Posts by redbear2

rustydrifter10 said:Your partial was removed.

Right. So it should have been done sooner, but nobody bothered to notice. 👍

Can someone just tell me when my partial eclipse ends? I honestly can't remember when it started, and I have no clue if there’s even a way to check that online somewhere.

🤣

Alright. 😁

Eric Hernandez said:We agreed that partial deletions are an option.
But just like anyone else here opting for partial wipes, you’re going to be under special observation for a while, whether you explicitly asked for a partial removal or not.

Best,

Tenzing. 🙂

What does that actually mean? Like, give it to me straight—if I go through with this, what am I getting back?

Alright, fine. You could’ve just said so from the jump. I don't see what the big deal is about giving a straight answer like that right away.

So?

I’m looking to get my ban lifted from the football sub. I know there’s usually a six-month waiting period, but honestly, I’ve lost track of the exact timing. If I got hit at the start of the year, the six months should wrap up around early June—maybe even sooner, like late May if my math is off.

To be clear, this wasn't about being a jerk in the comments. I actually requested it because I felt the mods handed out an unfair penalty. Now that the season is officially over, I really want to jump back into the transfer window discussions and keep up with all the news on the forum without having to constantly log in and out.

Thanks. Take care.

hollowmason64 said:Oh, sure, let's just change all the rules because you decided that’s what works best... give me a break 🤣

CNN is just how it is. Those of us who post here pretty regularly actually went through the ringer 😢 back in the day before we finally agreed that this style of moderation was the way to go. We did a trial run, things worked out, the PDFs are running smoothly, the mods have settled into the rhythm, and most of the regulars are happy with how everything flows. You can either get used to it or go find a different PDF that matches your vibe better 🤷

And just to add one more thing—you clearly don't have a clue what actual insults look like if you haven't spent any time venting in the threads about CNN 🤣
Those of us who survived can tell you how it is 😬

Honestly, I couldn't care less what you think.

The moderators gave me their answer by staying silent. I asked perfectly reasonable questions that challenged whether quality moderation is even possible under these "rules," and I got nothing back. That silence tells me everything I need to know about CNN and its leadership.

Let’s start over. I asked for straight answers. Save this canned "moderator wisdom" for someone else.

Christian Howard2 said:The easiest way is to just not insult anyone, then you won't have to worry about it.
All the rules are open to subjective interpretation by the mods.
There is no objective formula that covers every single nuance of an infraction—not in moderation, and honestly, not even in real life. We just have to rely on the moderators' judgment.

And no, profanity isn't allowed on CNN, but insults are selectively permitted. I'm asking you: what criteria are you using to differentiate between allowed and disallowed insults? I'm asking so I can navigate this myself and avoid getting a ban for insulting someone.

If you're going to make accusations like that, bring some concrete examples where people were selectively allowed to insult others while others weren't.

If you can't give me an answer to that, it logically follows that you aren't differentiating based on rules, but rather handing out bans based on your subjective feelings in the moment. It's absurd. You could be offended by something that wouldn't bother the person it was aimed at, and end up banning me for it. But if I throw an insult that wouldn't bother you, but would offend the target, you won't ban me. It simply can't function that way. You shouldn't be choosing who gets offended; such subjective moderation has no business being on a forum.

Furthermore, if users don't know what's permitted, how can you possibly punish them for breaking the rules? If murder wasn't illegal under U.S. law, how could you convict someone for it? So I'm asking again: what is the basis for differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable insults? If you actually have an objective framework for doing this, then share it here with all the users so we can actually recognize what's allowed and what's not.

I expect a direct answer to all of this.

The rules state what is and isn't allowed, and users should follow those.

No, it isn't. Offense is being allowed selectively. So, apparently, I can be insulting, but I don't know what criteria are used to decide which insults fly and which ones get flagged. Tell me: how do you differentiate between insults? How do you pick which ones to punish and which ones to let slide? Honestly, telling someone "it's easier if you just don't apply for jobs so you won't get rejected" is terrible advice. It's useless.

