Posts by redbear2

Matthew Anderson said:In short, we feel you haven't actually changed. Your rhetoric is the same as ever, and that's the consensus among the other mods who weighed in on the internal thread about removing your strikes. In fact, one reason for this was that post, where you mentioned you still don't agree with the warnings you received.

Since the moderators need to reach a consensus to remove strikes, and there isn't one right now—they aren't being removed.

Thanks for the explanation.

I just don't get why I should have to agree with previous warnings. It's pretty clear that in two out of the three cases in that linked post regarding personal attacks, there wasn't any actual insult involved. In the third case, I specifically asked to have my "insult" warning swapped for a "subforum rule violation" warning because I didn't actually insult anyone. Instead, you guys just invented a new warning equal to the first one, effectively extending my ban by swapping them. It felt incredibly unfair. I warned you this would happen, but you ignored me and let me sit in a longer ban under the guise of it being "my own fault." This isn't me making things up; I pointed out the implications of issuing that second warning several times, but it was all brushed off. Even Nica sent me a message along the lines of "your ban will end when it ends," or something like that. I don't recall the exact wording.

And then you have the nerve to tell me I need to agree with those warnings if I want my strike cleared? And then you claim my rhetoric is bad? Sorry, Matthew Anderson, but that’s just a bit ridiculous.

Look, fine. Let the strike stay. What of it? I just wonder how much of this is an actual penalty I earned, versus how much is just personal bias or people messing with me. Could you please let me know what the mod vote looks like regarding the removal of the strike? Surely that isn't classified information.

As for my standing; I'm sitting at 45 points right now. My last warning was back on February 10th for an alleged insult, though I had no intention of insulting anyone and the moderator simply misread the post. I'll admit there was some room for interpretation there, but I still think it could have easily been taken as a joke. Before that, my last warning was two months prior.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:Maybe try reading the rules? The moderators have to follow those exact same guidelines when they issue warnings.

The thing is, those rules are incredibly open to interpretation. I won't even get started on how the mods toss out warnings for "ad hominem" attacks when most of them don't even know what the term means, let alone how to spot one in a real debate. If the rules were black and white, pointing them out would actually matter. But right now? It’s just whoever has the loudest voice. We users are basically just stuck in the crosshairs. Honestly, the best move is to link the rulebook directly to a mod to prove you didn't break anything, only to have them ignore you anyway because they’re clearly playing by their own set of unwritten laws. What a joke.

Richard Nelson84 said:With the full agreement of the Apple moderators, the request to remove the partial section is denied.

lol

edit: Can I get a reason, or do I need to file a separate formal request for that too? I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but where I'm from, you explain what happened, how, and why. Seems to me like moderators should probably follow a bit more of a playbook like that.

I finished my parole eligibility period on September 12, 2015. Technically, I could start asking for a pardon on March 12, 2016. But since we’re basically at that six-month mark already, and there are a few threads popping up on Apple right now that I’d actually like to jump into—I'm wondering if my record could be cleared early. Is it possible to have that period wiped and get the green light just a week or so ahead of schedule?

From what I gather, that six-month window is more of a guideline, so exceptions aren't out of the question. And honestly, a week and a half isn't exactly a massive deviation from the rule. 😁

So, what do you guys think? 😳

I think I could actually contribute something useful to the PDF, especially since I helped out with the last round. Though, looking back, my previous input was probably way too negative. My bad on that one.

Richard Nelson84 said:It’s tough for me to take someone seriously when they have dozens of pages of posts and a handful of warnings, yet constantly complain on PZK about every single strike or whatever else happens. You seem to be one of those users who thinks bans are personal vendettas or just targeted harassment. Not to mention the way those appeals are handled—it can be pretty tacky. It makes normal conversation nearly impossible. And I think that's the real issue being ignored here; I get the impression the "troublemakers" are always the ones complaining while the quiet majority just follows the rules. I used to be an ordinary user myself, and sure, sometimes it felt like the mods were out to get me. But once I stepped into a moderator role, I realized that’s almost never the case. Honestly, the mods deserve credit for the time they put in to make this place a better community. Most of these complaints feel baseless because the mods actually try to be fair and professional.

