Posts by Joshua Jones13

swiftbison18 said:I guess that's just your opinion on what counts as an example.

Those are simply the rules for this sub-forum. If you expect people to actually engage with your thread, you need to open it according to the guidelines. Otherwise, don't be surprised when it gets shut down instantly.

Emily Patel70 said:I guess you’ve pretty much said everything there is to say about yourself here. There isn't really anything left to add.

No, seriously—enough has been said.
Even just looking at the original posts from the person filing the complaint—which the other members linked—it's pretty obvious how baseless this whole thing is.

As far as I'm concerned, maybe we could just lock the thread.

fadedcrane48 said:It’s never too late on this forum. 🙂

The title clearly states that it refers to the entire forum. If I had known you guys would jump down my throat unless I specifically listed every single sub-forum in the title, I would have done that.
My bad for not knowing the procedure.

If you aren't here to actually engage in a discussion and just want to troll, why even show up? You're intentionally breaking the rules and abusing your position, and then acting all smug about it?

That outburst wasn't "unserious" at all—it was completely dead serious, especially since we even pointed out how inappropriate it was at the time.
When discussing Jelena Rozga's sexual orientation, talking trash about someone's political or worldview opponents is more than serious.

That user has a right to have an opinion, and to express it without being insulting, which is exactly what he does.
You all seem to be judging him based on this weird logic. It's like accusing an author for something a random character said in their book, as if it were the author's own personal stance.
He never actually wrote it the way you're claiming here; that feels like your own interpretation and framing. I read what he actually wrote, and it feels like you've stretched his statements beyond recognition just so you could justify punishing him.
Your explanations basically boil down to: "You cleverly hid insults and hate within your words, but we dug them out after a long search through your sentences to find the true meaning."
That’s how I got a ban for being insulting too, back when I asked if it was considered Nazism to threaten an entire nation with extinction.

I don't know how to phrase my question so that I actually get an answer, instead of just being brushed aside and sent on my way.
I don't think I'll achieve anything here by playing the "lone wolf against the world" type, but I did notice a few bad things happening on what is otherwise a good forum.
I brought this to your attention because I thought you actually cared about the opinions and complaints of your users, but you're making me doubt that more and more.
Even when you change the penalty and the points, you still insist that I was being insulting, even though you corrected the mistake and changed the ban to trolling—so what's there left to argue about?
I'm pretty disappointed in how you treat your users, honestly, deeply disappointed.
I'm not used to being treated so arrogantly by the people who are actually supposed to be helping me.
Some places even pay people to listen to every criticism and opinion just to please their customers and help themselves improve.

I'm sorry you've reduced everything to a "quick brush-off."
LP

Everything you need is right there in the rules for the specific subforum where you filed this appeal. It’s generally considered a good idea to actually read the rules of the section you're participating in.

fadedcrane48 said:It’s never too late on this forum. 🙂

The title clearly states that it refers to the entire forum. If I had known you guys would jump down my throat unless I specifically listed every single sub-forum in the title, I would have done that.
My bad for not knowing the procedure.

If you aren't here to actually engage in a discussion and just want to troll, why even show up? You're intentionally breaking the rules and abusing your position, and then acting all smug about it?

That outburst wasn't "unserious" at all—it was completely dead serious, especially since we even pointed out how inappropriate it was at the time.
When discussing Jelena Rozga's sexual orientation, talking trash about someone's political or worldview opponents is more than serious.

That user has a right to have an opinion, and to express it without being insulting, which is exactly what he does.
You all seem to be judging him based on this weird logic. It's like accusing an author for something a random character said in their book, as if it were the author's own personal stance.
He never actually wrote it the way you're claiming here; that feels like your own interpretation and framing. I read what he actually wrote, and it feels like you've stretched his statements beyond recognition just so you could justify punishing him.
Your explanations basically boil down to: "You cleverly hid insults and hate within your words, but we dug them out after a long search through your sentences to find the true meaning."
That’s how I got a ban for being insulting too, back when I asked if it was considered Nazism to threaten an entire nation with extinction.

