Posts by Bradley White73

Keeping a close eye on and analyzing the daily political mudslinging is actually an essential part of discussing the Visegrad Group! I suppose the whole point of this topic is to make some noise in the ears of politicians—to spark their interest or, if you want to be really cynical, just give them something to exploit during election season to nudge those major players in the direction we want. Especially with elections right around the corner, I think it’s vital that we have these open discussions to see exactly where we stand with the Visegrad Group. Maybe the new moderator help could sit down and read through everything from the very beginning, just so there isn't quite so much embarrassment?

Bradley Sanders4 said:Give me a break. Stop the drama. We obviously didn't do that.

Did he actually ask for your help?

Sam Green73 said:I actually went back and combed through the messages I deleted from that thread, and all I could find was this one:

To be perfectly honest, I don't see how that comment has anything to do with our discussion about the Visegrad Group.🤷

Can you walk me through your logic here?

This was posted under a thread regarding complaints about ballot cards:

It wouldn't even surprise me if you found people willing to take on neurosurgery just because they were offered some side cash and a quick crash course over a few days. I’m just a fellow forum user who finds this topic incredibly important—though I don't post much since I don't have enough expertise to contribute at the level of conversation happening there—so I mostly follow along to get a sense of which political parties might actually try to push this idea forward. Since you're the moderator here, bravely taking on this role, the fact that you can't see how daily politics connects to the subject makes me wonder if you even read it to see how it fits. I suppose, assuming slybison8 hasn't lost his mind in the meantime (which is a possibility, I guess), he probably doesn't need any help moderating that particular thread. Not even now, right before the 😉

Scott Rodriguez54 writes how he writes; in my opinion, his tone comes off a bit rigid and dogmatic, but that’s about it. It’s not like I’m printing out and laminating his posts or anything, but as a fellow member, I’d say I’ve never seen him derail a thread through trolling (I mean, we all troll occasionally, but you know what I mean). His posts haven't made a topic unreadable or disrupted the flow of conversation. I haven't seen him insult anyone either, and besides, people have been debating the definition of hate speech at the UN lately anyway—some decisions seem pretty subjective, even though I thought I had a clear grasp on the term. We're all learning as we go, including him.

Furthermore, during that recent discussion about the vulnerability of men, some users actually suggested that if you can't deal with a specific troll, it's better to just remove the individual rather than shut down the entire thread.

That seems like the right way to handle moderation, if someone is putting an entire thread or document at risk. In Scott Rodriguez54's case, that isn't really happening. There is one username over in politics that is basically designed to be a troll; everyone knows they are just messing around. Every single post from them is like that, so I guess they get a pass for being consistent. So let them be—if other members aren't complaining about them like in the quote above, then maybe some people find them funny, and new users might get caught up in it once in a while, and that's that. Clearly, the document is robust enough to withstand them, so I suppose it can certainly handle Scott Rodriguez54, who isn't a troll.

William Bennett53 said:Based on a moderator decision regarding American politics, you've been assigned a partial rating on that PDF. I really should have reached out the moment this was carried out, but I wasn't online at the time while you were, so I'm sorry for the delay.
Basically, looking at the cards issued just this year, you actually have three hate speech infractions. Consequently, your participation in discussions tends to be aggressive, often bordering on conspiracy theories and frequently involving the demonization of politics that differ from your own views. Because of that, it’s just impossible to include you in any constructive debates with others.

That username has been on the forum for 8 years, and they've put up 11,200 posts. And now, they've received a partial—which seems to reflect their overall contribution (they aren't grayed out right now). Out of those three hate speech cards, I saw one that could easily have just been labeled as heavy trolling. I'm honestly curious if the other two are just as borderline and what topics triggered them? If all three happened within a single thread in a short window, then the decision feels very rushed. To put it bluntly, quite a few forum members are saying the same thing. Should we expect that moving forward, there will be ongoing assessments of whether veteran users are capable of joining constructive discussions?