Fair enough. My opinion must be invalid since I have a few warnings and a long post history, whereas you were just a regular guy before becoming a moderator.

My apologies to everyone for even bringing this up. I’m starting to think I completely misunderstood the point of this thread.

William Bennett53 said:It’s always just one step away from being outright rude.
The concept of "Bahatost" is essentially about being a bit of a loose cannon—someone who acts without much regard for social norms or the expected way of doing things. It’s that specific kind of eccentricity where you just do whatever pops into your head, regardless of whether it makes sense to everyone else in the room. Think of it like someone walking into a high-stakes meeting at Goldman Sachs wearing a Hawaiian shirt and flip-flops. They aren't necessarily trying to be offensive; they just operate on a completely different frequency than the rest of the corporate crowd. It’s a lack of decorum, sure, but there’s often a certain unpredictable energy behind it. In some circles, it might be seen as refreshing or even bold, while in others, it’s just plain irritating. It’s all about how much friction that unpredictability creates with the status quo.

And who said otherwise?

I said that's just a fancy way of describing someone acting arrogant by labeling something as "bold" when it’s really just plain conceit. I’d appreciate it if you didn't rely on straw man arguments.

Look, let’s not get sidetracked here. Stick to the topic.

Am I hijacking the thread? 😕

I’m just responding to what rustydrifter10 wrote; I don't see how that constitutes hijacking the thread. I'm sticking to my own experiences because, frankly, that's where my expertise lies.

It wouldn't have been any better, even if you hadn't gone out of your way to provide three separate examples for three perfectly justified penalties.

Alright. Here’s my take. I actually disagree with you, and honestly, I think my position is backed by the arguments already laid out here. I'll leave it to everyone else to look over the facts and draw their own conclusions.

Look, you already hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread when we were talking about how some people around here will never be satisfied, no matter how much context you give them. Some folks just aren't looking for an explanation; they're looking for a fight.

I could get on board with that, though I’d probably approach it from a different angle than you did.

William Bennett53 said:I don't really care about that. Whether someone actually has a point—or if they’ve successfully dismantled an argument (or just thinks they have)—is a completely different beast from how they choose to deliver it. It's like judging a meal by the plating when the cooking itself is what matters. One thing doesn't dictate the other.

I'm with you on that. It follows that how someone delivers their argument shouldn't change whether the core complaint actually holds water. Just because someone loses their cool or isn't being polite doesn't mean they aren't right about the issue at hand. If they're actually in the right, the moderators should probably just wipe the penalty clean.

That’s just part of what I was saying earlier regarding the criteria. At the Unknown Organization, the rule is pretty straightforward: we delete offensive, rude complaints and we don't bother responding to them at all.

If someone starts throwing insults or breaking the rules, you’ve got to act on it. It’s only fair. Just tell the user to file an official complaint through the proper channels, lock the thread, and maybe hand out a warning. I don't stand for ignoring these things. It’s like calling customer service at Amazon and being incredibly rude, only for the representative to just hang up on you without saying a word. That doesn't solve anything.

If someone just writes from a distance, throwing aggressive jabs at whatever they’ve decided is wrong, and you interpret that as pure arrogance—well, that’s a whole different ballgame. Don't you agree?

A healthy culture of dialogue isn't just about talking; it’s about building a system where you can actually handle complaints without everything falling apart. It’s like running a business—you need a way to process feedback so you can get back to work instead of getting stuck in an endless loop of grievances.
And besides, those appeals are actually being looked at. I can't speak for every single PDF or every individual mod out there, but from what I've seen, that's definitely how it works with the major players.

I’m not saying complaints shouldn't be looked at. I’m just saying my impression is that, more often than not, they barely scratch the surface before moving on.

I’ll eventually circle back to that whole debate about whether anyone actually has a right to an opinion—or if someone has truly been dismantled by a solid argument (or at least feels like they have).

