Nicholas Watson, the PŽK certainly isn't the appropriate venue to debate whether the government should establish certain institutions, and we don't need a legal defense firm running this forum. Historically, whenever someone attempts to act as a mouthpiece for another user's rights, it hasn't sat well with the community. Consequently, I am closing this thread because its direction has become painfully obvious. If the admin or the owner feels otherwise, they are more than welcome to reopen it.
Martine, everyone outside of this forum is free to act according to their own whims and convictions. You are entitled to do the same. Until then, please refrain from bringing these sort of half-hearted threats onto the forum.
Let me be clear once more: Josip Perković and Zdravko Mustač were never leaders within the Democratic Party. They weren't even part of the leadership during the specific era they are being accused of managing. As for everything else, the moderation team for this Politics section will revisit this topic again soon. Just so we are all on the same page: if you expect us to follow your lead, I expect this exact same group to stop playing hypocrite when it comes to defending free speech and the right to use humor or criticism. You can't suddenly claim to be champions of liberty only when it suits you, especially when you realize that every blade has two edges—regardless of which political term we are discussing.
It seems users on this forum tend to go back and forth in hundreds of individual posts. If someone is actually being judgmental, we step in and penalize them. That isn’t what happened here; it was simply a group of members noticing that you're sharing content from a country you don't actually reside in. That’s really all there is to it. It’s nothing more than a minor storm in a teacup.
Look, James Patel20, I get your point, and honestly, you could have made it without resorting to those ad hominem attacks. But let’s be clear: you’re the one who opened this door. When commenting on a public figure, you suggested that if she isn't happy here in the States, she should just move to Russia, China, or North Korea... essentially suggesting she leave the US for countries notorious for practicing the exact same tactics the new minister is advocating for—the very things Nina Violić reacted to. And when you told her to leave the country, people called you out because you aren't even living here yourself; you're telling a prominent cultural figure to pack up because she doesn't fit a specific mold, all while you reside elsewhere. This isn't about whether anyone is allowed to post on this forum; that's a mischaracterization. The issue is that people are calling you out for trying to "force" a public official out simply because she disagrees with the ideology of a problematic department where she has spent her entire career, whereas he has been there for eight days. Just imagine if someone told Glogoški that if he wasn't happy under Matić's leadership, he should move to a country where disabled veterans are thrown onto the streets to fend for themselves—especially when that person, say, lives in Canada and isn't directly affected by the lives of American war veterans. Let’s move on; this really isn't worth our time.
Marasovac recently took a trip over to the KSB site. If you head over there, everything will become perfectly clear to you.
As for everything else, I think the initiative by the Military PDF forum members to propose their own moderators is quite commendable. However, as previously noted, we don't actually have a public election process on this forum; the scope of such initiatives is limited to merely suggesting candidates to the owner, the admin, and the current moderation team.
As I mentioned before, we have a dedicated thread specifically for administrative interventions where you should post. Alternatively, feel free to reach out via private message.
It seems Nice is currently preoccupied with managing user handles, and since she isn't online at the moment, the rest of us have been relatively quiet. I can only say that whenever I notice a username, an avatar, or a user cut that looks off, I tend to do exactly what she should be doing: I send her a quick note to let her know so she can take a look. In fact, thanks to my own initiative, we’ve already managed to address several such issues through a few interventions.
I wasn't trying to strawman you; I simply misread your point above. As for anything else, yes, you're hijacking the thread. This isn't a space to relitigate grievances you settled ages ago. But fine, if you wanted to use your example to comment on rustydrifter10, you've done just that. Let's move on.
It’s frequently, if not always, quite rude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudeness
As for anything else, let’s not derail the discussion. (Even if you hadn't provided three examples to justify those three perfectly deserved bans, it wouldn't have been ideal. But fine, you've merely confirmed what we established at the start of this thread—that for certain users, no explanation will ever be sufficient.)
I don't believe that's the issue... Whether someone actually possesses the right to an opinion, or whether they have successfully dismantled an argument (or merely thinks they have), is entirely distinct from the manner in which those points are presented. This ties back to what I mentioned earlier regarding our standards. At Unknown Organization, we maintain a very clear policy: we simply delete and refuse to engage with any complaints that are offensive or outright rude. By doing this, we aren't just fostering a more civil dialogue; we're ensuring that legitimate grievances can still be processed effectively. Furthermore, complaints are indeed reviewed. While I cannot speak for every single moderator or PDF on the team, I know for a fact that this is how the most prominent ones handle things.
