Posts by coppermarlin13

Sam Green73 said:I’ve been following the thread over at the FBI, and I wanted to jump in here to share my observations.
It’s all just political theater and sensationalism at this point.

Not only are you missing the full picture, but it seems like you aren't even reading the posts carefully.

Is using terms like "savage" or "savagery" against the rules on your specific subforum?

Seriously, is it?

Sam Green73 said:😕 an officer attacked a man just because he's a veteran
I honestly don't think it'll be much trouble to get that cop removed for misconduct while on duty.

Look, officers have a primary responsibility to use force when the situation calls for it.

Terms of Service agreed to upon registration :

It’s pretty obvious from your post that you haven't been following yesterday's events in Memphis, nor have you kept up with how the media is covering them.

And honestly, what does that quote of yours even have to do with this discussion?

What "hate" are you even talking about?

Also, for the record, the local news reported that the officer has been suspended (though they added a bit of a disclaimer).

You'd probably be better off using your moderator tools to deal with Don Kacunka's posts, then stepping away from this thread until you can get some actual facts straight.

Thanks.

Where is the politics supermod?

Who actually keeps an eye on the moderators over in the politics section?

Looking at the community guidelines, the role of the supermoderator is explicitly defined:

Handling Appeals:

• When an appeal is filed, the moderator involved handles it, though their assistants or other admin staff who have context can step in to help address your questions.

• The final call on any appeal rests with the supermoderator. They’ll review the arguments from both sides, and if they’re already looped into the situation, they might even make a ruling before the moderator officially responds. Administrators will weigh in whenever they feel it's necessary.

Given that I've managed to rack up two warnings in such a short window—despite there being absolutely no justification or logical explanation for them—it makes me wonder: is the supermoderator, wiredangler5, actually performing his duties?

First post and guidelines for the second post.

And honestly, how many appeals from the politics PDF has wiredangler5 actually resolved?

Is there even any practical value to having this supermoderator role?

What kind of actual impact is he making?

The way moderation works on the Politics sub is a perfect window into what actually flies here and what gets shut down. Take a look at this post that somehow managed to stay unpunished (post 4178):

don Kacunko said:We should just slash or completely eliminate these pensions to get these idiots in line—let's get these guys working on something actually useful.
That might stop them from destroying public assets and attacking civil servants.

If you're planning on writing stuff like Kacunko did, don't sweat it too much; the mods over on the Politics board won't be coming after you with any sanctions.

So, for anyone interested, feel free to start trashing our veterans!

You've got the full support of the moderators and the site staff!

The moderator Roko (🙏) suddenly jumps into a thread about Cyrillic—a topic he doesn't even follow—just to issue a strike against this specific response:

>

dekameron2009 said:Rusin from Petrovac stayed behind during the frontier era, married a Srpkinja, lives in Vukovar, and get this: his kids go to school learning in English, yet here he is, stubbornly defending Cyrillic.

>

the response:

coppermarlin13 said:He’s absolutely smashing heads!

And I heard he’s hitting people brutally!

Total savages!

yet this post goes totally unpunished:

don Kacunko said:Three thugs and hooligans attack an American police officer and you guys are actually justifying it? Just let them...

Honestly, this is just revolting.

Roko, you should be ashamed!

Both you and anyone who decides to back you up right now!

It’s disgusting.

Given the brutal assault by an officer on a veteran in a city like Memphis—where the victim ended up in the hospital with a skull fracture and life-threatening injuries, basically left lying in a pool of blood on the street all because of a dispute over a sign—is it actually permissible to call an officer like that a savage?

Is it okay to comment on someone's actions and characterize those actions as savagery? Would using a description like that regarding a specific individual get someone penalized on this forum?

Can media reports featuring the veteran's own descriptions of that police brutality be used here on the forum?

Who exactly qualifies as a savage?

Is that word allowed to be used?

rustydrifter10 said:She asked for a strike, and a strike was issued—based on the exact same standards we use everywhere else on this forum. But look, I’m not going to turn this into another endless debate about the rules. I closed the thread because the appeal was valid, the decision stands, and the matter is settled. Just like any other closed thread around here.

If we’re really going to nitpick, let’s be honest: I was the one asking for strikes in the first place.

You handed out two 15-point strikes (making it 30 total) for those two violations and that bit of trolling, but then again, over in the Politics section, people get 30-point strikes just for forgetting to include a description in their link.

So, there’s the reality of your "consistent criteria" and "thorough checks." 🙄

And honestly, there's no need to go on a fast-track mission to shut down threads.

If you don't like what the community has to say, you don't have to reply. But at least give us a chance to weigh in on your supposed "checks" and "standardized" rules before you pull the plug. 🙄 Not to mention all the other instances where this happens. 🙄

If you’re so intent on locking things up just to look like the big boss, at least wait until after everyone has had their say.