Everything seems fine, the moderator actually reached out via DM, so you can go ahead and lock this thread! 😁

Haven't heard anything from them yet? 🤔

I guess I’d probably write like a clone on the immigration threads, mostly because Bradley White73 isn't really around to chime in much lately—though I’d definitely keep all of her usual stances. I'd call this little alter ego Kiki Kroatorum and try to keep things as simple as possible. My main goal would just be to pop in occasionally to let people know when I actually agree with them, or maybe just to say that I’m choosing not to comment on a specific topic so people aren't left wondering. I promise I wouldn't be out there spamming or trolling or doing anything that would land me a ban or a red card.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Comparing refugees to Ottoman conquerors—people who were forced to flee their homes because looters showed up to take everything—is blatant trolling. It doesn't matter whether it sparks a massive debate or not. I know people are arguing over whether everyone involved is actually a refugee or not (as if that changes the reality for those who truly are), but in my book, comparing economic migrants to actual conquerors is just as much of a troll move.

As for Maria Booth's warning, I see it the same way. She compared people fleeing war, famine, or poverty to enter Europe with the European colonizers of America—basically hinting at crimes so massive they could be viewed as the largest genocide in history from today's perspective. If equating immigrants to people who committed those kinds of atrocities isn't inciting hatred, then I don't know what is.

Agreed. We all mess up sometimes.

Okay. Personally, I might have let it slide, but this explanation actually makes sense. I can see how someone would view it that way.

As for Maria Booth's point, it's the same thing. He compared people fleeing to Europe due to war, famine, or poverty with the European colonizers of America—basically hinting at crimes of such scale that, from today's perspective, could be described as the largest genocide in history. If comparing immigrants to people who committed those kinds of atrocities isn't inciting hatred, then I honestly don't know what is.
...

I just felt it was important to clear that up, so I could follow the logic and stay out of trouble. 😁 But honestly, even that would probably be considered heavy trolling rather than hate speech. Still, I suppose that's not my business, so I'll leave it to the moderators and Maria Booth to sort it out. Thanks for the reply, and I'm sorry if I went a bit overboard with my nitpicking in the thread.

@Grazia, what's wrong with me complaining twice if, in your opinion, things are too generalized and lack evidence? Not a single tree was harmed in the making of my complaints, so...😬

lonebadger6 said:Honestly, I'm on the same page. It might not even be undeserved—you basically got caught in a "sour grapes" situation where things were twisted into trolling, though you might have just paid the price for the general mood of the thread at that exact second. I wouldn't be against the admins lifting it, though...

Sure, thanks. I really don't have any intention of trolling, but I suppose I need a little breathing room regarding potential strikes—you know, for those times when I think I'm being perfectly on-topic, but the mods decide it's off-topic instead. Like that time Leonas's link about the Ottoman conquests got wiped out. Later, nasmijanonebo posted in that same thread and her post stayed up, and lo and behold, the whole thing didn't turn into a total mess 🙂 Just so I don't end up banned if I misread the room.
Now I'm just waiting to see if Chuck and Bradley Sanders4 get flagged for hate speech 😬

lonebadger6 said:I’m probably done weighing in on this topic if all we’re doing is airing specific grievances about the bans... there’s already a thread for that, and if the complaints are actually about "my" decisions, I'll address them over there. It seems like whenever someone isn't happy with an answer, instead of having a real, reasoned debate, it just devolves into a pile of trolling and personal attacks... it doesn't bother me, just lesson learned, because most people here don't actually want to talk to the moderators, they just want to fight. That ship has sailed 🙂 and I’m not talking about you, Bradley White73.

I’ll just correct you on one thing, though, purely so nothing gets misinterpreted. I never claimed that was an example of good moderation. What I said was that it disproves the idea that anyone is being forbidden from expressing their opinion. Bradley Sanders4 expressed it 80 times. Once, according to the moderator, he did it in a way that wasn't allowed. Sure, because of that one instance, he ended up banned, and if you think that ban was unfair, it's perfectly natural to conclude the moderation is bad, since from your perspective, an injustice was done. You’re entitled to your opinion on that, no argument there. But that still doesn't mean anyone is being silenced. He voiced his opinion before the ban, after the ban, and another 80 times besides.