- I got slapped with a ban here for an ad hominem attack that wasn't actually an ad hominem. I even laid out the proof to show why, but apparently, that didn't matter.

- Just another ad hominem.

- I honestly don't even have the words for this one.

Just a few of my own cases.

rustydrifter10 said:Nobody can guarantee that for you; I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Look, I’ll start by saying I find the whole argument about openness pretty hard to swallow. My sense is that most complaints aren't even taken seriously to begin with. By definition, a complaint comes from a different perspective than the moderator handing out the penalty. For instance, there have been several times where moderators didn't even bother explaining my warnings, and when they did try, I proved them wrong. In those cases, I was usually just labeled as being rude and then ignored. Other times, I've been told my appeals won't even be looked at unless I act "polite." That's the exact opposite of critical thinking or being analytical. If someone is right, their tone shouldn't matter—being right is being right. Pointing at someone's "attitude" feels more like an emotional reaction used when there aren't any actual arguments left. Don't you think?

rustydrifter10 said:If we have to put it plainly: we’re looking for people who are capable of thinking critically, analyzing things, and staying open-minded without being too stiff. Otherwise, moderation would end up feeling pretty robotic and rigid, which doesn't help anyone—not the users and certainly not the admins.

Can I give my honest take on this without worrying about getting a strike?

I’d also like to suggest that it would go a long way if moderators actually explained their reasoning when a user asks about a ban or a warning. Just saying "you got flagged for trolling" isn't really an explanation. It’s like being handed a ticket by a cop who just points at the sign instead of telling you why your specific driving caused the issue. Or they might quote the exact sentence they took issue with, but still fail to explain *why* that specific wording violates the rules. In my view, if a moderator can't clearly articulate the logic behind a penalty, then the penalty shouldn't be handed out in the first place. I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen.

lonebadger6 said:Spot on. He wasn't implying everyone does it; he was looking at the big picture. And in that broader context, the point holds up. You can find arguments for both sides if you dig through the Complaint Department or head over to the ban corner. It’s a bit of a Catch-22. If a moderator jumps in, they're accused of being biased and picking sides. If they stay out of it, people start asking why they aren't doing their jobs.

Fair enough. I'll take the correction.

William Bennett53 said:Unfortunately, anyone with even a little experience as a moderator can tell you that when users get flagged and show up at PZK, they usually have no clue what’s actually happening. It’s almost always the opposite. Most of them insist their penalty was totally unjustified and claim the moderator is being biased, clueless, or just incompetent...

It goes both ways. I’ve logically dismantled the reasoning behind several infractions assigned to me, yet the penalties stayed on my record regardless. Once, due to a moderator’s oversight, my ban lasted way longer than it should have, even though I warned the mods about it several times (in my own thread on PZK). If I recall correctly, I didn't even get an apology. It was one of those situations where my appeal against a specific flag was "accepted," but then by some weird coincidence, the system swapped it for a different flag for some other supposed violation. So, while the first ban was lifted, the second one kicked in immediately, effectively extending my suspension.

If a moderator is actively participating in the thread they are moderating, they are inherently biased. If they aren't participating, they're uninformed. Sometimes, they manage to be both.

Not true.

We had a similar explanation recently, so I’ll just reiterate: as we strive for better moderation, we currently don't have a better method than this combination: user reports and appeals, horizontal oversight from fellow moderators, and vertical ex post control from super-mods and admins.

Just clear out the current staff and bring in some more objective people to moderate.

Reports and appeals don't seem to mean much to you guys. I've reported posts plenty of times that weren't sanctioned, even when the rule violation was obvious. I've reported posts for insults, only to see "trolling" flags handed out instead, even when a user was clearly calling someone stupid—even if they used terminology that some mods don't quite grasp. Please spare me the "why didn't you appeal?" or "where are your examples?" routine. You're supposed to be able to trust us. I didn't start threads here because, generally speaking, you just bite back harder when I do. There have even been times when mods got defensive when I offered suggestions on how to better manage the PDF files. I guess they take it as a personal attack on their competence.