Shouldn't moderators aim for objectivity when making calls?

I am asking for the objective framework you use to distinguish between permitted insults and prohibited ones. Explain your logic to me so that I might follow the same standard.

If you're going to make accusations like that, bring specific examples where certain people were allowed to insult others while others weren't.

In my last thread, Amelia told me calling someone a "mare" is fine (we also know that mocking someone's intelligence is allowed), but calling them a "bucket of sperm" is not. They are all insults, yet they aren't treated equally—it's selective. Now, explain the objective difference here. Why is one slur considered worse than calling someone stupid?

The rules state what is allowed and what isn't; users should just follow those.

The rules are essentially nonsense, if you'll excuse the language. The rules say "insults are allowed, provided they are polite." We already established long ago that "polite" is a loose term and anything goes.

What I want to know is how we determine what is actually allowed. If a moderator can tell the difference between insults, there has to be a pattern. That pattern needs to be objective and logically consistent for any punishment to be justified. If such a pattern exists, share it with the rest of us so we can follow the same rules. If it doesn't exist, then maybe it's time to rewrite the rulebook.

P.S. — You need to update the rules regardless because of the bolded part. Otherwise, we're just creating more problems.

Christian Howard2 said:Just because CNN allows for some colorful language and heated debates—and because moderation there can be a bit loose sometimes—doesn't mean we actually want people insulting each other or encouraging that kind of behavior.

Deciding what stays and what goes is always up to the moderators. It’s on the users to try and follow the forum rules and just use basic decency.

I think we can consider this matter closed.

Nothing is closed. I’m looking for straight answers, not a way to dodge the question.

Sure, deciding what passes is in the hands of the mods, but that doesn't answer my question. I didn't come here for a lecture on obvious logic I already understand. I have a problem, and I came here for a solution. As moderators, that’s your job; otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the role at all.

My question is: what is allowed and what isn't? If I don't know where the line is, how am I supposed to stay within the rules? Do you honestly expect users to just intuitively sense what's acceptable? How does this actually work? Sorry, but I'm not psychic. I can't guess which specific insult a moderator might subjectively perceive as a valid point and which one they'll decide is an attack.

And let’s be real: it's not that "colorful language" isn't allowed on CNN; it's that insults are permitted selectively. I'm asking for the criteria you use to differentiate between a permissible comment and an insult. I'm asking so I can navigate this myself and avoid getting banned for offending someone.

If you can't answer that, then logically, you aren't using criteria at all. You're just handing out bans based on how you feel in the moment. That's absurd. You might find something offensive that wouldn't bother the target, and then you ban me for it. Or, I could throw an insult that wouldn't bother you, but would offend the recipient, and you'd let it slide. That's not a functional system. You shouldn't be choosing who gets offended; moderation that relies on personal feelings instead of objectivity has no business being on a forum.

Furthermore, if users don't know what's permitted, how can you justify punishing them for breaking the rules? If murder weren't against the law, how could you convict someone for it? So, I'll ask again: what is your basis for distinguishing between allowed and disallowed insults? If there is an objective standard you use, share it with the community so everyone actually knows where the boundaries are.

I'm waiting for a direct response to all of this.

Rachel Ramos27 said:No, I just didn't feel like waiting around for some future update where being an absolute moron gets paired up with calling someone stupid.

Anyway, over on Zuckerberg, we usually move those kinds of childish hair-pulling fights over to the right thread. In this specific instance, the mods weren't around when the bickering started. By the time I showed up, things had already died down, so I didn't move anything. If the shouting match had kept going at that volume, I definitely would have stepped in.
In the end, we decided those posts should be moved to the appropriate spot, so they were.

Fine.

So, what insults are actually allowed then? What’s the actual criteria for deciding which insults fly and which ones don't?