I don't know how to phrase my question so that I actually get an answer, instead of just being brushed aside and sent on my way.
I don't think I'll achieve anything here by playing the "lone wolf against the world" type, but I did notice a few bad things happening on what is otherwise a good forum.
I brought this to your attention because I thought you actually cared about the opinions and complaints of your users, but you're making me doubt that more and more.
Even when you change the penalty and the points, you still insist that I was being insulting, even though you corrected the mistake and changed the ban to trolling—so what's there left to argue about?
I'm pretty disappointed in how you treat your users, honestly, deeply disappointed.
I'm not used to being treated so arrogantly by the people who are actually supposed to be helping me.
Some places even pay people to listen to every criticism and opinion just to please their customers and help themselves improve.

I'm sorry you've reduced everything to a "quick brush-off."
LP

That’s a pretty brilliant way to complain—telling a supermod that they're trolling and being arrogant, specifically regarding the part of the appeal that falls under their actual authority.

Look, there’s one rule that gets brought up here all the time, and for good reason. Other people's warnings and bans don't concern you. The administration discusses disciplinary actions with the user who actually received them, not with every other person on the forum who might want to weigh in.
The second you pivoted this appeal into a debate about Felixx, you made the whole thing completely pointless.

Better late than never, I suppose, but this is what happens when an appeal doesn't follow the rules and fails to specify which PDF it’s actually addressing in the title.
I won't touch the political side of this appeal; I'll just focus on the stuff regarding Kokošinjac and those posts linked from Trach. Honestly, I don't see how they merit a ban, and frankly, it's a bit laughable that anyone takes posts from Trach (really, Trach?) seriously.

I certainly don't intend to participate seriously in an appeal that lumps casual, vulgar trash talk in with some forum user whose entire existence revolves around spreading hatred toward women—someone who seems hell-bent on convincing the world that domestic violence statistics are just inflated fantasies cooked up by feminists, and that abused women are actually the psychological aggressors against men and children, therefore deserving of the violence they endure.

All set. These posts definitely belong in the trash.

Kevin Vaughn14 said:Hi there,

I was wondering about something I read once—is it true that posts that get archived can't be deleted? Or rather, if they are deleted, they just don't get archived? Is that actually how it works?

Not really.

It varies depending on the specific sub-forum, I guess. In some places, archived posts stay put, while in others, they get wiped. But there isn't any rule saying you can't delete something just because it's eligible for archiving.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Personally, I don't buy it (and honestly, I’d love for the admins or supermods to take a look at this one)—the idea that a moderator is allowed to stir the pot just to shut down the debate with their powers once they realize they're losing the argument. It’s one thing to moderate, but using those tools to forcibly end a discussion just because someone actually backed up their points? That feels less like management and more like picking on dissenters. 🤮

In a situation like that, I really think either another moderator on the subforum or someone from upper management should step in and address it.

I've been watching, but the situation seems pretty straightforward. Honestly, there isn't much left to say that Sophia Thomas7 hasn't already covered—and from what I can see, she’s being quite patient in explaining things post by post.

There isn't any targeting of dissenters; the warnings are strictly for rule violations. And, you know, we don't comment on colored moderator warnings or discuss moderation tactics within the threads itself.
I guess I just don't see any abuse of power here.

Besides, it's the moderator's job to steer the conversation and reel it back in if things drift too far off-topic, which is exactly what Sophia Thomas7 was doing with those warnings.

Elizabeth Davis said:Since when has editing posts been allowed like that? 😕

No, but if you look at Carlin's post, I guess she just rushed into it because she's new. Instead of deleting the whole thing, she just wiped out the part that broke the rules during moderation. She apologized, too, so maybe we can just move on from this now.

Jack Moore90 said:But they're actually going to complain about someone else's ban?

No.

The reasoning behind the Cats ban was sent via DM, so if she wants to appeal her own ban, she can. I guess nobody else needs to step in for her.

boldwalker12 said:If the mods want to weigh in on this, go ahead. Moderation already laid it all out for you and Dog, who keeps trying to turn a single warning about staying away from Good's story into some massive ZUD case.

