It isn’t actually against the rules to maintain multiple identities; the issue arises when one uses them to manipulate an argument. You simply create a new handle and proceed. Once you find yourself back on the threads where you previously posted, you can reach out to the moderators to clarify your identity so they know who you are, then move forward without using the old nickname. It’s really as simple as that. 👍
Is there any point in even attempting to engage with such a user? One finds oneself staring at a blank screen, wondering if there was ever a coherent thought behind that handle to begin with. Does anyone else feel this persistent sense of futility when encountering these types of profiles, or am I simply alone in my skepticism? kaže: Now you’re taking things to an extreme. I can only say that I have always been a frequent reader of the political columns over at the New York Times, and I have never once been flagged for misconduct. There is always another side to every story, so please, feel free to challenge my position with your best counterarguments. After all, isn't that the entire purpose of a forum?😉
That is precisely my point: you aren't going to get flagged without cause. These restrictions are designed for those who haven't already followed the rules. Since we are in agreement on this, I’ll simply suggest that we refrain from moving the conversation over to a private chat.
Oh, please, let’s not get sidetracked by trivialities right now... granitefalcon26, everyone tends to read exactly what they want to read. I don't believe there is anything of actual substance on, say, Fox News, but if we use a bit of a euphemism, they do deal in rather dubious matters. It isn't that other media outlets are inherently biased against the truth, but when dealing with those who frequently slip up, one ought to exercise a bit more caution.
Here are two examples just to make my point clearer:
So yes, for users who lack any semblance of their own critical filters, the moderators will continue to serve as the primary filter.
Look, the Forum isn't particularly worried about lawsuits—that part isn't the issue—but provocative posts (even those targeting public figures) and citations from tabloid media really ought to be reported. Such clutter only serves to degrade the quality of our discussions and the overall integrity of the threads.
What exactly constitutes the trolling in this situation, where you keep badgering two people by repeatedly demanding they explain why they aren't Nile horses? With all due respect to Nile horses, that wasn't particularly kind.
Ah, my apologies. It seems I really should have offered one. 🙈 At the time, I didn't think it was necessary, given how you presented yourself in the Zalbam—as if you had every single fact at your fingertips. I suppose I took your input a bit too lightly.
This isn't some kind of joke... If you want to contest a ban, there's a specific section for appeals. You received this ban because of my specific warning, yet in your own appeal, you explicitly state that you aren't appealing that particular warning. You can appeal previous warnings, but those should have been addressed at the moment they were issued—not after another moderator's actions caused them to accumulate and trigger an automatic account suspension.
Consider this hypothetical, absurd scenario: imagine someone receives two warnings for harassment, each lasting 60 days. A month later, they receive a third warning of any kind, which triggers a full account ban. Suddenly, the user tries to dispute those first two original warnings as a way to get the current ban lifted. This is an extreme example and hasn't actually happened here, but it highlights the fundamental issue: if you intend to challenge a warning, you need to do it when it happens, rather than waiting until its accumulation leads to a final consequence.
Since you decided to complain about Taylor Swift, even though you ended up banned because of a strike I personally issued. You even admitted it yourself in your appeal by trying to shift all the blame back onto her. The truth is, she had nothing to say to you because she wasn't the one who banned you; I simply refused to entertain such a pathetic attempt at spinning the situation.
boldwalker12 isn't a moderator on Politics, and her posts represent nothing more than her own personal views rather than official forum policy. She has even stated previously that this is a significant issue for her, noting that she participates here and on Politics strictly from the perspective of a regular user.
So, yes, while her behavior and one-sided arguments regarding the politics abortion debate don't constitute moderation, they aren't required to be either.
Jessica Kelly4 said:You only searched for "catholiban," you need to search for all variations of that word. Since we're talking stats, on the abortion thread, the word "killing" shows up in 25 posts out of over 1,500. And that's supposed to be destroying the debate? Using "catholiban" is direct labeling meant to insult, whereas claiming a fetus is being killed is just a rational viewpoint.
Fine, let's drop the other terms.
Indeed. In one specific thread, abortion was characterized as murder—I haven't checked different grammatical forms, mind you—exactly 25 times, even accounting for threads that might have been cut short halfway through. And you are comparing that to the mention of "Catholic extremism," which barely surfaces a handful of times across the entire PDF.
But we are in agreement; let us abandon other terms. There is no point.
Jessica Kelly4 said:@Harold Evans3, most of what you wrote doesn't even belong here. You're just trolling and trying to get threads shut down. It’s not fair, because I actually care about making sense of how the moderators operate. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, but at least then I'd know it's not right.
Look, I'm not denying anyone's right to an opinion—not yours, and not the mods'. All I want from the moderators is objectivity. They should be able to recognize consistency and allow a debate to happen even when they don't like where it's going.
The way things work now, it's apparently fine to throw labels around—like calling someone a "catholiban" or a communist—and that isn't seen as breaking the rules. But if you claim that a fetus is a living human being and that ending its life is murder, suddenly that's a problem. How is a legitimate, legal pro-life political stance ever going to have a seat at the table on this forum if the moderators keep blocking them?
