Posts by Zachary Gomez2

If you head over to the very first page of the thread—that's where all the actual, concrete examples are laid out.

You seem to be operating under the assumption—or perhaps you’re just hoping—that you hold some sort of special privilege, considering you explicitly mentioned hoping that what you did "here today would be enough for the admins to let this thread die." If you want to play the sycophant, that’s your business; however, the way you behaved wasn't actually engaging in an argument—it was bordering on pure provocation. Let's not forget that you actually had to explain the entire context of the discussion based on my previous posts just to catch up. Your entire strategy for refuting me seems to boil down to claiming I am somehow "civilizationally inferior" simply because I don't share your specific vision—a vision that, by the way, isn't even the subject at hand (though apparently, you feel that using that tactic constitutes "refuting" me). If you were actually interested in the substance of the conversation, you would have noticed my disclaimer—which I included specifically for the dim-witted—stating that I wasn't commenting on the specific circumstances surrounding Brodarac's death. Rather, I was addressing the separation of topics (in reality, the crimes against civilians in Sisk are one matter entirely, while the current relevance of someone's passing and their subsequent desire to express condolences is quite another).

Your stubborn refusal to grasp what people are actually discussing is not a "difference of opinion." Scouring through other users' posts to try and paint them as agitators is not a "difference of opinion." Addressing me using the pluralized you all to you form is certainly not a "difference of opinion." Furthermore, hiding behind sweeping generalities is not an argument. I pointed all of this out to you immediately by responding to your individual posts point-by-point. So please, feel free to continue your little performance, lecturing us all from your high horse about your own lofty standards.

Paul Green31, we don't actually exist here me. I am present through my posts, just as my colleagues are through theirs. From the very beginning, I have had a perfectly clear understanding of what your objective is—you didn't need to draw any maps to find it—yet, somehow, it remains baffling to me why you enjoy the privilege of trolling this space. Concrete facts have been laid out; while they aren't everything, it shouldn't be a surprise that an admin might weigh in on them, a reality that should be patently obvious to you at this stage.

Paul Green31 said:So now you're trying to kick me out too? Is that just how things work with the crowd that can't stand Powerlock?

Hmm. I already took the hint. I saw exactly what kind of move a moderator makes like that, I understood the implications, and honestly? I agree. It was a responsible move by a responsible moderator—one that the rest of you should take as a lesson in basic decency.

As for those people who wish they could see a certain general swinging from a gallows, or those acting all sad about his passing? That’s their problem, not mine.

If we are going to stick to actual arguments, as you suggested, then let’s not wander off into thick, heavy fiction.
I, too, have understood the purpose and the consequences of this moderation action; we simply don't share the same interpretation. Regardless, thank you for the brief exchange.

Paul Green31 said:Oh, I see. You're trying to separate the talk about Brodarac being dead from the talk about the suspected war crimes he committed...

How fascinating. Apparently, Powerlock is some kind of enlightened human being who doesn't want to kick a man while he's down—or, you know, after he's passed—but instead wants to maintain some shred of dignity for the deceased. They kept the other discussion open so we can actually talk about the crimes, while just asking that we don't drag the late general into it.

Yeah, clearly a perfectly valid moderator move that any sane person with even a hint of empathy would agree with. Huge thanks to Powerlock for not acting like some mindless tabloid hack who gets a kick out of desecrating corpses, and instead trying to bring a little decency into this world.

Once again—don't patronize me, and stop coddling yourself.

Since you've clearly decided to stick around out of pure interest (whether in the topic or the staff), do yourself a favor and actually read carefully what I wrote regarding those two specific threads.

Paul Green31 said:You mean like this post that got nuked... and all because they broke the subforum rules?

James Diaz8 Asks:
I don't think so. 🙂

Yeah, exactly... just scraping by—but then again, it’s different for everyone, isn't it?

Patten of the North America

The corrupt godfathers of the North America. 🙂

The Hypo Alpe Adria Criminal Case.
The bank of war profiteers.

The farmer turned millionaire.

The Hypo Alpe Adria Criminal Case. Seriously, where do we even start with this mess? It’s one of those massive scandals that just leaves you staring at the ceiling wondering how anyone could be so incredibly corrupt. All that money, all those shady deals, and the sheer scale of the greed involved... it's enough to make you lose faith in everything. Is there any end to these financial nightmares?
The money trail.

Old-school cronyism, done the Bavaria way.

Did Stoiber support the purchase of the Hypo Group Alpe Adria in America?