I want to insult you, I just don't know how.

I'll give you a tip if you help me out. Look, I've even got one specifically for the ladies.

Joseph Allen71 said:From what I recall, the ladies over at Zuckerberg requested a bit more leeway for personality and individual expression, including some chick fight style banter, within reason. For anything else, we have the mod team to step in and fix things (not 😁randomly) according to the rules.
Now, as for that specific thing—it should be scrapped immediately because it offends the delicate sensibilities of a handful of people who can't handle a little edge within the group and don't know how to deal with it.
Is the solution to appoint a new moral compass? (In which case, just for the hell of it, I’ll demand that any woman wanting to post here provides an official certificate proving she wears a hijab 😁). Or is the solution to adapt to the society you want to live in, rather than demanding that society bend to your every whim? Or perhaps find a society that thinks (or acts crazy) in a way that suits the OP's preferences. I'll leave that assessment to the OP itself.

Bravo. If you ever find yourself in a post-apocalyptic scenario where people are killing and looting without mercy, just adapt. Kill and loot right back. 👋

What actually bothers the OP is this: since insults aren't allowed, an insult can be punished depending entirely on a moderator's mood. As I mentioned before, a moderator's mood at any given moment depends on a thousand different trivialities. Rachel Ramos27 confirmed my point perfectly when she suggested she wouldn't recommend calling someone a "cum bucket." Based on that logic, why does she consider calling someone "monumentally stupid" an insult? Is it because calling someone a slut is objectively worse than calling them stupid, or did I just hit a nerve with Rachel Ramos27? If it's the former, I'd love an explanation so I can understand which insults cross the line and avoid them. If it's the latter, then it's just her subjective reaction to my insult, which isn't inherently worse than other insults that might go unpunished. In that case, who's to say another person's insult, if left unchecked by a moderator, wouldn't be subjectively felt to be even worse than "cum bucket," yet wouldn't get flagged?

Ultimately, how am I supposed to follow the rules if I don't even know which insults constitute a violation? Consequently, on what basis can I even be punished for an insult at all?

It's also interesting how the moderator mentioned in this post wisely backed away when I asked about the difference between two specific insults. 🤣

The rules and the moderation here are a total comedy. 😵

Rachel Ramos27 said:I definitely wouldn't suggest that second option.

Why though? What's the actual difference? 🍿

Rachel Ramos27 said:Look, it is what it is. On Facebook, they stopped policing stuff like this ages ago.
That doesn't mean the subreddits have turned into a free-for-all where anyone can just vent whatever nonsense pops into their head. Just join the conversation, participate normally, and the occasional bit of banter or back-and-forth won't be an issue.

So, basically, I could just randomly call someone a total loser or some other trash on Facebook without getting banned? 🙂

Rachel Ramos27 said:Welcome to the platform.

Great. Now go ahead and read what she actually wrote for yourself. 😵

Calling someone stupid isn't some subtle jab; it's a direct hit.

Ugh, don't even get me started on MK. 🙄

I have much better things to do with my time, but it really grinds my gears when mods just ignore blatant insults. I’ve sent in nearly a dozen reports over the last week alone, and not a single post has been taken down. You’d think they could at least establish a universal standard for verbal abuse on this forum. It feels like trolling or going off-topic gets flagged instantly on certain subforums, but outright insults? That seems to be a free pass. It’s total bullshit. If I follow the logic here, it’s like being told insults are actually allowed. If I started calling people idiots or throwing insults around, it would just be a matter of time before some mod slapped me with a ban. But how do you even justify that? They’re just digging their own graves for when things inevitably blow up later. What kind of moderation is that? 🤷

Honestly, they should just update the subforum rules to say "insults are permitted" and call it a day. At least then everyone knows the deal. Keeping it like this means some people get away with being jerks while others get punished. What does that tell you? It tells you that whether an insult sticks depends entirely on the moderator's mood. And what dictates a moderator's mood? Who knows—maybe how their day went, or maybe the fact that they clearly play favorites with certain users, just like everyone else does. It can't work this way. I honestly don't understand the criteria used to pick these moderators in the first place. This isn't a community; it's the Wild West.