I decided to go back and verify the numbers... I am using my tablet, so my math might not be absolutely flawless, but it is certainly close enough. In the PDF covering the last six months, the phrase "politics pojam katoliban postan 28 put" appears 28 times. If you subtract the instances where users are merely quoting someone else to react to what was said (rather than actually using the term themselves), or the posts where members are explicitly calling for the term to be banned, you are left with about 13 or 14 actual entries. Of course, I may have missed a variation in grammar or a typo, but let us be realistic: we are looking at a PDF containing tens of thousands of posts from that period. Therefore, the notion that "catholibanism" is a standard or acceptable label is simply not supported by the data. In the other PDF I moderate, the Religion board, that specific expression has been strictly prohibited, and if memory serves, there hasn't been an unmoderated instance of it in a year and a half.
mistyseal8, you claim that we are dealing with established facts and research. Look, we could sit here all day and read through "facts" and "studies" claiming the Earth is flat and that any evidence to the contrary has been doctored, or claims that men are being systematically oppressed while women secretly run the world. We could dive into conspiracy theories about thousands of civilians killed during the Storm, or celebrate how certain war criminals are suddenly being declared innocent. Or, if you look at a site like Healthline, you’ll be bombarded with "research" insisting that vaccines are perfectly safe. But let's be clear: not every "fact" qualifies as one, not every study meets scientific standards, and we certainly can't treat every random thesis as equally valid. Allowing that wouldn't be a lack of censorship; it would be the total destruction of a forum. It's the exact same logic applied to your example regarding studies attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a thesis that simply shouldn't be permitted here. It’s no different from allowing baseless correlations used to paint the Israeli people as collective criminals due to interventions in Palestine, or grouping all Muslims together under the banner of the Islamic State and then acting surprised when people lament that the Crusades didn't wipe them out. Things like that aren't going to pass. If you want to keep shouting "censorship," go ahead—be my guest.
Jessica Kelly4, you claim that "killing" is just standard terminology in the American lexicon, and honestly, you're right—it is a standard word. However, the moderator intervention didn't happen because someone used some made-up or non-standard vocabulary. It happened because a small clique of users attempted to hijack the entire discussion, reducing every single point to nothing more than the act of killing. That simply isn't permitted under the rules of this Politics forum. The issue at hand is much broader and more significant than that. While radical debaters on both sides try to narrow the complex debate over abortion down to a single, reductive thesis, such behavior provides zero value to this community. We aren't a political party; we don't need to coordinate a single mantra and stick to it religiously.
One more thing—not that you actually asked, but since I’m already typing: the pro-life side possesses a comprehensive array of compelling arguments regarding the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the term "killing"—which essentially amounts to indirectly accusing women of being murderers—has been a productive move for this discourse. Or at least, it ought to be. When a topic is constantly derailed by persistent trolling aimed at a handful of individuals, it effectively shuts down any chance for qualified participants to engage in a rational conversation. You actually reinforce my point yourself when you mention that you don't mind changing terminology, provided it isn't used as a tool for restriction. Let's be clear: anyone capable of holding a civilized discussion won't be hindered by a simple shift in vocabulary. As for your grievance regarding moderator intervention... yes, I understand how that feels. But occasionally, isn't it necessary? If it weren't, there would be no need for moderators to exist in the first place.
And finally, you suggested I was being subjective and biased because I claimed that banning any comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is merely a projection of one's own fears. Perhaps that isn't the case. It is entirely possible that the architects of such theories aren't actually afraid; if that’s true, then their actions are even more egregious, as they are essentially spreading hate speech under the guise of demonizing an entire group of people. For a better understanding of my position, you might want to look back at my response to mistyseal8 above. We simply won't tolerate that kind of rhetoric here, and as long as I have any influence at all, it certainly won't be accepted as valid argumentation.
Susan Price30, look, some moderators are simply better than others. It has nothing to do with one's worldview or any other ideological divide, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Jessica Kelly4 suggests that we ought to clone our esteemed colleague Power Locko, and I find myself in agreement—not that I’m advocating for actual human cloning, of course, but rather acknowledging and respecting his obvious competence. However, speaking from the perspective of someone who actually handles the complaints: you should know that a moderator also receives a significant number of grievances from those who simply disagree with them, most often by claiming bias. That is just the nature of the job. I am certainly not suggesting that moderators are infallible; we all make mistakes, despite our best efforts to excel at what we do. My point is merely that, very frequently, any moderator action is treated as though we are taking a side. To give you a concrete example: during my relatively short tenure as a moderator for Politics, I have been accused of being biased at least ten or fifteen times. The accusation is always the same: that I only protect the "freedom of speech" for extremists and radicals. 😵
To wrap things up, I’ll just echo my own thoughts from earlier. It is the responsibility of the moderators to design and maintain the boundaries for acceptable discussion. This naturally requires intervention to prevent insults, hate speech, and other serious offenses. However, beyond that, establishing those boundaries sometimes necessitates curbing the radicalization of topics—preventing them from veering into territory that kills the conversation rather than making it more productive. Preventing a thread in the Politics section from being completely derailed by people screaming "MURDER" and "KILLERS" is exactly the kind of intervention needed.
