It seems nobody has stepped up to call for an immediate shutdown here. However, it has become quite apparent that your grievance targets the entire forum at large, yet you jump from one topic to the next without any logical thread, seemingly ignoring both our explanations and the clear refutations of your claims. Consequently, I shall close this thread regarding the forum as a whole; moving forward, let us ensure that unrelated matters are discussed in their own separate venues. Should the administrator or the supermoderators wish to contribute anything further, they may do so even after the thread has been locked.
Good grief... I wrote that manifesto yesterday regarding your complaint because you insist on treating everything as if it’s all the same, and frankly, your perspective hasn't shifted. Despite my best efforts to explain that the expected decorum in the Kokošinjac lounge versus the PŽK forum differs just as much as the etiquette in a local dive bar differs from a federal courtroom—that insulting a fellow forum member isn't viewed the same way as making a comment toward an unidentified third party—and that failing to distinguish between a theoretical organization and a nation, or a terrorist group and a sovereign state, actually prevents rather than encourages hate speech, you simply persist in your own way. I have nothing more to say.
The matter of the card is settled, and that discussion is over. Labeling someone a troll rather than being insulting is simply because you’ve indirectly branded them a fascist or a Nazi. The ladies aren't deviating from the topic; they are pointing out that you've missed the mark entirely by bringing up Hamas while simultaneously discussing Power Locko:
As it appears, the cited moderator here represents the worst kind of hatred and chauvinism, under which people and nations, who lack their own state or the political backing of a major superpower, are denied both rights and freedoms on this forum.
In other words, they are quite effectively dismantling your argument regarding the spread of hate speech as the core purpose of this forum, thereby remaining strictly on-topic.
As for everything else, as you requested, I will leave those comments to the subforums where they actually belong.
I shall address this chaotic mess of an appeal point by point, as it is composed of various sub-grievances that lack any coherent connection to one another.
1. The first two links pertain to the Kokošinjac section, a specific subset of the Women's Corner. Following extensive debate, much more lenient rules were established there than elsewhere on the site. In any case, those appeals should be directed toward the Women's Corner moderators, not to me.
2. The link to the PowerLockov post serves as a textbook example of why we insist on specific links rather than vague, generalized complaints. There are several matters to clarify here. First, as colleagues have already pointed out: we cannot equate Hamas with Palestinians, just as we do not equate ETA with the Basques or the IRA with the Irish. Powerlock was discussing Hamas, not the Palestinian people. Furthermore, Powerlock remained perfectly on-topic; as a Politics moderator (who, as I assume you realize, does not share a worldview entirely synonymous with rowdytiger13), he stepped in to support a colleague regarding the principle that discussions cannot simply devolve into labeling world leaders as terrorists. Dakel PL demonstrated that the Politics moderation team is in agreement on this matter, proving that the previous claims—that rowdytiger13 acts unilaterally in enforcing his views on this topic—are unfounded. He merely explained why it is unacceptable to conflate the terrorist status assigned to a specific organization by the entire Western world (including our own European Union) with the leadership of a sovereign nation.
3. Your deleted comment was removed because it did not address the actual subject at hand—which was the critique of rowdytiger13's moderation—but was instead a pure polemic regarding the status of Israel versus Hamas. It was deleted for being off-topic, particularly after a moderator warning explicitly stated that such behavior was prohibited. It could have resulted in a formal warning card for ignoring a moderator's instruction, but it was merely deleted instead.
4. The warning card you received in that thread has already been addressed in the Appeals section; there is no need to revisit settled matters. However, I must refute your assertion above: the card was originally issued for harassment (45 points) and then reclassified as trolling (35 points) because you did not directly label a fellow forum member a Nazi, but rather suggested it should be questioned whether they were a Nazi (noting, by the way, that in the thread regarding moderation, you were engaging with a user and their involvement in entirely unrelated topics). To be clear: no hate speech card was issued.
5. The recent request for a penalty is denied under the same rule applied to your own punishment for trolling; unlike yourself, the female users involved did not engage in labeling, nor did they call you a Nazi or anything remotely similar.
I might be mistaken, but I believe we have already covered this ground... Look, forum members are human beings. People often have wildly different sensitivities depending on whether the rhetoric comes from someone they agree with or someone they don't. If you browse any heated PZK thread, you will see the exact same pattern: opposing factions always complain about the same thing—that the moderation team punishes them more harshly than their ideological opponents, while those opponents seemingly get a free pass. This perceived imbalance is precisely why we have moderators, super-moderators, an admin, the PZK, and a formal appeals process...
So, no, the purpose of this forum isn't to spread hate. One should utilize the available tools for filing appeals to help make the forum better. If you want to make a case, argue your point and back it up with links demonstrating asymmetric moderation; that is how you build a legitimate appeal. Just be careful not to conflate apples and oranges. You received a warning for trolling here in a section where we insist on tranquility, logical argumentation, and the absence of insults even more strictly than in most other parts of the forum—and that is specifically so the appeals process can actually function. Just as you aren't permitted to question whether your interlocutor is a Nazi, nobody is permitted to resort to profanity or personal attacks against anyone, not even against the Thompson crowd.