Regarding appeals, I've seen cases where deserved penalties are forgiven just to keep the peace, while those proven wrong during a PZK debate aren't cleared. Also, the "trolling" flag really needs to go; it’s far too often used as a one size fits all excuse whenever a moderator can't think of a legitimate reason to flag someone they've already decided to target. Maybe defining "trolling" clearly in the rules would be the simplest way to stop the abuse of that specific tag.

edit: I also want to point out that mods are frequently stricter with newcomers than they are with the old guard, even though common sense suggests it should be the other way around. But I'm not surprised; people are just wired that way. My house, your house, old timers, rookies, friends, strangers. The point is, moderators should actually account for that when making decisions.

Noah Ross7 said:Lady Gaga really looks stunning without all those heavy makeup gimmicks 😬

They’re beautiful, sure—but those pathetic, fake tears? Total act.

Edward Ortiz77 said:Christian Bale and Tina Fey are excellent in The Big Short. They outshine both Matt Damon and Michael Fassbender, and honestly, they even beat out Eddie Redmayne, who seemed to be aiming for a predictable, cookie-cutter Oscar role this year just to chase awards—but it fell flat. It’s pretty obvious that migrants and Mexicans are the big trend in Hollywood this year, with everyone trying to push a specific message right before the presidential election.

Tina Fey is better than Matt Damon, and Christian Bale is great too, though I don't know if it's just me or if he actually had very little screen time in that movie. For me, Matt Damon takes the edge because he practically carried the whole thing on his back. And as much as some people here love to talk trash about The Martian, most of that criticism feels pretty baseless; the movie is solid.

Anyway, I'm disappointed that Spotlight and The Big Short missed out. They were easily the two best films of the year. Even if nothing else, The Big Short deserved at least Best Original Screenplay.

Spotlight and The Big Short/The Martian.

It’s just pornography masquerading as high art. Cheap, dull, and frankly, a waste of time.

Charles Fox10 said:Every single mod action I take has its reasoning behind it. Whether anyone actually agrees with my logic or not is a different story entirely.

lol

I’m glad you’ve got it, but at the same time, it’s kind of a bummer how hard you’re digging your heels in about sharing it with me. 😁

As far as I'm concerned, we can just agree to disagree. 😳

Charles Fox10 said:You clearly missed my point here:

Are we finally on the same page now?

Not really, because you still haven't actually explained yourself. Just telling me you don't think something "fits" doesn't carry any weight. It’s like me claiming that after we die, everyone moves to a land inhabited by pink unicorns. You’re just throwing out an opinion without providing any actual reasoning behind it.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I can see we aren't getting anywhere, so I'm calling it.

Just a little tip for the future regarding how you handle moderation (take this as friendly advice) -> try to have a rationale for your decisions. If there isn't one, it logically follows that your actions aren't based on anything substantial—they're just based on whatever mood you happen to be in at the moment.

Charles Fox10 said:So, what’s actually the issue here? Why are posts getting deleted? Usually, it’s because they’re out of line—maybe they aren't outright offensive, but they just don't belong in this specific thread. That's the general rule. As for what you're specifically asking, my take was simply that those few posts didn't fit the context of what happened in Paris. That’s all there is to it.

Fair enough, but I personally don't think they were out of line. 🤷

Why exactly do you think they shouldn't be there?

Joseph Allen71 said:Look, you haven't been around this forum forever. You know perfectly well that nobody is obligated to explain why a post was deleted. If they choose to give a reason, it’s just a courtesy.
Anyway, I won't stand in your way while you go hunting for justice. Hopefully, you get the answer you're looking for. 🙂

How so? If a post gets nuked, there has to be a reason behind it. It's basic logic. I don't think my posts crossed any lines, so I want to know why the moderator felt they were inappropriate. They owe me an explanation. A deletion needs to be justified. If it isn't, then those posts shouldn't have been touched in the first place.

I’d appreciate it if you stopped weighing in here. This thread is specifically for questioning the moderators. I don't see how your input helps my case.