Posts by redbear2

Joseph Allen71 said:Any moderator in charge of a specific subforum has the authority to delete a post they deem inappropriate for any reason.
Look, if someone deletes a post in a section where we’re allowed to be a bit loose with the language or just act like idiots—as long as it isn't malicious—I wouldn't even ask why. I’d just say thanks. 🙂

Fair enough. But what I want to know is what specifically made my posts "inappropriate." If the mods have the right to pull content, which is reasonable, then it stands to reason that I have the right to ask why they did it—to understand what was wrong with them. If everything was fine, then there shouldn't have been a reason to hit delete.

I’m trying to figure out why my posts were scrubbed from the thread Krkan men asking Krkan women and vice versa.

If I’m putting in the effort to write something, I don't see how you can just delete it without a valid reason. Either give me an explanation as to why they were removed, or just put them back up.

I also want to know which moderator handled this. And please, let’s skip the passive-aggressive move of just ignoring this thread.

lonebadger6 said:🤦

Now you're just trolling.

Yeah. That's commenting on the mods. He commented on the moderation. His post included a remark about how this forum is run. That's against the rules, whether you like it or not.

If you honestly expect someone to sit there and give you a lecture on why criticizing the mods counts as "commenting on moderation"—well, think again.

I'm more interested in why that specific comment is being labeled as "commenting on moderation."

Is it really a jab at the staff when someone who actually knows the rules says they won't post something because it violates them and would lead to a strike? Explain that.

jadecyclist36 said:I was replying to your whole point, I just didn't bother quoting the entire thing. I almost never quote massive walls of text.

This version is much more to the point. 👍

I can't write like that if I want to avoid people twisting my words or setting up straw man arguments. That's why I lay everything out clearly.

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh in my last post. 😳 🕺

jadecyclist36 said:I asked: "What’s the point?"
You could have just said: "To stir the pot."
Sometimes less really is more, Aba. 🙂

Sure, it could be, but it doesn't *have* to be a provocation, so I won't assume that's the case. If you actually want to debate, address my entire post. Otherwise, I’d appreciate it if you just let me be.

jadecyclist36 said:maybe it isn't a direct jab at the mods, but it's definitely a provocation in its own way.

I don't see the point. It’s like saying, "I'd say a whole lot more, but I don't want to get banned."

If you're already holding back, 🤷 what's the need to even mention it?

Okay, so? People provoke each other on this forum constantly. Similarly, we could call the moderators' intentional failure to answer questions on PZK a provocation. Now, you might tell me, "But how do you know they're doing it on purpose?" and I could easily flip that on you: "And how do you know someone is actually being provocative?"

Discussing whether there is a "need" for it is just trivial. There is no objective necessity for any of us to write anything on this board, is there? We could all just stay silent and kill the forum entirely. If someone feels the urge to write something like that, let them. It isn't commenting on the moderation, and it doesn't break any rules.

A statement like the one in the quote can't be penalized. It’s identical to saying, "I'd say more, but I don't want to go off-topic." People are simply signaling that they have things to say, but they assume they'll get a strike if they say them, so they stay quiet. It's perfectly legitimate. Users accept the rules and emphasize that, given those rules, they won't say what they really feel because it would violate policy and lead to a sanction. It’s like me saying I won't kill Michael, even though he's driving me crazy, because I'd end up in prison. Obviously, there is no legal equivalent to a forum rule, but the logic holds: it's a perfectly normal thing to say, and there is no basis for penalizing it.

lonebadger6 said:No, it isn't. They were sanctioned according to the rules of the forum. You can like those rules or not. You can think whatever you want about them. But the forum set the rules, and in accordance with them, that user was sanctioned.
If there was confusion about what constitutes commenting on moderation, that's why this PDF exists—to clear things up. It has. This is commenting on moderation.
I trust you understand that this isn't for you to decide (nor is it for brightpuma). Otompot opened a perfectly valid thread and asked a perfectly valid question. He got his answer. Do you really think it makes sense for us to act like children, arguing over "yeah it is" versus "no it isn't"? It does. That is commenting on moderation. There is no situation where you *have* to say this, so there's no problem.

He didn't get an answer. You didn't explain anything; you just stated that it counts as commenting on moderation. Explain to the guy clearly on what grounds this is considered commenting on moderation.

If you don't remember what you replied, I'll quote it for you:

lonebadger6
which, according to our court, is an indisputable violation involving unauthorized commentary on the moderation team.