Go ahead, though. You can lock this one now. Knock yourself out. 🙄

rustydrifter10 said:It’s because the matter is settled. Some topics naturally demand a deeper dive and stay open longer, while others reach a resolution quickly and get closed out. We aren't going to leave threads hanging indefinitely if there's nothing left to say once a final decision has been made. Claiming that everything gets shut down after just a single response—or suggesting that most things follow that pattern—is simply untrue.

Well, from where I'm sitting, you've just slammed two different threads shut without giving anyone a single chance to chime in.

You're being dishonest here.

And it feels like you're leaving zero room for the possibility that you might be wrong.

Honestly, if you had just let that first thread stay open like a reasonable person would, we wouldn't even be dealing with these two brand-new threads right now. All those lingering questions could have been smoothed over elegantly.

Instead, you're just creating this unnecessary drama for no good reason. 🙄

What’s the deal with this new thread-locking policy over at the main forum?

It feels like as soon as someone posts, without even clearly defining the issue or letting others weigh in, the mods just swoop in and shut the whole thing down before anyone can even offer a helpful response! It's basically instant lockdown.

Are we really seeing a repeat of those old, nightmare management tactics and questionable policies from back in the day?

Honestly, it feels pretty much like it.

Seriously, why are threads on this site being closed so aggressively?

Since the original thread has been locked, I’m starting this new one to bring some much-needed attention to the inconsistencies and uneven enforcement we're seeing with the rules.

To put it plainly, the reported posts haven't actually been penalized in the way the admin team promised they would be in that closed thread.

Out of the two posts that were flagged, only one received any kind of action—a 30-point penalty:

(this post was penalized)
(this post was NOT penalized)

It feels a bit lopsided because regular users typically get hit with a penalty for every single slip-up (like this example). Furthermore, the posts in question aren't just minor mistakes; they are blatant, disrespectful attempts to provoke and troll the supermoderator, the edga—who, frankly, hands out penalties to regular users for much more harmless comments. I’m asking that this oversight be corrected and that the unpunished post be sanctioned as well. It’s really about ensuring that the rules are applied equally to everyone, whether they are a standard user or a moderator.

I have to be firm about this, though, because what we're looking at here is a direct and aggressive provocation aimed right at the moderator, the edga.

Thanks

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Even if what you're saying were true—which it isn't, and you can't actually prove it anyway—I still have the right to voice my opinion as long as I'm not being offensive. And hey, maybe I am being a little offensive.

You don't get to "voice an opinion" when you're writing a post that straight-up violates the forum rules.

The bottom line is you need to follow the guidelines.

And seriously, quit derailing this thread with all the trolling.

We're just waiting on the admin to step in and hand out some warnings for this nonsense and these posts.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:That post doesn't even mention people from my hometown or our local veterans, for that matter (if we're being honest about how things get translated from English). This whole thing only feels like a provocation if you're someone who sees any sign of Cyrillic as a red flag. Honestly, it feels like this entire situation says way more about you than it does about my actual post.

You’re really something else.

The vast majority of people contributing to this thread are locals from my area or folks who actually served during the war there, and their perspective on seeing those characters is something we all know by heart.

You only jumped into this discussion to stir the pot, troll everyone, and see who you could get banned.

You're just acting like a bully. You clearly have zero respect—not for forum etiquette, not for legal standards, and certainly not for political decency.

I wouldn't be surprised if you walk away without a ban, especially if there are people here gullible enough to swallow your "explanations" with a grain of salt.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, the post itself is an explanation. It’s pretty straightforward. Honestly, I’m not sure what else there is to add to make it clearer.

You should be handing out red cards for posts like that in the politics section.

Just ban yourself already.

You’ve got a point, even if it was just three words—I can't quite remember the exact translation right now. The first post mentioned support for Cyrillic script, and the second one just said thanks.

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. Jumping into a thread just to intentionally provoke veterans and those who fought in the war, all while hiding behind this thin veil of "tolerance."

