I moderate the PZK boards, but I don't have control over avatars; you'll need to reach out to an admin for that. It would be wise to follow moderator instructions and try to de-escalate the tension here.
Penetrator, the forum posts on this page were all submitted within an hour of yours. It’s frankly pointless to file a formal grievance so immediately. In these situations, the protocol is to report the post and wait at least 24 hours; if there hasn't been any movement from the moderators by then, only then can we examine why no action was taken.
Joe Biden has his own agenda to deal with; this is just ten or fifteen seconds of audio stripped of any context. I fail to see why this warrants an entirely new thread.
rapidnomad512, I think I follow your drift... Look, I know people are going to say I’m just talking nonsense, but I genuinely care about fostering actual dialogue on this forum, and I try to do my best to facilitate that (it's the same approach I take with most of my colleagues at work). We’ll agree on things sometimes, and we won't at others; that's just how it goes. Regardless, I’d ask both you and the rest of the community to please utilize the formal appeals process—whether you prefer being direct or if you find it more convenient personally. Over the last month or so, I've been buried under an intense workload and haven't had the bandwidth to deal with much, so I may have reviewed some appeals without giving them the scrutiny they deserved. That said, I’m hopeful that the process will improve moving forward.
Regarding everyone asking about Marasovac... Since I stepped into one of the moderator roles here, there have actually been several initiatives to have him pardoned. However, none of them were successful. I am well aware of the arguments used to justify his status, but that isn't simply how the system operates. As for his permanent ban, he received it before I ever became involved with the Politics section, so I didn't track the case and honestly have no idea why he was banned in the first place. Consequently, I can't say for certain how the moderators there (or anyone else) would react to a request to revoke the ban. But unless I formally submit such a request, we’ll never truly know.
bluecyclist64 wasn't even penalized for breaking the rules; he was flagged for blatant trolling, and I simply adjusted the penalty points and duration accordingly. He isn't being protected by any special interest group—if anything, his own accusations that we're being too harsh with similar arguments prove my point. Ultimately, moderation requires judgment. If it didn't, we wouldn't need moderators at all; we'd just need some technician or an algorithm to hand out penalties based on a manual. Mistakes happen sometimes; no one is immune to them. Besides, I can't recall a single moderator who hasn't occasionally changed their mind, whether it was by choice or due to external pressure. In this specific instance, the moderator's assessment—which I agree with—was that bluecyclist64's post didn't constitute classic hate speech, even if the trolling was obnoxious. Therefore, the penalty was scaled to match that reality.
Regarding the explanation for your own penalty, which included elements of doxxing private communications: you have already been warned about such behavior, and I am asking you to never do it again. In this particular case, you cited private discussions and agreements among the moderators that were never intended for public view; you shouldn't be privy to those, let alone discussing them here. Given that you are debating how someone else should be punished, keep in mind that the standard penalty for posting private information is 500 points and a 7-day ban. Even then, the moderator exercised discretion and adjusted the penalty significantly due to certain mitigating circumstances.
Just as with bluecyclist64's appeal, I have nothing more to debate regarding this matter. Users are ultimately responsible for what they write and how they interact with their peers. Moderators cannot be everywhere at once to stop things before they escalate. When we do intervene, we strive to adhere to established criteria while keeping the context and the subject matter in mind.
The user behind that top post hasn't actually been penalized for breaking any forum rules. If you take a look over at the community boards or check the appeals section regarding recent moderation actions, you'll see him venting his frustration about the penalty there.
The "top topics" designation is reserved for subjects deemed significant by the moderators or those carrying particular weight for the community and society at large. A Veterans protest isn't exactly breaking news anymore, so there is no reason for it to be pinned at the top; besides, as others have pointed out, if people start discussing it, it will naturally rise to the top anyway.
Absolutely not. We aren't going to have a thread where users just vent about ancient, long-settled disputes, or engage in that kind of indiscriminate, blanket criticism of the entire system—much like someone complaining about every single thing in a dive bar.
Adam Collins4 said:What’s the point of sending the link when I already filed my report nearly 48 hours ago?