Look at that date: December 18, 2009. 🙂

Even if you don't know a lick of German... just look at this. Stoiber, What a complete disaster. A total scandal.bank, at the bank controversial The purchase.

And what about this?

The central bank had actually blocked the sale of HGAA to the state bank at first. If they hadn't, that whole deal to hand everything over to the Bavarian group would have completely fallen through. Why? Because according to the terms of the contract, every single region where HGAA operated had to sign off on the pact—and that included the US. But then, right after Stoiber met with Sanders, the US suddenly changed its tune. By September 12, 2007, the National Bank gave the green light. What a convenient turnaround, right?

🙏

Talking to Der Spiegel, Stoiber tried to claim he only used his "close political ties to America" to smooth things over. But get this—he’s insisting the deal between BayernLB and the American National Bank was already set in stone before he even showed up. He claims he wasn't even involved in the purchase agreement between BayernLB and HGAA. Seriously? Since when does a guy like that just sit on the sidelines?

🙏🙏

Look, I'll give you enough material to work with, just tell me ☕😁

And by pure coincidence, the policy rules seem to conveniently skip this instruction:

Click and enjoy...

So, there it is—strictly by the book, totally professional, and incredibly educational.

Sorry, but I and a whole bunch of other users aren't interested in clicking through and reading German, Turkish, or Russian articles...

Go ahead, throw out some other questionable moderator moves...

No, I am referring to the very reason I joined this thread in the first place—something my own posts clearly articulate. Let’s not descend into mindless spamming, shall we?

Paul Green31 said:Look, I haven't seen you quote a single moderator move from Powerlock. You've only been quoting regular users.

We already settled this during the last debate... Look, I get it, you don't like it and you aren't used to it, but as long as someone is a forum user, they have every right to their own opinion. 😉

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly where we are. You act uninformed, slightly less intelligent—that's a polite way of saying stupid, though she tries to play it off by saying "a little less smart"—and then you pivot to that condescending "go educate yourself" or "read the press" routine. Typical.

I'll admit it, sometimes I am uninformed. And when I want to learn something, I come here and read what Powerlock has written. He’s guided more forum users and readers than the entire mainstream media combined. 🙂

I was quoting things specifically related to the threads about Đura Brodarac.
So don't try to put words in my mouth or lecture me.

To prevent us from getting too bogged down in baroque legalistic arguments (Paul Green31), you can find direct links to the specific problematic sites on the previous page. It simply isn't possible to provide a blanket response to these issues.

James Diaz8, my apologies. I mistakenly assumed your critiques regarding the global landscape had remained on that other thread; I see now they've followed us here.

It would have been more precise to put it this way: the specific grievances stayed on the front page. While I certainly don't mind wading through these broader—albeit complimentary—observations, and I suspect there is some truth to be found there, I much prefer getting into the granular details, given that we’ve already gathered here.

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that the primary—and I mean the most substantive—objections raised on the first page of this thread don't actually pertain to the World subforum.

mellowraven22 said:Nah, you don't need to. I took a look at the thread and honestly, I don't see any issue here. Personally, I’ve got nothing against things getting a little heated, as long as people actually have an argument to back it up. Besides, both you and slybison8 are top-tier users on this board—and I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm intended—your posts are always a blast to read. Yeah, you might throw a sharp jab at each other once in a while, but I don't think it's a big deal. It’d be nicer if we could skip the toxicity, sure, but if I have to choose between a high-quality debate that gets a bit salty or some polite, boring conversation that's just plain stupid, I'm picking the first one every single time.

Look, when a topic starts blowing up like crazy, the posts just pile up way too fast for any Moderator to actually keep up with. It gets messy. In those cases, sometimes we just gotta lock the thread for a bit—just a temporary shutdown to clear out the junk, do some basic cleanup, and get everything back in order before we open it back up again.

I don't think you actually addressed my specific point regarding the types of threads I'm talking about:

Just a small contribution from my side—I have no intention of hijacking the primary purpose of this thread, so if I drift into generalities in the title, bear with me. Since you all decided on the other thread that Powerlock has every right to his own opinions as a forum member (or a "Forumer," in his preferred terminology), and that such views don't interfere with his moderation duties, I feel compelled to remind everyone once more: having an opinion is one thing, but influencing the direction of a discussion by permitting sub-par discourse is quite another (though I suspect my previous posts failed to convey that distinction clearly enough). In that particular example, it isn’t that one shouldn't be allowed to claim homosexuality is a disorder or a deviation; rather, it is that a moderator's decision cannot be to allow anyone walking through these digital halls who insists "homosexuality is a disorder"—without providing any actual reasoning—to simply hide behind their "right to an opinion." Because, let me repeat, that isn't an opinion. It's just noise.