Where’s the actual reasoning here?

Your entire argument on this thread just circles around how the forum works, listing out the rules, and pointing out that this is about critiquing the mods—only to wrap it all up with the conclusion that the post was sanctioned because of those specific points. You skipped the "why." There is no explanation for why this constitutes "commentary on moderation," mostly because it isn't actually doing that. The logic is off, and frankly, the strike for criticizing the mods doesn't hold water either.

It’s alright, but it could have been better. It’s a decent enough watch if you catch it once. Kind of like when you stumble upon a solid movie on Netflix late at night and just decide to roll with it.

Patrick Brown7 said:Hey, hey 🤣

redbear2, you're telling me... I wrote a review about lamb being "gross" on Yelp once—yeah, used that exact word—and they slapped me with a strike 🤣. But that’s just one thing; I haven't actually seen any updates there yet, for now 😂

True, but you have to account for the human element here. In this specific discussion, we aren't really critiquing the meat; we're looking at how a person might emotionally react to a comment. If there isn't a functional reason to use words like "gross" or "disgusting," then it's probably better to just leave them out. On the other hand, simply not liking something is perfectly fine and totally legitimate. We aren't all going to be everyone's cup of tea.

Richard Sanders7 said:Everyone has different tastes. I’m sure there’s a woman on this forum that I find attractive, but you might not see it at all. If that happens, you'll just swoop in and tell her she's ugly, she'll get offended, and then she'll stop posting photos altogether. And what am I left with then? Just scrolling through your comments? You know exactly what I mean, right?

HahaHAHAHAHAHAH

My bad. 🤣

Look, I can see where you're coming from. People shouldn't go around telling others their bodies are gross or calling them names. But if someone posts a photo and you just aren't feeling it—that shouldn't be a punishable offense just for stating an opinion. I'm not entirely sure what the original poster meant, but he mentioned he wasn't a fan of certain features because they were too large. In my book, that's a perfectly valid observation, and handing out a ban for that feels like pure nonsense. There's a difference between being malicious and simply having a preference. It's all about those blurry lines; nobody actually knows where the "allowed" zone ends and the "banned" zone begins. That ambiguity is honestly what bugs me the most.

loneskipper77 said:Since you’re all busy whining about being banned—which I guess is just what happens when you drop your "constructive," brutally honest feedback 😬
Well, maybe now you finally get why insults aren't allowed on this thread. There 😁

No, you missed my point entirely. What I was actually asking is—why should we even care if she decides to post fewer photos?

loneskipper77 said:It’s pretty obvious why you can't leave negative comments on photos over on The team thread 😁
Negative feedback = girls stop posting pics = less traffic to the thread... and I think it's clear enough to everyone what that implies 😁

The Bill is actually quite simple 🙂

But why should we be the ones worrying about that?

Richard Sanders7 said:It seems like you can't manage to come up with a coherent title for a complaint here, let alone an actual meaningful grievance, but you sure have no trouble being insulting.

Who do you think you are, sliding into some woman's comments just to tell her she looks unattractive? Honestly, who actually cares what you think? To make matters worse, you're doing this on a thread where negative commentary is strictly against the rules. Besides, there's absolutely no requirement to comment at all. You're free to just stay silent. If you can't wrap your head around that simple concept, then at least try not to brag about being a functioning adult.

Well, he’s interested in the logic behind the rules prohibiting negative feedback. I'm curious about that too, but we're never going to get an answer.

As for actually posting, he's a member of this forum. The woman posted those photos specifically for discussion. Asking "who are you" or "why does anyone care about your opinion" is just missing the point. Since we're talking about images, look at it like an art gallery. If an artist holds an exhibition and people start leaving nasty reviews about the pieces, they'll get a reprimand, and if they persist, they'll be kicked out onto the sidewalk. Someone attending an art show shouldn't be expected to trash the work the creator intentionally put on display for public viewing.

Aaron Harris2 said:Abić, you clearly missed the mark here. A partial ban isn't handed out just because someone drops one insult. There were threats involved, a mountain of spam, and people using alt accounts to bypass bans while the main handle was locked up.
I don't need to lay all this out for you. The Forum admins handle the penalties, and they aren't required to broadcast everyone else's business to the public, but I don't want you walking away thinking you're being targeted unfairly.
Maybe we should wrap this up before other people jump in to chime in. That wouldn't be ideal. Best, and next time, just shoot me a DM if you have questions and actually read what I send back. You aren't seeing the full picture—some posts get scrubbed, so you're missing pieces of the story.