Plus, there's this whole habit of trying to bait people by throwing out labels like "commie" or "socialist"...
It's always the same tired routine—same old tactics—which basically means they don't have a single valid argument left to make.
The reason we ask for the link is because moderators aren't admins; they don't automatically see every single report filed. As for that instance involving the heavy profanity, we caught it and took action ourselves—it’s entirely possible there was a technical glitch with your initial report. Please just use the reporting tool; there isn't any other way.
Other matters are left to the moderator's discretion. For instance, personally, I don't view the word "comrade" as an insult at all, and if someone feels slighted by it, that's their own business.
There aren't any links, nor is there an official complaint; you know how this works. Politics on a scale this large means hundreds of posts fly by every single day, making it necessary to report issues and simply exercise some patience. If there’s no response from the mods, then one comes here. I don't recall ever failing to react to an ad hominem attack like the one you're insinuating above.
Slow down, please. The local police department isn't some 24/7 emergency call center where someone is expected to jump at the phone the second it rings.
Moderation is fundamentally about steering the conversation in the right direction. From my perspective, adjusting the thread title actually allowed the discussion to evolve naturally. Without that change, we would have just ended up in a repetitive loop of worshiping Ta-Nehisi Coates. And since you mentioned that there is already a general thread dedicated to The Los Angeles Times, your insistence on focusing solely on how Ta-Nehisi Coates reacts to court rulings could easily be redirected to the broader discussion regarding Ta-Nehisi Coates.
If the discussion regarding Lourdes was shut down, I take responsibility for that, as I was the one who suggested it to my colleagues.
To be clear, I haven't been following the thread closely; most of what I read were debates over whether the visionaries at Lourdes are truly divinely inspired or merely frauds or mentally ill. In many posts, however, this devolved into nothing more than mockery and insults, which is always an issue.
But let us start from the beginning... The Pope suggesting a direction for resolving the long-standing investigation into the miracles at Lourdes is not, in itself, playing at politics. In a sense, it might be indirectly political because any decision made will undoubtedly set a precedent for how future miracles are evaluated, thereby impacting the policy of Vatican City. However, the matter itself is simply a formal conclusion regarding whether these miracles actually occurred, if they were fabricated for certain reasons, or if the matter remains uncertain. We expect the resolution to either grant legitimacy to the shrine (thereby providing formal permission for Catholic hierarchy officials to organize pilgrimages), strip the shrine of its legitimacy by attempting to marginalize it and asking the faithful not to visit, or, perhaps as a compromise, withhold official legitimacy while not preventing or discouraging people from visiting through their own private organizations. Therefore, the upcoming decisions—assuming they even occur, as the Pope is under no obligation to act—are primarily concerned with the religious perspective of the shrine. Secondly, although many citizens of the US visit the site, the shrine is not located in America, and the entire situation is not an American political issue, even if it were considered a political one. Thirdly, we have no desire to open unnecessary doors for the division of the faithful, nor do we wish to implicate the local residents of the area regarding the construction of lodging and hospitality facilities. Neither of those are matters tied to politics.
Regarding the rest of your report, I ask that you refrain from attacking the moderation team in such a broad manner in the future; it is neither polite nor useful to anyone.
Look, William Bennett53, I didn't bother replying to you because you spent the last few messages complaining about me, and frankly, I see little point in explaining myself all over again. To ensure this thread doesn't devolve into a debate about veterans, let me offer a brief recap of my stance—though anyone interested can certainly elaborate further: You tend to be quite abrasive and disrespectful toward your colleagues, yet somehow find it deeply offensive when someone dares to be critical of protesters. If there is an issue with double standards here, it lies with you, not us.
One of your posts, where you were mocking another user, and one where you were critiquing the moderation team, have been removed. Curiously enough, you didn't even receive a formal warning. I would ask that we refrain from opening these types of grievance threads over such trivial matters.
Could someone please summarize what happened to Lewis Hamilton in just two sentences? I caught the moment the Scuderia Ferrari car came out, but then I had to look away for a second—when I looked back, he had dropped to third.