That is one matter; here is another. Regarding the recent ways in which Powerlock’s stances (which are, admittedly, better reasoned than what he was attempting to shield in the aforementioned examples) might influence moderation, consider the timeline of when and why the original thread regarding General Brodarac was closed (was it deemed irrelevant? outdated? pushed out of scope?) and when it was subsequently reopened. It was shuttered at 9:58 AM on the day of General Brodarac's death, only to be reopened much later at 2:37 PM that same day following a comment from a user. A six-hour silence? (And please, I mean no disrespect to the tragic nature of the situation or the legitimate questions surrounding the circumstances of his passing: those factors could not possibly justify closing a thread concerning allegations of war crimes in Sisak only to redirect the conversation toward entirely different content and tone.) Suddenly, a nonsensical instruction appeared on the thread: "Please refrain from mentioning the late General Brodarac..." (and to add insult to injury, they wrote "General," but let's move past that). Only then did someone mention that there were actually two other suspects involved and that the thread exists as a standalone entity (effectively admitting that for at least six hours, the moderation was being driven by personal bias):

Thread Closed
Thread Reopened

These are merely illustrative examples; if you look at the thread concerning Brodarčev's death itself, you can see a series of exchanges (and deleted posts) that specifically critique such moderator steering.

It was honestly uncomfortable to watch people struggle to explain that these two things—and these two distinct threads—cannot be treated as one and the same.

Alright, so we’ve officially heard the Reddit stance: Lockheed Martin hasn't been abusing their moderator status to push a personal agenda. That's all well and good, but I have a follow-up—was the position being used (perhaps even inadvertently) to shield certain unarticulated or unsupported viewpoints under the guise of "subjective beliefs"? Specifically, those views that might not even fully align with the moderator's own logic, yet conveniently fall within the acceptable boundaries of the mainstream narrative?

Paul Green31, I honestly think anyone who actually wanted to grasp my point already did. I’m not shifting my stance, adding things after the fact, or conveniently leaving stuff out—just read what’s on the page and follow the logic. Here is one more attempt at clarity: we don't have to settle for any particular level of discourse if we simply choose not to.

steeleagle70, the crux of the matter lies in the specific moderation style linked in my initial post. If that isn't actually what is written there, then I’ll withdraw my objection. I am perfectly willing to concede that someone else might interpret the same text differently. However, my argument remains that those blue-highlighted explanations carry actual moderator weight, and I know precisely why such things can become problematic in a day-to-day context—in fact, I was quite explicit about that in my previous remarks.

Paul Green31 said:Oh, thanks for the link.
That perfectly illustrates the difference between having actual perspective and just shouting an opinion (one that leaves room for others to weigh in, whether you agree or not). Being able to tolerate views that clash with your own is the main thing a moderator needs to be fair, decent, and objective. You don't see much of that with the other political posters here (except for the latest guy).

Let's grab that quote and tear it apart.

That’s a stated fact. It stands.

That’s exactly what we’re debating here.

Should it be that way here, too? I think that's a perfectly valid point to raise regarding this topic.

What's got Paravinja so worked up? Is a kid holding a provocative sign really comparable to a serial rapist? 😵

And *this* is the comparison he's calling crazy, rather than acknowledging his own ridiculous move of comparing a potential murderer to a kid with a sign.

Look, not only is calling out those kinds of comparisons a good thing, but he should have used blue text and issued a warning. Why? Because those exact types of generalizations and twisted contexts are the primary fuel for flame wars and trolling on this site.

I don't get it. What's the problem? 🤷

When a moderator claims that Mexicans shouldn't be buying property in America, suddenly everyone's outraged because it’s "about the Mexicans." But the second you mention that property restrictions are standard practice across the entire European Union, suddenly we're all rushing headlong into this "modern community" we're supposedly voting for at the ballot box.

If a guy opens up a debate, keeps it broad, and actually leaves room for people to question whether certain rhetoric qualifies as hate speech or just individual liberty, then he's the bad guy. Please. If you were offered a green card tomorrow, half of you would pack your bags and move to the States, where protecting individual rights—even the right to be a jerk—is baked into the Constitution.