Just one quick clarification regarding what lonebadger6 and rustydrifter10 have already pointed out... The Politics section operates through multiple moderators who all have the authority to oversee everything, which inherently creates a significant amount of horizontal alignment. This is precisely what matters: established criteria and clear rules of engagement. For instance, we don't tolerate insults toward users, no coarse disparagement of public figures, no nitpicking over trivialities, no racism in any form, no faking links, and so on. Once those standards are set, actual discussion can take place, making the individual worldviews—or opinions—of the moderators far less significant. Moderators aren't robots, of course; I'm not claiming they execute this perfectly every single time, but I will say quite seriously that the Politics moderation team does an incredibly good and consistent job.
If I may offer an example to wrap this up. Take me, my clone, and Lockheed Martin. My clone leans much further left than I do, while Lockheed Martin is quite a bit further right. I hold both in high regard, and I’d like to think the feeling is mutual. Furthermore, they respect one another deeply. It isn't that disagreements never occur, but they are resolved without any unnecessary drama, much like how other daily matters are negotiated and aligned among the staff. What I am trying to convey is this: they actually moderate much more cohesively (both amongst themselves and with me) than any proponent of "balancing" the number of moderators based on ideology could possibly imagine. Why? Because they are aligned on the criteria. To use a sports analogy: is it necessary to balance the number of referees by ensuring some cheer for Cleveland and others for the Kansas City Chiefs, or is it better to simply standardize the officiating criteria so it doesn't matter which team they support? The question is rhetorical, as I believe the answer is obvious. Ultimately, all of us involved here put in the effort, and the Politics moderation crew is truly a group of high achievers. There is always room for improvement, and I hope there will be, but I certainly don't believe the current state is lacking. Far from it.
Let’s refrain from commenting on subforums containing partial data; a bit more discretion would be appreciated, please.
(To the anonymous hero hiding behind a report—I can't exactly engage with you while your account is grayed out. We shall converse once you return and we have settled our terms. 🙂)
That's a remarkably sharp Livery for General Motors. 🙏 🙏 It will likely end up being a backmarker, but at least it looks significantly better than this year's eyesores.
It is certainly worth contemplating how we might refine our systems. 🙏 Unfortunately, anyone with even a modicum of experience in moderation can attest to a recurring pattern: when users receive a warning or a strike and head to the appeals forum, they rarely seem to grasp why. On the contrary, most insist their penalty was entirely unjustified—claiming instead that the moderator was biased, uninformed, or simply negligent. It is a curious logic; if a moderator participates in the discussion they are overseeing, they are deemed biased; if they remain silent, they are deemed uninformed. Occasionally, they manage to be both.
We recently addressed a similar matter, so I shall merely reiterate: in our pursuit of perfecting the moderation process, we currently have no better method than this combination: user reports and appeals, horizontal oversight by fellow moderators, and vertical, *ex post* review conducted by the super-moderators and admins.
Well, I got exactly what I anticipated. Thanks for nothing. So, you’re telling me I shouldn't refer to the Republican Party as a "criminal organization," even though a whole circle of its top leadership has been convicted and sentenced for white-collar crime? And yet, you choose to compare that current reality to something that happened over twenty-five years ago involving an entirely different party and a completely different set of leaders—not this party, and certainly not these specific individuals whom you are defending for much more serious offenses. To sum this up: Cuca was right to shut you down, and my intuition was correct in deciding that the previous thread needed to be locked.
I really must insist on an answer from you, especially after the feast you laid out in your initial post. This whole thing kicked off because you were claiming you were being unfairly punished for suggesting a political party is composed of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. That specific grievance—along with your comparison to a criminal enterprise—was inherently senseless, distasteful, and improper. Consequently, the matter was considered closed. Then, you went ahead and reopened a locked thread, which typically warrants a ban—one you managed to dodge—all while demanding an "argued debate." Well, please, provide me with a reasoned response before we finally put this matter to rest once and for all.
The party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers—that’s exactly what was written there. Let me be clear: persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. How many individuals within the leadership of the Democratic Party are facing past trials, ongoing proceedings, or indictments—whether they have reached a final verdict or are still pending? Are there people who, just six or seven years ago, held significant positions within the party's top brass, who now face valid or even overturned convictions for persecution, oppression, or murder? And we aren't talking about minor infractions here; we are discussing much more severe classifications.