No, no, no. I couldn't care less about "partial" versus "full." My point is that vatra ended up with a standard ban because of physical threats. If it was actually a partial ban, then fine, I still don't see the distinction. Look at Judolino—he’s constantly breaking rules and tossing insults around (not to mention the threats), too. But whatever. You guys can stay mad. This conversation is a dead end, and I’m not in the mood to play games. Even some random people have started messaging me now.

Yeah, but this is just my take on things. Correct me if I'm off base here. The Fire Department got banned for making physical threats. My question is, why didn't the same thing happen with bluecyclist64? I wouldn't even be posting this if I hadn't stumbled upon the Fire Department's thread and realized they were kicked out specifically for threatening violence. Again, let me know if that's not actually what happened. All I care about is consistency—making sure everyone gets the same punishment for the same offense.

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to reopen a closed thread or anything like that.

But I have to touch on that recent discussion regarding the CIA and those threats. Why did John Doe get banned for threatening physical violence, yet when I reported someone else for the exact same thing, Jack Doe told me he just gave them a verbal warning and wouldn't be doing anything further?

Where's the consistency in that?

I’d love to hear from Jack Doe on this, though I want to respect the supermod's privacy. I just don't get it. When certain users are being threatened, the aggressors get the boot. But when other users—myself included—get targeted, the people making the threats seem to walk away scot-free.

It’s about this specific post; the "reward" was nothing more than a warning for being rude.

Wouldn't it actually be a good thing for you to have a thread like this where people can just lay out their critiques? I get it—being criticized sucks, but honestly, it’s useful. If you actually care about making Reddit better, these kinds of discussions are essential. At the end of the day, user feedback is the most important thing you've got. Don't take this as some kind of personal vendetta; just set the ego aside for a second, listen to the feedback, and really think about what's being said.

The second people started sharing their thoughts, you shut the whole thread down. My own comment was perfectly reasonable. Because of your screw-up, my Ban lasted several hours longer than it should have. It’s not even about those extra few hours; it’s the principle of the thing.

Just let people vent, then take a look at what they're saying and actually process it. I'm pretty sure certain issues would come up constantly, and it's not always going to be the fault of the regular users.

I’m starting to think the mods here are just incompetent. My appeals are a total joke. I lay out a logical argument that should theoretically crush their reasoning, yet my infractions almost always stick. 🤣

They call you out for being "disrespectful," while they treat you with the exact same lack of courtesy.

The last time I appealed an insult charge, they swapped it for some made-up "inappropriate expression" tag. They assigned it the same penalty points, which is pure nonsense—there’s no way "inappropriate expression" carries the same weight as a direct insult. To top it off, my ban ended up lasting several hours longer than it should have because of how long it took them to process that ridiculous label change. It’s a comedy of errors. 🙏 🤣

Maria Johnson said:I’m just saying, once you trade Phiber in for someone else, you better hope luck is on your side. God help you. 😬 It’s fine, really. Pretty much standard and decent enough.☕

Look, I’m a much more reasonable person to talk to than you are. Dealing with me will probably be a lot less of a headache. 😁

loneskipper77 said:Honestly, reading your constant whining and complaining is actually kind of a vibe. It’s become my favorite little ritual to go through while I'm sipping my morning coffee. 🙂

They chased us out. We don't go anywhere!

I'll beat you. 🙂

Gotcha? 😲 So, I think we finally figured out who the real heavy hitters are on this forum. Turns out, you guys are all just kittens, too scared to even hold onto your own territory when someone else shows up. 🥳

Maria Johnson said:Johnny, you didn't send me that photo under the guise of being unphotogenic. I'm not exactly a supermodel myself, either. I've actually gone on the record about it, more than once. ☕ So, basically, your self-confidence is sitting at absolute zero.

Who exactly did you call out in public? 🍿

Maria Johnson said:Hey Lynx, looks like you're constantly complaining and bickering with old man Piper. 😬

Lynx* 😳

The moderators have it out for me. I guess I just have to fight my own battles. 🙂

loneskipper77 said:I already told you, we're a special breed. 🎉

Uh-huh, I see how it is. You guys are just trying to take over the whole Reddit. 🙂

I'm just waiting for the chat to blow up in the science section. Once that happens, I'll know it's game over. 😁

So now you’ve added a chat feature here too? What's the point? 🤣