Posts by William Bennett53

rowdyrider12 said:Kudos to Red Bull

Precisely. 🙏 🙏
I imagine the folks over at Ferrari are feeling quite satisfied right now, knowing they were turned down for those engines.

It appears Max Verstappen is getting ready to give a stern lecture to all the critics questioning his strange little oversight. 😳

Hey there, what's up? I have to admit, I am completely new to this site. 🙏

Bravo, Fernando Alonso. 🙏 🙏 This is going to be one hell of a celebration with the home crowd.

On another note, I couldn't track down the Kyiv stream, so I ended up flipping over to NBC. Good grief, the commentators are absolutely grating. 🙂

Look, I've passed along the message to Nick, letting him know that the community would really appreciate it if he'd post a photo under this Nick to help foster some unity and dial down the tension.
Until he decides to do so—or chooses not to—I am closing this thread to prevent it from devolving into a mere chat room.
My thanks for the suggestion in the interest of the forum's well-being.

neonfox65 said:Sure he will—if both Mercedes, both Ferraris, and both Red Bull Racing cars all just quit... 😁

If two Mercedes-AMG cars, two Ferraris, and two Red Bull Racing cars all pull out, then Williams Racing and AlphaTauri would be the ones making up the podium. 😁

Otherwise, it’s a shame this poll isn't public. Personally, I suspect Ricciardo will absolutely demolish the smaller teams, provided there isn't some higher power intervening—you know, things like collisions or mechanical failures.

In that thread filled with nonsense and petty insults, you correctly pointed out that the discussion really ought to be moved to the basement. We have already exhausted the debate regarding deletions, and frankly, these other sub-sections aren't necessary nor do they offer any constructive value.

Essentially, the entire PZK exists to handle appeals regarding moderation, yet these very appeals are what maintain order and keep things organized. In other words, when discussing an appeal that triggered a thread, the arguments need to be transparent, well-documented, and specific...

Matthew Castillo5 🙂 If I end up handing you a warning card, I’ll likely feel more regretful about it than you will. Therefore, I must ask: please refrain from commenting on the moderation within this thread and stop drifting off-topic here.

@William Gonzalez3
No one was actually obligated to respond to your trolling, considering you didn't even pose an actual question.

As for everyone else, the moderators involved in that matter are still available to provide answers, and if necessary, the supermoderator can step in as well. However, you have been a moderator long enough to know that since we implemented the "Questions for Forum Administration" protocol, we haven't had these group threads where people just barge in at their own whim, insisting on an answer to whatever they feel like.

I see that in the meantime, your appeal (the recent one, not that non-existent one from your first post) has been granted, and your post has been restored. Thank you for your participation and your suggestions.

William Gonzalez3 said:🤦 🤦 🤦 🤦

Well, of course—she was the one lodging the complaint, whereas the rest of us forum members—myself included—only stepped in to thank the moderators for cleaning things up and to commend them for doing a solid job.

If we actually wanted to lodge formal complaints, I suppose we would have all just started our own separate threads to vent, wouldn't we?
🙂

In your very first post in this thread, you were clearly just trolling, and if memory serves, not a single moderator even acknowledged it. If there was some underlying desire for you to express regret, well, it certainly escaped us.

But moving past that, I was responding to the general inquiry, not specifically to you, so I trust we can consider this misunderstanding resolved.

William Gonzalez3 said:That’s just not true.
My post had absolutely nothing to do with him as an individual.

I was focusing entirely on the song—and, I suppose, offering a quick word of praise to my fellow moderator for his surgically precise dissection of our daily reality.

If even the super-moderators are making these kinds of slips, then I guess it’s no wonder the regular moderators end up acting quite foolishly.

Furthermore, from what I’ve been able to see, nobody was actually calling for René Bitorajac to be banned from discussing certain topics.

The point was simply questioning how someone—a convicted violent offender who attacked another person with a metal rod—can put himself in such a high moral position to critique social reality.
It seems like a perfectly legitimate question to ask, regardless of how much people try to silence it—or, you know, delete the very posts that bring it up and then accuse anyone who questions censorship of being part of the problem.

🤦 This isn't your appeal, and I haven't been looking through your posts, nor do I know if there are any deleted ones in that thread. I am talking about the posts belonging to Michelle Evans, who submitted an inquiry regarding her own posts.

At first glance, this thread appears to be about censorship on the forum, but after scrolling through less than a page of posts, it becomes clear that we are actually witnessing a desire for societal censorship. Specifically, all the deleted posts focus exclusively on the individual who performed that little song number, starting with unverified claims that he got into high school through some sort of connection—which might be true or entirely fabricated, but frankly, it doesn't matter since he certainly wasn't pulling any strings as a teenager. As previously noted, numerous posts making similar claims about Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović were also removed. Comparing comments about Kolinda's weight to this isn't a valid parallel because: 1. nobody here is debating, for instance, René's baldness, 2. René isn't an official or even a politician, but an artist, so whether his record is spotless is irrelevant, and 3. Kolinda is a figure on the political stage; she is a politician and the president of our beautiful nation.

Furthermore, why do I believe this is about a desire to censor rather than an attempt to prevent it?

Mark Harris66 said:René is a public figure under contract with the ZKM. Since I live and work in the city, part of my paycheck goes toward the local government budget that funds the ZKM. Therefore, the claim that he isn't being funded is inaccurate, and he does indeed carry a certain degree of responsibility to the public, just like anyone else whose salary comes from the public treasury. If he didn't receive a single cent from a city, county, or state budget, his moral responsibility wouldn't be my concern.