The idea isn't really that expressing an opinion is banned—that’s not what I was getting at. It’s more about how the sense of freedom in writing gets stifled by over-moderating absolutely everything, and I have my doubts that this stems from the moderator's personal biases. Maybe I'll wait to see if Bradley Sanders4 or Charles Fox10 comments on Maria Booth's warning (since I did argue why it applies to others too), and then they'll probably end up complaining about your warning. I wouldn't say yours was undeserved, but I guess there might be another way to look at it. I'll try to explain more once I find a bit of time.

Sam Alvarez4 said:@Bradley White73...

This topic is proving to be quite a handful for the moderators...

I wasn't exactly thrilled with those reactions... @Bradley Sanders4 on the thread... Honestly, based on what she wrote there, I'd strip her moderator privileges in a heartbeat...

Well, regarding this whole topic... they're doing the absolute best they can...
You have my full support, if that even matters...

I won't get too deep into that other thread since I wasn't really active there—well, maybe I left one post or something. But since you brought it up, yeah, the moderation here seems a bit more solid than over there. The part I’m not quite buying, though, is this idea that they’re doing the absolute best they can. It feels like the moderation is driven more by emotion than anything else, and if you want proof, just look at Maria Booth's warning record. lonebadger6 actually uses her as an example of good moderation, pointing out she only has one strike after 81 posts. Sure, but it feels like that single strike was just held back until the perfect moment to finally nail her for everything else. Plus, handing out 500 points to Maria Booth and some of the other users might create a bit of an uncomfortable vibe for everyone else. I know what hate speech looks like, and I've always reported it whenever I spotted it. Bradley Sanders4, if you have a moment as a moderator, maybe take a look at my report history? I probably wouldn't even be posting in a thread where that kind of stuff is tolerated in the first place, and I’d likely be making much more noise about it than I am now. Honestly, though, I find myself missing that sense of freedom I felt when the conservative moderator, unknown, was in charge. Go figure. 🙂

lonebadger6 said:Bradley White73, well, all the better for you... 😉 My point is that nobody’s opinion is actually banned—you see plenty of sharp takes here, but as long as they follow basic civilized standards and aren't fueled by hate, they stay, regardless of what some moderator might think about them. You've got 41 posts and you've only been flagged once for "trolling" or maybe just being a bit too blunt when messing with someone else on the forum—not that we need to debate that right now, since there's an actual process for appealing warnings—but you haven't been hit once for simply having an opinion 🙂

Benjamin Reyes52 — sorry, I'm not sure if I can pull that specific number up even if I wanted to (unless I manually count through all 330 pages 😁), maybe the admins can see it, but who knows. All I can tell you is that there are currently 6,604 comments posted here.

I don't think I ever said when I started this thread that different opinions were being openly punished. There is almost a consensus here that what's happening is a bit concerning—to actually ban people for their views would be totally grotesque, and then nobody would stick around the thread.
Instead, it seems certain moderators have decided to get really strict about the *way* those opinions are expressed. Like my own sarcasm, or William Kim9's wordplay (which is just how he writes, even on non-confrontational threads, I suppose), or Maria Booth's tendency to exaggerate comparisons to make an impact—all of this is coming from users in this specific thread. Over there, there's a warning just for using CAPS LOCK (Bradley Sanders4), while everything else is written in lowercase. 🤣
And suddenly, all these supposed clones of permanently banned users have been uncovered; everything has gone haywire. I'll go refresh the page, only to find that if a post is shorter than 100 pixels, it just vanishes. And that warning Maria Booth received—500 points for that? That warning actually concerns me because that post is still sitting there with a red flag for hate speech. Users learn from these things; you scroll through, you see it, you stop, you read it, and you learn that a sentence like that is the most strictly punishable offense—two of those and you're kicked off the forum. So, I guess I'd love it if Bradley Sanders4 could explain the reasoning behind that warning and clarify which general rule is being applied here, just so we all know where we stand.

lonebadger6 said:By the way, regarding all this whining about "censorship" and people being silenced from expressing different views...

Maria Booth has 81 posts on this thread, and only one got flagged

Bradley White73 started this whole thing with 41 posts, and he’s only been flagged once

Nathan Brooks4 has 33 posts, with just one flag to his name

That single instance where I was warned for trolling was actually because of the "pickle season." I was just being sarcastic in response to that unknown's comment, which felt like a troll itself—I honestly doubt anyone actually meant it seriously.