I haven't really jumped into this thread until now since everything seemed pretty clearly explained, but I guess I should say something just so I'm not ignoring it. Specifically, the moderators have warned users multiple times not to circle back to Good. There’s already been plenty said about him and his example; he was really just the spark for a useful discussion that moved past him. It seems like a waste to keep dragging the conversation back to whether Good is lying or trolling. We don't exactly have much patience for trolls over at ZUD anyway.

Also, there have been a few too many attempts lately by users on ZUD to pressure the moderators into policing things based on personal preference or to get rid of people they disagree with. We aren't going to moderate based on what someone wants, and we aren't removing users just because they get under someone's skin. I hope that's clear, because maybe it wasn't before.

That's all I have to say about it.

phiber said:This reminds me of that whole "I won't talk to Nica, give me a different moderator" thing.

Me too.

Zoya, I honestly don't see anything problematic about the post you reported, especially since Alex and phiber already explained why it’s fine.
Monica brought up something you had basically hinted at through your own posts (maybe some asexual leanings?), and you made it clear you weren't a fan. Monica was ready to drop it and get back to the topic in her next post, but you're the one who kept pushing it.

We aren't going to sanitize this forum by banning posts that aren't even insults.

Look, Emily Ramos35, how many more identical posts are you planning to write and delete on this thread?
When I wrote this reply, there were three. I see we're already up to four.

The others have explained quite a bit, so I don't see much point in repeating myself, though I suppose I should address this:

graniteridge6 said:(and I noticed that since then, there’s been more verbal sparring before someone actually gets a ban, so clearly something shifted). 🙂

I said it then, and I’ll say it again. Moderators aren't actually obligated to hand out warnings; it’s purely their discretion. And looking at this appeal, it seems even the warnings themselves are being criticized if they aren't delivered in a perfectly timid tone.
I’m quoting you, graniteridge6, but I’m not addressing you directly—I wouldn't want you to feel singled out. I'm just speaking generally. 🙂
If people don't want to be treated like children—especially when warnings are being taken personally despite not even being phrased that way—then maybe they shouldn't act like children by cluttering up every corner of the forum. We have dedicated chat threads for a reason; leave the chatting to those topics. On other threads, please allow for actual discussion instead of burying it under useless spam that isn't funny to anyone except the people doing the spamming. I get that the participants might find it amusing in the moment, but usually, it’s only fun for them. Everyone else is just forced to scroll through a mountain of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Every time we loosen the reins—and we have tried being lenient several times—things spiral out of control. We'll jump into a thread only to realize we have to delete about 60 posts all at once. I'm probably underselling it. Just 60 posts of mindless chatting that drown out any real conversation. Imagine if we had to issue bans for every single one of those.

unknown is not that kind of forum, and it is the moderators' job to maintain order here. But we aren't going to write a warning for every single warning. Likewise, don't expect a courtesy heads-up every time before a ban happens. You have the rules; those who have been around long enough surely know them, and I don't think we need to remind everyone of the basics in every single thread.

Grace Scott76 said:Look, you clearly have eyes, so you jumped to the conclusion that I'm talking about sex with a 15-year-old. What’s the issue if I'm not breaking any laws?

I am not violating any criminal statutes or any other laws because in the US, relationships with someone 14 or 15+ are legal... she's 15, and that's exactly why I'm looking for an admin or anyone else in charge to unlock this thread, because locking it was totally unjustified!

If I've supposedly violated some moral code, then go ahead and lock all those cheating/infidelity threads on Apple too!

Are the rules here supposed to apply to everyone equally, or what?

Look, I'm the one in charge here, and I've already said no.

Moderators don't just exist to police the peace; they also manage subforums, which I guess gives them the authority to lock threads they deem inappropriate.

The 'request' is denied.

mistyseal8 said:So, is that somehow a massive evil? There’s a balance between order and chaos, and I guess a decent moderator understands that distinction. Besides, this isn't some heavy-handed political news outlet.

And it isn't being run with an iron fist. It’s not sterile, nor is it overly strict, but I don't think we should just let toxicity spread unchecked.

The rules haven't changed, and there hasn't been any sudden shift in how things are moderated.

If you actually bother to read the whole thing, you'll see that Gnosis didn't call anyone an idiotically retarded moron; he was just commenting on how their communication is at that level.
The post where he supposedly insulted someone has already been deleted.

hollowmason64 said:Man, Joshua Jones13, I really expected more from you...