What a total joke this PDF format is. 🙏 The mods claim they’re staying on topic, but everything here is just wide open. I even tried clicking the little arrow on the posts, but clearly, nobody gives a damn. 🙏

I honestly can't wait for the day I finally get banned for "insulting" Zuckerberg. That'll be the icing on the cake. 😵

Half this thread is just pure insults, and the mods are basically sitting there twiddling their thumbs. Not a single yellow card issued. Get it together.

Aaron Harris2 said:Of course they have the upper hand in that thread compared to someone like you who just showed up to stir the pot.
And don't be surprised when your posts get nuked and you end up sanctioned (though that hasn't happened yet).
Your whole body of work—a handful of troll posts—isn't worth my time or space here or anywhere else. I'll make sure users know not to call you a "troll," because that label doesn't actually fit you. I also don't consider that a personal insult given how you've been acting.
That's all from me. I hope you take the hint regarding the thread rules for next time.
Bye now.

Fair enough. They carry more weight in that specific discussion than I do. I get it, and I'm fine with that.

But I still don't see why my post was deleted while the one calling me a troll stayed up. In the deleted post, I wasn't provoking anyone; if anything, I was clearly the one being baited. No matter how much value a user—in this case, a female user—brings to a topic, I still deserve objective treatment. Isn't that the point? If you think comments about fake breasts count as provocation, then delete those, but don't wipe out the ones where there was no provocation at all. Actually, you deleted my response to an insult. Meanwhile, the insult itself remains untouched, no penalty issued. And yeah, it was an insult; it’s obvious from the context. Unless you're looking at the entire history of my interaction with her to justify it, then we're just talking about poor moderation. An insult shouldn't be "justified" by context.

Glad to finally see how things really work on MK, even if nothing actually got resolved.

Take care.

Aaron Harris2 said:Hey there.
The Team has rules laid out in the intro post that we have to point out constantly (and now I’m pointing them out to you), so take two minutes to read them carefully.
No negativity in comments from the girls, no instigating with mindless predictions about where their breasts came from, and so on. Once you’ve read the rules, there won't be any issues moving forward. Don't go looking for trouble where there isn't any; this thread has been running in the same direction for years and it'll keep doing that with you (if you're willing) or without you (if you aren't). Cheers.

I asked some specific questions regarding my deleted post and the insults that went unpunished.

Honestly, I don't care much about the thread itself anymore because I've realized it's set up in a pretty narrow way. It doesn't really allow for any freedom of opinion that still follows the site rules; instead, it just encourages opinions that flatter the girls so they keep posting photos. I'm not bothered by that, but it's a flaw in the forum that it allows such nonsense.

Like I said, I posed some direct questions that aren't about how the thread is structured, so I'd appreciate some answers.

If anything wasn't clear, I can easily copy those questions again so the folks over at MK can understand them better.

Why wasn't the insult sanctioned? Calling someone a "troll" is an insult, isn't it? So, am I just free to walk around these forums calling people trolls?

As for my deleted post, I don't see how it steered the conversation in a bad direction. A user named Derin told me she was going to tighten things up for her own sake, and I simply responded in kind by saying she probably puts on makeup for her own sake. If her calling me a troll isn't steering the thread in the wrong direction, then I don't see how my comment does it either. It feels to me like you mods are just taking her side because she's showing off, which is pretty unfair. As moderators, you should use your heads, wouldn't you agree?

P.S. — I'd also love for you to explain exactly how my comment suggesting breasts might look fake is considered negative. Don't just label it "provocation"; tell me specifically how it's a negative comment. If you can't explain it, you shouldn't call it negative, which logically means it's perfectly fine for me and everyone else to leave comments like that.