You hypocrites are attacking PowerLock's stance instead of how this place is being moderated. That’s exactly what you are. 🙂

To actually be fair, decent, and objective, one would first need to possess some level of expertise in the specific field they are attempting to moderate. For instance—and this is merely a reflection of the education I have invested in—I am well aware of what the social sciences dictate regarding whether homosexuality constitutes a disorder. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin believes—right here on Politics!—that the stance claiming homosexuality is a disorder should be protected as a subjective belief, falling under the umbrella of free speech. My point is this: we are discussing subjective beliefs in America, which are often not even clearly articulated (let alone backed by facts) and are potentially discriminatory—serving little more than the function of spreading prejudice. Therefore, what is the actual purpose of protecting such speech? Not unless we are capable of analyzing subtext, context, and broader implications.

Should it be that way for us too? I think it's legitimate material for discussion on a topic like this.

But tolerance isn't the sole criterion, nor is it the only subject matter at play. Beyond that, we are dealing with statements far more excessive than yours—this example is, in my view, redundant if we already understand the dynamics when discussing Mexicans in America. Why does insensitivity always seem to trend in such a predictable direction?

Hypocrites attacking Lockheed Martin's stance rather than the moderation itself. That’s exactly what you are. 🙂

My comment was concerned exclusively with the influence exerted through moderation. I wasn't interested in the Paravinja matter; I simply used the free speech argument as a paradigm. I merely want to point out that there must be a greater concern for the quality of discourse—the unarticulated reproduction of prejudices doesn't require protection, especially not officially. Besides, such things are already heavily protected by default.

steeleagle70 said:Look, we aren't even talking about his political leanings here. We're talking about objectivity. Does he let those views mess with how he moderates? His politics are out there in the open, so if you're "fighting" him on the forum, you're fighting his actual posts.

As long as his personal views don't bleed into his moderation, I honestly don't see a problem with a mod having "sketchy" opinions.

Actually, he might be the only mod around who actually stands for something. You gotta respect that. Most of the others just act all high and mighty trying to play it "neutral," which basically means they don't care about anything or they'd rather be literally anywhere else.

Personally, I think it's a way bigger flaw for a mod on a forum like this to have no backbone at all than to just have an opinion different from mine.

Of course, that's assuming he isn't using his moderator powers to force those views on everyone else.

And with Lockheed Martin? I haven't seen any sign of that happening yet.

If a moderator uses blue text to signal their own position—much like the examples in my previous links—as if setting a benchmark for moderation, then that isn't something you simply debate; it isn't merely some forum-style opinion. It is a directive that dictates the direction and the very caliber of the discussion. Both my earlier examples and the ones Satori just quoted fall into a category that, in my estimation, is beneath even a casual participant, let alone someone holding a moderator position.

he is probably the only mod who actually wears his heart on his sleeve, which is something to respect—most others just sit up there acting superior, maintaining this fake "neutrality" where they don't care about anything... which either suggests politics doesn't interest them and they only care about the "power" of the moderator role, or they'd honestly rather be anywhere else.

There is a distinct difference between expressing an opinion (because you have the right to) and possessing actual breadth of perspective (because you have the intellect to). A moderator needs established criteria for their own speech, for the speech of others, and a sense of where the entire conversation is heading. For instance, this, does such a comparison actually leave us any richer?

He isn't exactly the finest moderator on Politica; if anything, there’s a distinct lack of competence regarding content management or actually standing by a specific principle—though I suppose some people view moderation merely as a task of keeping the peace rather than upholding standards. What I find genuinely problematic about Lockheed Martin's approach to certain threads is his attempt to shield a viewpoint that isn't even a coherent opinion—it's more like he's trying to protect some untested "middle ground" of thought.

A few instances:
- (Is it biased?) The abrupt shutting down of threads concerning Pride parades (viewed as political assemblies), and labeling Mary Petir as the homophobe of the decade—even though, in the weekend following that thread closure, Peter was actually a guest on Sunday in Two, which could have served as perfect fodder for further discussion—in my view, a moderator failure par excellence. Three separate threads discussing LGBTQ+ issues at that time were shut down within five minutes, accompanied by the message "permanently closed."
- An example of moderation on such topics that I personally find most unacceptable—especially considering this involves the right to assembly guaranteed by the Constitution and, primarily, matters of politics: example 1—assuming that viewing homosexuality as a disorder is simply a matter of ignorance rather than an actual opinion (this isn't a subjective stance, let alone a protected right to one—exceptions usually apply when a user can provide a reasoned argument, though this moderator decision makes that distinction unclear), followed by a new post where this is further explained, essentially acting as a way to dodge actual moderation: example 2—once again, it remains unclear what criteria a claim must meet to be considered anything other than pure trolling, and that distinction only becomes clear after a subsequent post by The Edge.
etc.

p.s. Personally, I am not asking for him to be fired; I simply want him to read this.