But that’s exactly the point!
You're getting hung up on the fact that someone was being a smart-ass 🤣 Every day someone is picking at someone else over some random topic, and honestly, the color of a user's handle shouldn't matter. But the "issue" started when Paul Morales3, during that whole "my dad is bigger than yours" kind of banter, pulled out the "argument" that she can do something Ace can't—simply because her handle color gives her that power—and therefore she "won"... I mean, come on. 🤣
Forget having a debate where someone can just mock you using tools they only have because they're a moderator... 🙄

Look, I like Paul Morales3, and Ace can definitely be a handful sometimes when she gets hyper-focused on something, and if we were going strictly by vibes, I'd be Team Paul Morales3 in a heartbeat—but I'm standing with Ace here, because what Paul Morales3 did was just childish... sorry Paul Morales3, but it was. 🤣

And is it really such a huge deal to just say sorry? Especially since that wasn't an argument anyone should have been using in the first place.
No!
Instead, you guys would rather drag this thing out forever, trying to convince everyone here that people are just narrow-minded and don't get the joke, rather than just sitting down with Paul Morales3 and settling it with one single post—and then it's over. 🙄

This whole thing with the ZK moderation is becoming impossible to take seriously—it feels like there's no way for a simple bit of banter to ever just be resolved. 😍🤣

Look, to me, that kind of mocking feels a bit like kindergarten behavior. It surprises me that anyone would take offense at a sentence like that. It’s unnecessary, sure, but is it really worth all this? All these threats like "I'm putting you on ignore"... 🤷
I don't want to sound heartless, and I don't want Ace to feel uncomfortable on ZK, because there's no reason for that, but that specific comment was just pathetic, nothing more.

hollowmason64 said:Man, Joshua Jones13, I really expected more from you...

But that’s exactly the point!
You're getting hung up on the fact that someone was being a smart-ass 🤣 Every day someone is picking at someone else over some random topic, and honestly, the color of a user's handle shouldn't matter. But the "issue" started when Paul Morales3, during that whole "my dad is bigger than yours" kind of banter, pulled out the "argument" that she can do something Ace can't—simply because her handle color gives her that power—and therefore she "won"... I mean, come on. 🤣
Forget having a debate where someone can just mock you using tools they only have because they're a moderator... 🙄

Look, I like Paul Morales3, and Ace can definitely be a handful sometimes when she gets hyper-focused on something, and if we were going strictly by vibes, I'd be Team Paul Morales3 in a heartbeat—but I'm standing with Ace here, because what Paul Morales3 did was just childish... sorry Paul Morales3, but it was. 🤣

And is it really such a huge deal to just say sorry? Especially since that wasn't an argument anyone should have been using in the first place.
No!
Instead, you guys would rather drag this thing out forever, trying to convince everyone here that people are just narrow-minded and don't get the joke, rather than just sitting down with Paul Morales3 and settling it with one single post—and then it's over. 🙄

This whole thing with the ZK moderation is becoming impossible to take seriously—it feels like there's no way for a simple bit of banter to ever just be resolved. 😍🤣

Now, you're asking the wrong person. I'm not Paul Morales3. And I'm also the last person who wants to drag this out. I have zero interest in endless debates, and frankly, I don't have the time.

Ace, I think you both poked the bear unnecessarily, and maybe there could have been a bit more tact from either side given the circumstances. But since Paul Morales3 is a mod, I get why being targeted by staff might sting a little more than just regular user drama. I'm not a fan of the idea that moderators shouldn't be allowed to do what users do, but I see where you're coming from.

The part I don't quite get—the bit that seems to be bothering you so much—is that post where Paul Morales3 got defensive and said she could put you on ignore while you couldn't do the same to her. So what? 🤷 Honestly, I guess this complaint would carry a bit more weight without that, but fine, clearly the whole thing rubbed you the wrong way.

If you're worried about the mod being biased down the road, we have other moderators who can step in if things ever get messy. Or anyone else, really, if someone ends up being unfair.

Don't start sulking just because you have such a trashy, low-rent name 🙂

🙂