And then:

Mark Harris66 said:René's moral authority matters because he receives a salary from public funds. I believe anyone drawing money from the public purse must be a responsible person and avoid contributing to negative societal trends; moreover, they should work for the general welfare of society. He can do whatever he wants at home—that's irrelevant to me (provided he isn't breaking US laws)—but his public actions are a different story.

So, even though he isn't an official or a politician, he is expected to watch what he says. His moral responsibility stems from the fact that, as an actor, part of his income comes via a contract (which I assume isn't a standard employment contract) with a theater funded by the city, and since the city is a local government unit within the United States, essentially, the state is paying René. Following this logic, a janitor wouldn't be allowed to express an opinion publicly either if he works as a contractor sweeping floors at a stadium, simply because sports teams are funded by taxpayer dollars and the man is effectively on the government payroll.

Finally, because of all this, he shouldn't "contribute to negative societal trends," but rather "work for the general welfare." It seems "negative societal trends" are apparently created whenever someone dares to speak up against the nationalist-conservative mainstream. Thus, the issue isn't what René sings (about which he may or may not be right), but rather that his singing points it out. Should we stone the boy who shouts "the emperor has no clothes" just because he took a lollipop from the table without asking and shouldn't be helping people realize the emperor is naked?

In my view, deleting posts—which, having been done thousands of times, is the most standard moderator action to prevent a discussion from spiraling or being derailed—was entirely justified.

So, you were complaining about the penalty. Here is the evidence:

HoD said:I was issued a warning shortly after for insulting other users, so I am wondering what exactly in my post constitutes an insult.

Beyond that, in this thread, you have done nothing but seek clarification on the site rules, claiming your previous thread was locked without you ever receiving an answer...

HoD said:Hello everyone. Yesterday, I posted a question regarding certain matters to help make the forum a better and more polite environment, as outlined in this PDF. I received no response, and the thread where I posed it was closed.

Let us recall how that unfolded:

Noah Vaughn39 said:I have a question for the administration. We have seen the policy over at CNN. They delete threads where users leave posts with political connotations. Does this rule apply to the entire forum or just to CNN? For instance, if someone opens a thread about recipes and I jump in to start discussing politics, will my posts be flagged and removed, or will the entire thread be deleted?

Thank you in advance for the reply, so that we can ensure the forum remains a pleasant place for everyone to write.

William Bennett53 said:HoD, there are no universal rules of that nature. Every sub-forum is its own small ecosystem with its own specific discourse, rules, and sense of humor... Universal rules consist of general forum guidelines—prohibitions against insulting interlocutors, discrimination based on race, gender, religion... and commenting on moderation.

Therefore, please ask in the Food section.
This topic is exhausted.
Thanks, everyone.

In short: you asked a question, you received an answer, and then you opened yet another thread to ask the exact same thing, claiming you hadn't been answered while simultaneously seeking clarification on the penalty you had just received. Since it is simply untrue that you didn't receive an answer, the matter was moved to the appeals section, which is precisely what that section is for. And now, here you are, opening yet another thread, this time claiming you weren't even appealing the penalty.

Please, let’s not open another one. This isn't CNN; the whole point of this subforum's idiosyncrasy is that we maintain a more formal and disciplined tone specifically to prevent these kinds of attempts at bandwagoning.

We don't need this kind of discourse here on Amtrak. The moderators over at the Politics board are doing their best to keep the absolute chaos surrounding the situation in Ukraine somewhat contained. Just as a side note from my perspective: labeling someone a Putinophile versus a fascist sympathizer isn't a fair comparison of "epithets." Declaring someone a fascist simply because they don't align with the Russian side of this conflict shouldn't be an acceptable standard.
Greetings to all.

Amanda Diaz, there really isn't such a thing as a set of universal rules for these matters. Each sub-forum functions as its own little ecosystem, complete with its own unique discourse, internal logic, and specific sense of humor. Universal rules are generally reserved for the overarching site policy—things like prohibiting personal attacks or preventing discrimination based on race, gender, or religion... and, of course, the standard guidelines regarding moderator interactions.

So, perhaps you should direct your inquiry to the Food & Drink board.
I believe we have exhausted this particular topic.
My thanks to everyone.

The moderators didn't exactly give you the green light on your request.

I reached out to the moderator to see if we could get your request pushed through. I truly am sorry you've had to deal with this, though I can't fathom why anyone would attempt to ignore you. If a partial fulfillment is the only way to make this happen, then so be it.

Edit:
The request has been approved.

Politics always finds a way to hijack any discussion and turn it into a referendum on the moderation team, so I’m cleaning up the excess noise here.
To give you the specifics, Joseph Allen71 is calling for a partial recount regarding the Politics section, apparently triggered by dissatisfaction over a single reaction—or perhaps a general wave of discontent that led to that specific reaction. Looking closely at the context, however, one gets the impression this isn't a formal demand, but rather a bit of stylistic hyperbole.
In any case, both the moderator and the supermod have weighed in, and I believe the matter is now settled. Moderators aren't automatons; there is always room for discretion in our decisions. Even if someone deserved a warning and didn't receive one, it doesn't constitute an established policy, so there is no need for unnecessary alarm.
If Joseph Allen71 insists on pursuing this recount, he is welcome to reach out via private message, where his request can be handled (keeping in mind the notice regarding removals that Michelle Evans previously outlined).