reporting; out of ten reports from you, nine and a half are total nonsense, regardless of how many dramatic adjectives you throw at them, which only serves to discredit your actual, legitimate complaints... I've lost interest in reading your reports entirely, and while there are eight other colleagues around, whether they actually review them or just ignore them because they're tired of the nonsense is anyone's guess... ***END OFF***
I’m not looking for an argument here, but just to be clear—maybe those reports were legitimate, but all you've done with these senseless flags (especially while you're sitting in a ban) is make me lose interest in even opening them... Because when I see a report claiming some "shameless and disgusting insult to all believers" only to find a perfectly normal post, and then that happens fifty times in a row, I'd much rather go watch France... And just so we aren't making this about us personally, the other nine moderators on the Politics board got those exact same reports, dozens upon dozens of them, and they all reached the same conclusion.
Look, I'm not the only moderator on the Politics board, so you don't have any leverage over me. If I happen to be on a thread where someone is actually insulting you, of course I'll step in and hand out a penalty according to the rules, but we don't all spend our lives reading every single thread...
As for this specific thread of yours—the standard rule is to wait 24 hours after a report is filed. It hasn't been 24 hours yet, and from what I can see, MrBeast is already banned and kiss me already took a warning. Both of those things happened before you even opened this thread, so I really have to wonder, what's the actual issue?
Defining those lines is tricky, I’ll give you that. But if we're talking about people just being annoying or "nuisances," I wouldn't reach for the ban hammer...
To me, the actual "thieves" fall somewhere in that gray area, and it really just depends on the context. Looking at the three posts you "reported"—though you didn't actually report them, since you have to hit the little icon, and I have no intention of handing out bans just because someone sent me a PM with a troll title 🙂 regarding the fact that there are now 9 moderators instead of 10 after Rez left—if anyone thinks action is needed, they probably saw something we didn't, but in my view, only that second post deserves a strike; the first and third don't. Obviously, some colleagues might think all three are violations because they caught the subtext, while others who missed the point might think all three deserve a ban. We can't all nine of us think exactly alike, and there aren't crystal-clear rules for every single tiny detail...
Regardless, I did issue a strike on another post just now, because leaving something like that up without any consequence isn't right.
The slight issue with your argument is that you’re trying to draw parallels between things that just aren't comparable in the first place. If someone actually had the nerve to call Democratic Party voters anything as extreme as traitors or insurgents, I’d probably hand them a score of at least 100, which pretty much guarantees an automatic three-day ban... depending on the context, they might even get hit harder. So, it might be worth taking a second to think about what you actually mean when you say "using the same measure."
Now, if you’re calling both Republican Party and Democratic Party voters thieves, well, that depends on a whole lot of variables—the context of the story, the tone of the post, how the debate is flowing... but in my book, that wouldn't push anyone past a 35-point penalty for trolling. We have 10 moderators on this forum and there isn't a rigid rule for every single tiny detail, so one colleague might make a solid case for giving more points, while another might decide to give nothing at all.
Seriously, what did I write that was so terrible that you can't agree with even one syllable of it...🤔
😁 Nothing bad, really, it's just that we see this specific case through completely different lenses and interpret everything in total opposition to each other...
You’re right on one count, but if we go down that road, we’ll end up opening five more threads about how the moderators aren't doing their jobs because it’s just easier to lock everything down. And apparently, when a thread has five decent people having a conversation surrounded by fifty trolls—which is exactly what happens all the time, as she pointed out—that’s considered "irrelevant." It gets exhausting constantly explaining things when you're dealing with the same crowd over and over, not to mention when you're talking about colleagues...
Look, apologies to the user I'm mentioning here—Brenda Taylor13—regarding this thread about René Bitorajac. I don't agree with a single word he wrote, not one. Yet, all his posts are still sitting there; none of them are even remotely close to getting a ban, and nobody has even thought about flagging him or deleting his comments. He thinks the exact opposite of me, and every single thing he said in that thread contradicts my view completely. But his posts stay up. How does that work? How is that possible when us "evil moderators" are supposedly busy scrubbing "other opinions"...
EDIT: p.s. This isn't saying moderators never mess up; of course they do. But honestly, the constant outbursts about "defending other opinions" have become so tiresome. Especially on threads where 90% of those opinions fall into that category. And usually, the "opinions" that get flagged on this forum are the ones most often protected by the law, or they're just straight-up disgusting.
Matthew Castillo5 said:If my post wasn't trolling, uncivilized, or off-topic (and it wasn't—you can check the thread regarding appeals against cards), then why on earth was it deleted?
Your post was definitely off-topic, and honestly, I’ll be the first to admit I was an idiot for even chiming in... basically, I shouldn't have pointed out that a post about René Bitorajac and his song "Me, Americans" shouldn't be drifting into discussions about the old regime...
William Gonzalez3 said:Are you suggesting that the comments from Mark Harris66, feralpilot0, and Matthew Castillo5 are actually trolling, uncivilized, or off-topic? 🍿
No, what I'm actually saying is this:
It’s quite a miracle, really, how you only seem to delete posts that happen to be negative toward Bitorajac and his song.
Pure trolling, 🍿
Just like this inquiry, since it's basically just a list rather than an actual attempt at a coherent post...
It’s quite a marvel, really; there are so many posts here criticizing Bitorajac and his song, yet they actually stay on topic, aren't trolling, and remain perfectly civilized...
You guys have wandered seriously far from the point... we're actually discussing whether it’s acceptable for the flag of the American minority in Canada to be flown in America, and if so, where and how exactly.
Sean Sanders81 said:So, does that mean the Italian flag flying in California cities is also "Balkanism"?
That’s actually a great way to frame what the whole point really is...