I don't have much else to say on this. We’ve burned through post after post about nothing, rather than actually discussing anything meaningful. Even the original poster noted that these terminological hurdles are easily bypassed, which essentially means we aren't stopping actual debaters, just the loudmouths. I suggest we head back to the main forum and get back to actual forumming.
Slow down... There are a few points that need to be addressed here.
First, I find myself echoing what Nica already pointed out: complaints need to be targeted and substantiated with evidence. That is the only way they should be taken seriously. Otherwise, we constantly run into situations where someone takes issue with a moderator's actions, yet when asked for a specific example, it turns out the moderator was actually being far too lenient. This particular complaint isn't like that; even after two requests for clarification, we haven't received anything concrete to actually discuss. So, we won't. Why? Well, consider this: the thread starter complains that Meadow is rigid and fails to recognize satire—and whatever else—yet in this thread, which consists of 28 posts total from all participants, he himself has contributed three posts that warrant a ban for being insulting. Furthermore, when asked to provide specific instances of the behavior he is complaining about, he simply linked to a single post—a post in which he openly trolls by labeling atheists as haters of God and religion. Following that link, another forum member chimed in, who, frankly, was penalized far too lightly for hate speech. There you have it.
Second, it is true that Meadow is very strict. I am aware of that, as is the Administrator. However, Meadow is also a massive workaholic—a conscientious moderator who constantly reflects on her decisions. I suspect the forum members might fail to recognize this because they only see the end result, but Meadow reads everything carefully. She weighs whether there are elements of unacceptable communication, consults on borderline cases, and is exceptionally careful about maintaining the balance of what is permissible for participants. Therefore, contrary to the claims made by the thread starter—who, in his complaint, resorts to insults against her—Meadow is actively guarding that equilibrium.
If she were as strict and meticulous as she is while moderating an entirely different sub-forum (say, Politics, Football, or F1), perhaps her high level of engagement would indeed be seen as a drawback. But she moderates the PDF religion, which brings me to my third point. Religion is an incredibly volatile PDF. It is one of those areas where threads, or even entire sub-forums, could easily be destroyed if things are allowed to spiral too far. People are passionate about faith, and they regularly believe they are the only ones holding the truth (both believers and atheists alike). Sure, people think they are right about other things too—we see occasional slaughterhouses over "versions of the truth" in the sports sections—but I think we can agree that passionate disagreement regarding these fundamental worldviews is something else entirely. In my view, discussions within the PDF religion truly require strictness and caution; one must be extremely careful that what one person intends as satire isn't perceived as an insult by another. Thus, in my opinion, it is in the best interest of the forum and the PDF religion for Meadow to continue acting strictly and relentlessly, ensuring that this important PDF remains a well-moderated space where care is taken in how things are expressed.
If the Administrator has anything further to add, please feel free. Until then, I consider this matter closed.
Just yesterday, Oprah Winfrey posted the opening statement for this thread to provide a paper trail for her claims, arguing that appeals to the FTC shouldn't be handled as casually as a quick snap shot. I figured I’d give him a moment to step in and respond, but it looks like everyone else has just picked up right where he left off. We can't have it going on like this; we really need to pause and regroup.
Let's give him a little more breathing room to back up his arguments. Regardless, I plan to weigh in on everything we've gathered later today.
I'm currently waiting on some guests, so I won't be able to jump into a conversation right now. 😵 However, let me be clear: we aren't going to be debating abortion issues here; our focus remains strictly on moderation.
@popij pipi - Absolutely. Anyone who, when discussing homosexuality, starts rambling about pedophilia out of sheer insecurity—or whatever other neurosis they're dealing with—should be shut down. If you want to sit there and conclude that actual dialogue is impossible because, much like some dive bar in rural Nebraska, anyone can wander in with a half-baked, idiotic idea and derail the entire conversation, then fine. If you insist on labeling that "censorship," go ahead. But we are going to maintain a certain level of decorum.
neonfox65 said:How can you be so sure they had a great engine when Ron Dennis himself admitted they didn't have the same power as Mercedes, implying they were running something a bit weaker?
And how can you be certain this slump isn't just preparation for next year? For all we know, McLaren spent this entire season experimenting to get ready for their upcoming partnership with Honda.
Oh, really? So when Dennis claims they haven't even signed Alonso yet, you don't believe him, but suddenly he’s the authority when he's making excuses about inferior engines? Even if that were true, they still held an edge over Ferrari and Renault. Furthermore, as ruggedhawk20 points out, they possess a massive budget and a mountain of top-tier engineers, yet they continue to flop.
Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.
But let’s go back to basics. A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.
Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.
So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.