A question for Charles Fox10:
If I were thinking about the intense political climate and the debates happening during this pickle season, and I suddenly decided tomorrow morning that the volunteers eager to welcome immigrants/refugees reminded me somewhat of how Native Americans celebrated Thanksgiving with the colonizers, and I decided to post something like this on a US forum:

"Those volunteers should really look into what happened to the volunteers involved in the Thanksgiving celebrations.", would I get hit with a hate speech warning?

PS
I suppose such a comparison might be a bit much if I wanted to use it tomorrow morning for dramatic effect, knowing full well it isn't actual colonization but just wanting to urge potential volunteers to be more cautious. 😬

Charles Fox10 said:We aren't the ones writing these things; we're the ones moderating. We don't act superior or goad people into posting hateful content just to flag them.

William Kim9, the answer is in these posts

Does this count as hate speech:

Maria Booth said:Those volunteers really ought to look at how the volunteers associated with Thanksgiving were treated.

So, I guess if Maria Booth makes one more comment like that, she'd get a permanent ban?

I have to say, I’m really feeling frustrated with how the Immigration thread is being moderated lately—it feels more like a slaughter than actual moderation. Posts are just vanishing into thin air, and there are entire pages where more than half the users are grayed out. Ever since Bradley Sanders4 took over, you can't even skim through a page anymore without the fear of needing to refresh, which honestly scares me half to death. If you actually want to read something, I guess you have to do it immediately before it disappears. I haven't been posting much on threads managed by Bradley Sanders4 or ones that aren't this "volatile," so maybe I didn't notice it sooner. But now, I just don't feel like writing anything at all; I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, watching for what Bradley Sanders4 might do next. I've actually gone ahead and deleted a few of my own posts already, because I know if I don't take them down myself, Bradley Sanders4 certainly will. 🙄 😵

It’s certainly not unheard of to see forum users naturally drift back to the main subject after a brief detour, especially if the moderators don't step in right away. I've seen it happen quite often, and honestly, I've even been part of those side conversations myself. Plus, you can usually tell pretty quickly whether an off-topic comment is going to hijack the whole thread or if it'll just fizzle out on its own because nobody's really feeding it. I guess we could use a little more flexibility here; maybe we shouldn't be quite so rigid about it. We aren't running some strict government agency over at 😁
.
PS
As far as I'm concerned, this thread can be closed. I've made my point, and that's that.

A user named Leonas shared a link that actually seemed pretty interesting—it was an article about immigration. I jumped in to reply, calling it spam and saying it wasn't serious, which I suppose was fair since it got deleted. But the thing is, the link itself was also wiped out. It wasn't even off-topic; if anything, it might have added some depth to the discussion, and I don't think one single post would have derailed the whole thread.
I still have the page open in my browser tab, honestly. I’m not really here to complain about having someone else's post back on the board, but I am feeling like the moderation has been a little bit too rigid over the last few days. I guess I wonder who is handling things right now... where are the main admins and the usual mods?

hollowmason64 said:Look, I really don't give a damn about the ban... the beauty of the WNBA PDF is that you can basically bark whatever you want, and if that means scrolling past a post like that, then so be it. Big deal. 🤷
It's just so rare to have actual interesting topics like this...

And yeah, that ridiculous nonsense she used to lock the thread was legendary—I actually pulled it into a separate window because we need to preserve it. 🥳
It's one of those perfect, clear examples of how someone uses stupidity and incompetence to mask themselves by attacking others. She tried to play the fashionista, couldn't handle managing a single thread, and then flipped it around to suggest that we're all too dim-witted and incapable of discussing anything besides trivial nonsense. 🙏
Well, Peter, I have to say it again—bravo. 👏

Not quite. 🥳
I’d love to tell you that the way our Women's Corner gets locked proves the guys in politics are just weak, but hey, they told us it's because we lack the capacity to handle it. 😢

I was just scrolling through to read what you all had to say, and please know you have my full support and a deep bow; I suppose one just has to endure this kind of labeling. And here I was thinking the discussions over at hard politics were actually intense. 😁

So, does a women's version of this thread actually exist? 🤣