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the way we approach these large-scale economic shifts, and I can’t help but feel like we’re looking at a massive puzzle where half the pieces are still face down on the table. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate noise—the daily headlines and the frantic social media chatter—but if you step back, you start to see the structural patterns forming underneath. Think of it like watching a major construction project in downtown Chicago. On any given day, it looks like nothing but chaos: jackhammers, dust, and trucks blocking every intersection. To a passerby, it just looks like an inconvenience or a mess. But if you look at the blueprints, you realize that the disruption is actually a necessary phase of building something much larger and more permanent. We are currently in that "dust and jackhammer" phase of our own national economy. I was reading some thoughts from wanderingbadger44 earlier, and it really struck a chord with me regarding how we perceive risk. There’s this tendency to mistake volatility for failure. In reality, volatility is often just the system recalibrating itself. It’s uncomfortable, sure—like being stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the I-95 when you’re already running late—but it doesn't mean the road isn't leading somewhere. The real question we should be asking isn't "why is this happening now?" but rather "what kind of infrastructure are we building for the next decade?" If we only focus on the temporary bumps in the road, we might miss the fact that the entire highway is being rerouted. We need to maintain a level head and look at the long-term trajectory rather than getting spooked by every little tremor in the market. It takes a certain amount of patience to wait for the dust to settle so you can actually see the foundation being laid.

What on earth does your post have to do with this topic? Seriously, how is that even relevant here?

I mean, what kind of post is that? Just dropping a link without any context or explanation whatsoever? Seriously?

And here is exactly what our wonderful moderator, Ryan Vaughn7, was saying:

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how we approach these complex geopolitical shifts, much like how a seasoned investor looks at a volatile market—you can't just react to every single dip; you have to look at the underlying trends. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate noise, but if we step back, we can see the broader architecture of what's happening between the major powers. Take the current situation regarding the diplomatic maneuvering in Washington, D.C., for example. It reminds me of a high-stakes game of chess where everyone thinks they’re playing an open game, but half the pieces are actually being moved under the table by interests that most people don't even realize exist. When you look at the way certain regional players are interacting with larger entities, it isn't just about simple diplomacy; it's about survival and positioning for the next decade. It’s similar to how a large corporation like ExxonMobil might navigate shifting energy regulations. They aren't just reacting to one law passed in Congress; they are anticipating decades of change and adjusting their entire infrastructure to stay ahead of the curve. We see that same kind of calculated, long-term maneuvering on the global stage. I was reading some thoughts from coppermarlin13 earlier, and I think there's a valid point being made about the predictability of these movements. While everything feels chaotic in the moment, there is often a very logical, almost mathematical progression to how these tensions escalate and then de-escalate. It’s rarely accidental. If we want to understand where things are headed, we shouldn't just watch the headlines; we should be looking at the structural pressures that force these leaders into making the moves they make.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. In certain parts of the country where you have distinct linguistic enclaves or different scripts being used locally, you see that kind of cultural overlap—but that’s just not what we’re dealing with here. Personally, I wouldn't go as far as deleting a post just because it's written in a different script, but I would absolutely insist on having a translation provided. It's all about making sure everyone can actually participate in the conversation.

Look, you aren't even the main issue here. It’s really about the forum's own rules and policies. And according to those guidelines, posts like that are subject to sanctions.

Uncle Sam said:Are you serious? If this law is supposed to apply to the entire country, then why don't we see bilingual signage all over Washington, D.C.? Or more accurately, why hasn't the whole nation adopted bilingual signs? It’s not like there's an actual ban on using different scripts here; it’s just that posts using them get flagged. So, honestly, be my guest—go ahead and write however you want.

You look great in those cartoons.

Now we're about to find out if Ryan Vaughn7 is going to get slapped with a ban. He’s been posting in Cyrillic just to stir the pot and intentionally provoke veterans from the local area in this thread.

loneraven25 said:The rules ought to be applied fairly,
and we really should have stepped in to stop this kind of trolling much sooner.

Just brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Kudos, loneraven25. Thanks for pointing that out.

Now we just sit around waiting for the sanctions to kick in.

Honestly, I think it’s beneath contempt to go after folks from places like Buffalo, specifically our veterans and local community members here, just to stir the pot like that.

It's just nasty.

Ryan Vaughn7 really needs to be banned.

wanderingbadger44 said:Cyrillic isn't a language. 🤦

Can you actually point to which specific post was made by a moderator, super-mod, or admin?

If you can't, then honestly, it might be best to just stay out of this one.

Look, yes, we're talking about an alphabet here. 🙄

edit:

Jacob Allen said:...what a buyer... 🙂

And you too.

I really hope there are some consequences handed out for breaking the subforum rules and trying to derail this entire discussion.

Since reports regarding posts that violate our community guidelines are sent directly to the moderators—who, let's face it, are also subject to those same rules—we run into a bit of a structural hiccup. Currently, moderators don't have the authority to penalize fellow moderators, super-moderators, or the site admins. To help the administration work more effectively and ensure everyone stays accountable, I’m starting this dedicated thread for reporting such violations. This should make things much smoother for the admin team and ultimately benefit the entire community.

Right out of the gate, I need to flag two specific posts made by a moderator and super-moderator, Ryan Vaughn7, which clearly go against our policy guide:

Using non-standard scripts isn't officially permitted under our forum's guidelines.
Unless, of course, I'm mistaken and no translation is actually required?