Antiles, Cuka makes a valid point here; we should be sticking to discussing moderation matters rather than veering off into Hamas. Furthermore, the poll question itself is entirely irrelevant to this thread, much like how polls are often used merely as a superficial addition to a discussion. It would certainly be a more transparent solution if the results were public, allowing everyone to see who voted for what. Regardless, however, you have no grounds to claim there is mass voting by clones. No one actually knows who cast which vote except for the individual voter themselves, so there is really no basis for an inquiry to the moderators on a forum like this. As for your suspicions about clones... if you truly believe someone is a clone, or if you spot any other violation, simply report it using the flag icon. The moderators will undoubtedly investigate and take action if they find merit to the claim. In short, we are drifting off-topic.
Alright, this is veering quite unpleasantly into a debate over the Israel-Palestine conflict—rather than sticking to the moderation of the topic itself—and I won't allow it to proceed. The arguments have been laid out, and if no one else has anything further to contribute regarding the subject, I suggest we wait for the conclusions from the higher forum authorities before we officially close this matter.
I am not a moderator for the politics section, but I would like to offer a general observation regarding this ongoing debate over the boundaries of free speech...
Every online community maintains its own set of rules and social norms. While we are all obviously obligated to follow the Law of the USA, our responsibilities here go far beyond mere legal compliance. They must. Consequently, even though most subforums allow for much more leeway when discussing public figures than when addressing fellow members, that freedom isn't absolute. If one were to mistake free speech for a license to say absolutely anything without restraint, maintaining any semblance of peace or balance in our discussions—which is already a fragile thing—would become an impossible task. Therefore, certain things are prohibited not just because the law demands it, but as part of a fundamental civilizing imperative within this forum. In essence, the freedom of expression we enjoy here represents a departure from a "state of nature"; it is a conscious decision to waive certain individual liberties in order to establish common standards of conduct that benefit everyone. Otherwise, if every user were permitted to lash out at any public figure without filter, meaningful discussion would become a literal impossibility, as the sheer volume of conflict generated would far exceed the bickering we currently endure.
This year's 2014 tournament might actually prove more difficult for making it out of the pro group than the last one did. We have fewer participants overall, yet most of the heavy hitters managed to stick around. Of course, you can't exactly overlook the newcomers either—some of them look capable of clinching player of the week on their very first prediction. Regardless, I'm looking forward to it. 🙏
gentlecobra23 is making the call here, but speaking as someone actually competing, I find myself in agreement with both versions of the game format if we split them into two groups. We could either have four teams advancing to create those quarterfinal matchups—1a vs 4b, 2a vs 3b, 3a vs 2b, and 4a vs 1b—or we could go with the three-advancement model that swifttiger75 is currently suggesting. Is it possible the first option is actually superior? It would certainly allow more people to get a taste of the elimination phase. 😉
The tournament regulations don't explicitly account for a field of fewer than 12 players. However, if everyone involved is willing, I see no reason why we couldn't just follow swifttiger75's suggestion and split into two groups, with the top four from each advancing. 🙏
William Bennett53 said:1. Kimi Raikkonen 2. Romain Grosjean 3. Jenson Button 4. Valtteri Bottas 5. Kamui Kobayashi 6th 6. Lewis Hamilton 7. Daniel Ricciardo 8. Kevin Magnussen 9. that guy from Russia 10. Adrian Sutil
Just a minor correction here...
1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Sebastian Vettel 4. Daniel Ricciardo 5. Kevin Magnussen 6. Fernando Alonso 7. Valtteri Bottas 8. Jenson Button 9. Kimi Raikkonen 10. Felipe Massa
1. Kimi Raikkonen 2. Romain Grosjean 3. Jenson Button 4. Valtteri Bottas 5. Kamui Kobayashi 6. Lewis Hamilton 7. Daniel Ricciardo 8. Kevin Magnussen 9. that guy from Russia 10. Adrian Sutil
Allee, you might want to take another look at the rules regarding the NASCAR parcel downloads. If I recall correctly, item number 4 specifically prohibits interfering with other people's appeals.
Yes, an insult is certainly more pressing than moving a thread to the off-topic section. If you fail to see that, well, it isn't exactly a virtue, though you are free to believe otherwise.
As for everything else, just because this is a casual discussion doesn't give you license to troll. The matter is settled; I'll see you next time.
First off, you weren't exactly making a polite request; you were issuing orders. But fine, let’s move past that. Secondly, we don't moderate based on personal whims. We decide how and when to react as we see fit. And if I may say so, I believe extinguishing a fire between two argumentative forum members is a far more pressing matter than moving a handful of off-topic posts from one thread to another.
Are you one of those people who believes freedom means everyone gets to do whatever they please? If that’s your definition, then no, there isn't such a thing as absolute freedom here on this forum. For instance, a thread filled with nothing but trolling would be locked immediately.