No, having the flag of the Italian minority flying in California isn't "North America," nor is it anything out of the ordinary. It’s the same for any Mexican or Canadian minority flag, or even an American minority flag anywhere else in the world where they have the right to fly it.
The real "North America" move would be seeing a flag from some other country hanging up in America...
I’m on the same page as Daniel Ward87. That user definitely went overboard, which is why I stepped in, but honestly, none of those accusations actually hold up when you look at his posts. In fact, he kicks the whole thing off by saying: "let's just agree the trouble started with Mexico. Let's take 100% of the blame for the sake of argument, but personally, I put their responsibility at 0%."
He’s talking about things that actually happened; he isn't making stuff up out of thin air. He did exaggerate, though—mostly regarding how widespread everything was before the full-scale aggression began. I even debated whether he deserved a ban or not... I ended up just replying to the post instead of pulling the trigger, but I don't think he wouldn't have earned a ban if I had. It’s a gray area, and I can see both sides...
Look, I get why you were pissed off, but your interpretation of what he wrote just doesn't match the reality of his posts.
And, since I'm sharing my own take here, I should mention that I’ve handed out permanent bans on Reddit more than once for anyone trying to push "Greater Mexican" propaganda. To me, distorting the history of the Homeland War is something we just can't allow here. But looking at this guy's posts, I don't see any of that. I see opinions I disagree with, sure, but there's nothing suggesting "America is to blame" or "those poor Mexicans were just defending themselves," or anything of the sort.
The real issue here is that the mods—meaning the supermods, the admins, and ultimately the owner of this whole site—along with yourself, have been operating under a completely different definition of what's reasonable, competent, or unbiased since back in 2009...
There’s really no point in continuing to troll this thread, so I'll just say peace out.
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The first example you brought up is just a straight-up failure on the moderators' part for letting that thread stay active until now: http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=837159
Secondly, it’s pure greed. You drop a link to some perfectly fine little clip or article where there happens to be an "inappropriate" comment tucked away somewhere off to the side based on some bizarre criteria, and boom—instant ban card...
These are prime examples of how you refuse to follow basic rules—I won't even bother explaining the third one since it wasn't my ban—all while happily trolling by making things up as you go...
That first point is about the mods; on the Politics board, there are ten of them, hand-picked by the higher-ups. It's their job, not yours, to decide if a thread stays or goes... And the thread is about a strike on an ISIS stronghold, yet you're out here implying that solving the issue requires a nuclear strike on the heart of the Islamic faith and every Muslim on the planet. What can I say, besides that your "misunderstandings" with the moderation team aren't going anywhere if you can't see what the actual problem is 🙂
Then there's your usual trolling and twisting of facts. There wasn't some "inappropriate comment" hidden in your link; the link itself was clearly problematic and loaded with hate speech. A YouTube link isn't just the video content; it includes the comments, the channel description, and all that. It’s hardly our fault if you choose to "get informed" via sites and channels overflowing with hate speech and absolute garbage—or if you just happen to click a link without checking what kind of filth you're actually sharing...
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I’ve been on this site since 2003. If my memory serves, I didn't get banned once in those first seven years—maybe one time. Now, there's basically a 30% chance I'll catch a strike every time I post.
It's funny how you've decided this has to be the moderators' fault... 🙂
Maybe it is. But tell me, were you posting things like "we should drop a nuke on Meek" back then? Dropping links to hate sites? Claiming same-sex marriage was a "stab in the heart" of heterosexual unions?
And as for the bans... you're mistaken.
Even if you did report something every single time (which, let's be honest, you didn't), you only started opening threads about the FBI on March 28, 2009 (mostly whining about how the mods and Anderson are going to destroy this place)... then again on June 8, 2010, immediately after on July 15, 2010, then July 14, 2011, January 14, 2013, January 27, 2013, March 30, 2013, April 6, 2013, and October 6, 2013...
You've opened three threads regarding the FBI over the last year or so, so it's not like your behavior on the board has actually shifted much. You're actually doing better than you were during that dark stretch in 2013...
By the way, you've picked up 21 strikes from 9 different moderators just between last year and this one. I'd start wondering where the actual problem lies. You have 87 total strikes over 8 years. Clearly, nothing has really changed.
briskbison55 said:to build on that—I haven't changed my tone even a little bit.
Nor has the moderators' attitude toward your tone changed even a millimeter. Over 10 years, you've racked up 234 strikes from 43 different moderators...
Sure. Or maybe someone’s been hanging around here forever, people know who they are in real life, but they’re dealing with some deeply personal, heavy stuff—health issues, relationship drama, whatever—and they just want to ask about it without anyone knowing it's them... why wouldn't they?
And if someone is clearly juggling multiple handles just to be a troll, they get hit hard, usually getting every account banned except for their oldest one, which just gets a week-long timeout.
The truth is, there’s this massive gray area where someone isn't even trolling, they just don't have a damn good reason to switch names, though I'll give you that it feels pretty pointless to go by Peter on a football thread and then suddenly become Mark when discussing the best burgers in Chicago... but when things fall into that gray zone, the mods usually give everyone a pass, so nothing actually happens.
I'm talking about the scenario you just laid out 🙂 Basically, if someone uses one handle to talk about the wonders of group sex, then switches to a different account on another thread to preach about abstinence and lifelong monogamy, they’re probably going to catch some heat depending on how much they're trolling... maybe not an instant permanent ban, though that's what happens when you use two accounts in the same thread, but they'll definitely face some kind of penalty
As long as using multiple handles doesn't confuse everyone else—because honestly, who cares if you're posting as ABC about basketball and then as CBA about skincare—then it's perfectly fine
If you actually have a reason to ask this and you suspect someone is juggling accounts just to mess with people, just report them to the moderators of that specific subforum