Beyond that, using that specific script in this particular thread feels like nothing more than pure provocation and trolling.

I am requesting that appropriate sanctions be applied.

edit: Here is a direct excerpt from the policy PDF:

• Article 6.
• For any content posted in foreign languages, an English summary is mandatory! You don't need to provide a full word-for-word translation; simply summarizing the main point in one or two English sentences is enough. Posts lacking these summaries may be subject to removal.
• Links are not a substitute for actual content. When posting a link, you must include a brief description of what it contains (such as the title, a summary, or a key quote). It needs to be crystal clear why the linked page is relevant to the discussion.

slybison8 said:I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

Remember when you reached out to me after I closed that thread about Gotovina and Markač? You were asking for my take. ovo:

slybison8 The user said:...Deciding whether to reopen this thread isn't really my call anymore. That responsibility has shifted over to the other moderators who are focusing more heavily on American domestic politics than I am these days. Whatever they decide to do, you can count on my full support....

I have to point out that you actually told me the exact same thing in our private messages, adding the note that you... ti That guy is the one who started this whole thread. Locked down..

It seems like you think I just nod along with whatever the rest of the group decides to do.

It’s actually pretty interesting to watch how the moderation is being handled around here.

slybison8 said:I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

It’s honestly hard to believe anyone is claiming this thread was "dying out." I mean, look at the numbers—we managed to churn out seven full pages of discussion today alone before the mods finally stepped in and locked it down. Calling that a "fading topic" feels like a total stretch. What exactly defines a conversation dying when it's moving this fast? Using that as a justification for locking the thread just doesn't add up to me.

Even if there were some hesitation or doubt in the air, what exactly are we supposed to draw from that? What kind of conclusions should we actually be pulling?

It honestly feels like you guys are just itching to hit that Lock button, desperately scrambling to cook up any excuse possible just to justify doing it.

It’s really not an exaggeration to say that the quality of discussion here has plummeted lately. Honestly, some of your posts actually stand out because they're so much more substantial than the rest. So, what you're implying is that you played a part in dragging the conversation down yourself? Is that what you're getting at?

The whole debate really hit rock bottom the moment everyone just took it as an absolute fact that the veteran was an alcoholic. Once that assumption was made, it felt like the entire conversation just died right there. It’s hard to have a productive discussion when people stop looking at the actual issues and instead decide they've already figured out someone's personal flaws.

Since when did the edge become some kind of super-mod for Politics? I distinctly remember him saying he wasn't a Politics super-mod, just one for the football section.
scotsman is the actual super-mod for Politics.
Do you have some inside scoop or new info on this?

slybison8 said:I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

It always seems like "infighting" is the excuse used whenever a thread gets locked. But let’s be honest: people are often just itching to shut down an active, trending topic so they don't have to deal with it, or simply because it doesn't align with the forum's left-leaning political leanings.

Also, could you walk me through the official procedure for assigning partial credits/ranks in the Politics sub-forum?

Does it require a unanimous vote from all the moderators for a user to get credit in Politics?

Is it a matter of collegiality there too? Like, does one person propose it and then everyone else just signs off?

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

The real issue here is that you shut the thread down almost instantly, even though it's one of the hottest topics happening right now!

The problem lies (among other things) in how you guys handle locking threads!

It isn't normal how lightning-fast you move to lock the most current discussions!

You moved the Storm thread over to the Close Politics subforum and then promptly locked it!

Is it really standard procedure to have no place to discuss the Storm celebrations for days on end?

You locked the thread about Gotovina and Markač, so now there’s nowhere left to talk about Generals Gotovina and Markač!

What you're doing just isn't right.

slybison8 said:I am Chuck, and I have also sent a message, though I suspect he is away from the Forum for now. Until either he or the edge returns, I suppose I will reopen this thread at my own discretion, as it seems to me that the media appearance of the former veteran—who was arrested, detained, and perhaps even sentenced, if I understood correctly—might warrant some fresh commentary and analysis.

I should emphasize that this decision is merely temporary, and the final call will be made by our colleague Chuck and/or the edge.

PL

EDIT: This thread is temporarily open on Close Politics.

I just caught this thread now, so let me ask you something here: what exactly is your role in making these calls?

Why is it that Chuck and the edge (as you pointed out) have the sole authority to decide whether a thread stays locked or gets moved over to Close Politics?

And one more thing—since I've noticed you using the "whatever the colleagues decide" argument a few times now—what part do you play in deciding who receives their grades on the Politics PDF? What is the actual procedure for determining those grades? Does it require a consensus among all the moderators (like it does on other sub-forums), or not?