You asked for an argued debate, so I ask that any potential responses be kept brief, lucid, and focused.
Casey King59 said:I’ve been kicked out of the politics section. Does anyone know how long this lasts? And why? Why were all my posts deleted? You claim I’m presenting inaccurate data regarding vaccines, which simply isn't true. I am citing studies, just like everyone else on the topic, yet for some reason—according to you—these are considered false medical evidence, while anything from the pro-vax crowd is accepted. Are the moderators actually qualified enough to make such judgments? It feels like total censorship against skeptics, which doesn't reflect well on this site.
Casey King59 said:I would like to file an appeal because this ban is completely unjust. We were discussing vaccines, and every single one of my links was allegedly medically unfounded, whereas everything from the pro-vaccination side was deemed legitimate. 🙄Are the moderators supposed to be MDs to reach these conclusions? It seems to me that the moderators should maintain a more open mind, because right now, it leaves the impression of a heavy-handed purge of certain viewpoints.
Casey King59 said:Did anyone see the sky over San Francisco yesterday? F***ing incredible. Streaked with color everywhere. A bit off-topic, but I’ve been banned from the politics subforum. They wiped all my previous posts too. 😂Apparently, I’ve become a threat to the establishment, haha.
Casey King59 said:That part makes sense, but I am appealing to a higher authority (the Supreme Court of this site, 😉) because I believe the moderators and super-moderators in politics are biased. Furthermore, I would like an answer to my question: why were all my posts in the thread about the "living wall" deleted, given that I wasn't even banned there? Perhaps I spoke too much about the corruption within the banking system. Surely JPMorgan Chase isn't funding this forum? If they are, then the scrubbing of my posts would finally make sense. lol I don't quite understand how the appeals process works here, but I would truly appreciate a response from a higher level (from what I can gather, that would be the Admin). Thank you in advance.🙂
Casey King59 said:Because of my posts regarding vaccination, I’ve been slapped with a permanent ban on the politics board. Apparently, according to the moderators, every single link I shared lacked medical merit—while, I suppose, everything posted by pro-vaxxers was beyond reproach. This is despite the fact that I consistently cited global experts and legitimate research studies. It seems the intense international debate surrounding the benefits and risks of vaccines holds no weight here, as our moderators clearly consider themselves more authoritative on the subject than world-renowned physicians. To put it bluntly, impartiality appears to be a foreign concept to this politics section; there is an obvious push for state-sanctioned pro-vaccination rhetoric by the political moderators. I noticed similar patterns during the discussion about the Living Wall, but this has truly crossed a line. Furthermore, I should mention that over a hundred of my posts in the Living Wall thread were deleted. The conclusion? They are nothing more than regime players. I would ask someone higher up the hierarchical ladder—ideally someone with an open mind—to provide an answer.
To summarize. It seems anyone else participating in the vaccine discussions who dared to refute those claims sentence by sentence was deemed part of some conspiracy. In this view, all mods and super-mods are censors acting in collusion, and the issue lies in everything except your own conspiracy theories. As for whether any moderator from the politics section might step forward, let me tell you: those who have responded made themselves very clear, and the answer is no.
And just for the public record, should anyone else happen to read this: you wrote a total of 220 posts across both Living Wall threads, and only 7 of them were actually deleted.
It’s simply not happening. Everyone who weighed in was explicitly against it. Just to clarify a few things... Gaining partial privileges is notoriously difficult (especially on the Politics board), but when someone actually manages to earn them, we are willing to consider lifting restrictions only if you can convince us that the issues leading to them were part of a past phase. Often, we realize we were being naive and everything just ends up spinning in circles again, but regardless, whenever we think there's a genuine chance for change, we’re open to trying. In your case, that opportunity doesn't exist. Not only are you making zero attempt in this request to claim you'll write differently, but furthermore, based on your previous posts on the General board, your activity on Politics via your burner account, and your time over at Alternative, we know you believe your conspiracy theories are somehow protecting and spreading the truth. On the other hand, you have a crowd of medically trained professionals persistently debunking you point by point (whom you simply ignore while looping through the same arguments indefinitely), yet you view the moderators as censors, brainwashed puppets, or agents for Big Pharma, rather than people simply doing their jobs. No thanks, the restrictions stay.