Posts by Benjamin Palmer3

Ryan Vaughn7 said:The discussion thread will be opened tomorrow once the signatures have been officially submitted.

That sounds wonderful, thank you! 😍

My reasoning for requesting this thread be opened:

If The Wall Street Journal is reporting on the marriage referendum here in America, why is it considered off-limits for discussion on the Politics subforum?

http://uimeobitelji.net/2013/06/11/f...olnih-brakova/

The signatures are being submitted to Congress this Friday.

http://uimeobitelji.net/2013/06/11/predaja-potpisa/

The issue of the referendum triggers daily reactions and official statements, topics that are being discussed quite freely on every other political forum—so why not this one?

Based on these points and everything I have previously noted, I am once again asking that the topic be opened.

Charles Fox10 said:Scotsman serves as a supermoderator over on the Politics forum.

Very well, thank you. 🙂

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Škot.

What a dark attempt at trolling; I actually went to check a thesaurus to see if "haughty" was a fitting description for me, only to find it implies being "puffed up." I am certainly not puffed up. In fact, quite the opposite. Furthermore, I fail to see how that has any bearing on my statement that the matter is settled and the topic is closed.

Who exactly is Škot? I am not particularly well-acquainted with the moderator and administrative hierarchy of this forum, so I cannot tell if you are referring to a real individual or simply playing games with me. 🤷

Are we continuing with this trolling? Honestly, from your vantage point, this is a rather pleasant little distraction for which you won't face any sanctions, so why not? Knock yourself out. ☕

Ryan Vaughn7 said:To be perfectly honest, you and Roy have both strayed into making personal attacks against that other individual. While I don't hold any particular grievance against the ruling itself, you both seem to have wandered quite far afield from the actual legal point.

There is.

I still find myself wondering why you insist on labeling me as arrogant.

Who exactly holds that authority? I am calling upon those who do to coordinate with you and perhaps the other moderators over in the Politics section to reopen this contentious thread, given all the reasons I previously outlined.

Arrogant. And please, let's not engage in trolling.

You are essentially creating extra work for the moderators, who, in my humble opinion, ought to be issuing sanctions for your posts on this topic tonight.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:There is a dedicated thread regarding the constitutionality of the marriage referendum. As for the referendum itself, there hasn't been any significant news to report yet—just endless bickering and noise—so I am going to lock this topic until further notice.

I find myself at a complete loss. I simply cannot wrap my head around it.

Is anyone else besides you involved in the decision to open this thread?

I am truly sorry that you fail to grasp how an arrogant and condescending attitude is neither appropriate nor acceptable in this space. Honestly, you should probably just take a penalty; you’ve certainly earned it.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:We have already touched upon this subject here

We certainly have, but in the interim, leading constitutional experts have come forward to make their public statements. If I recall correctly, the UIO initiative is set to submit their signatures to Congress this Friday. Isn't it somewhat absurd that debates regarding this particular political discourse are occurring everywhere except within the Politics section of this forum? The interest is immense, the topic remains incredibly timely and significant, and new developments continue to unfold, yet we find ourselves unable to discuss any of it here. How much longer do you intend to keep this thread locked? Is there someone else besides yourself exerting influence over the decision to reopen this discussion?

Furthermore, Arthur Fowler83 was quoting the forum owner, who pointed out that the exact stance you adopted tonight at 10:03 PM is considered unacceptable; I truly hope you understand that such an arrogant and haughty attitude is neither appropriate nor necessary.

Arthur Fowler83 said:Perhaps it would be prudent to remind our esteemed (super)moderator of the very guidelines that led to his appointment in the first place:

"Anderlon says:
1. Condescending, arrogant, cynical, sarcastic, or "I-am-god-mod/admin" behavior is strictly prohibited when handling appeals on the PŽK. (Violations will result in warnings or bans.)"

👍

While those words sound wonderful in principle, one has to wonder how they translate to actual practice. Is that really what is happening here?
Ryan Vaughn7? The PŽK moderators?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It does. It stays closed.

Let’s not be quite so blunt, shall we? Surely there is a way to approach this with more democratic spirit and better arguments.
Why exactly is it staying closed? For how long? What is the actual core of the issue here?

shadowpanther26 said:Simply closing a thread isn't a solution if offensive posts are left standing. Doesn't such an approach merely fuel further debate and pour gasoline on the fire? Personally, I found the topic quite engaging; although I didn't participate directly, I followed the discussion closely. In my view, I didn't see any posts that were truly offensive toward Christians, yet I observed a significant number of comments targeting homosexuals and those who support their rights. Is it really an insult to call someone homophobic? I would argue it isn't, just as I don't believe it is an insult to label someone a clerical right-winger (an accusation one user received, likely from Ryan Vaughn7 himself). However, I do believe calling someone a Catholic Taliban, a pervert, an idiot, or a fool constitutes an insult—yet these terms are frequently permitted, especially when directed at individuals whom a certain moderator favors. This bias is quite apparent, which is why I rarely comment; I am the type of person who loses my temper easily and reacts immediately when insulted, whereas the moderators seem to allow people to bicker first, only to hand out bans rudely once someone finally snaps. Is this not a flawed way to manage things? I refrain from using harsher language because, of course, the moderators are practically waiting to exercise their authority, particularly in this subforum where their (lack of) work is being criticized. Power is intoxicating, after all, and it seems even the moderators aren't immune to egoism.

How wonderful, a new hierarchy of insults according to Arcanum: everything said by the pro-marriage referendum side is categorized as a top-tier, worst-case offense, while the terms used so sweetly and innocently by the anti-referendum side—such as fascists, clerofascists, or backwards hillbillies 😍—are viewed as something lovely that everyone looks upon with affection.

Your logic is reminiscent of a preschooler; it is very kind of you to refrain from joining the fray, and I thank you for that. 😉

On another note, is there anyone here willing to speak up regarding the opening of the marriage referendum thread in the Politics section?

Nicholas Long78 said:We should probably just leave this topic alone, considering how much it serves only to insult and belittle the entire LGBTQ+ community.
If we use any semblance of common sense, isn't it obvious that this marriage referendum is nothing more than an attempt to strip away basic human rights from people simply because of their sexual orientation? It seems quite clear to anyone paying attention! ☕

Tapatalk 2 using mobile - Apple Watch

That is simply not true. The whole point of a forum like this is to allow for the expression and exchange of different perspectives—in short, to have a discussion. Of course, individuals on either side who resort to insults ought to be sanctioned; after all, that is precisely why we have moderators. However, it is quite unacceptable that on a platform where the policy of not discussing the marriage referendum exists, we are left without a dedicated space for such a pressing issue, especially as the deadline for submitting signatures to Congress approaches and the matter becomes increasingly relevant.

Where else are we supposed to discuss this, on some mainstream news site? 🤦

I would like to request the opening of a new thread, as there is significant interest regarding this matter that cannot be adequately addressed within the confines of the PDF. Currently, discussions are spilling over into off-topic threads that are only tangentially related to the marriage referendum, which ultimately serves to diminish the quality of those specific discussions.

brightotter13 said:I feel, as I have previously expressed, that the fundamental issue lies with the moderators on this forum. It is purely a matter of politics. Quite simply, those who hold the same views are protected, while anyone else finds themselves scrutinized over the smallest triviality just to justify a suspension or a permanent ban.

There you have it. That is my take on the current situation. Honestly, I find it difficult to believe things will ever improve, given that the administration doesn't seem to view this as an issue at all.

I have experienced this firsthand within the Politics section and can absolutely attest to its truth. If too many people gather who disagree with the moderator and happen to present more compelling arguments, the entire thread is simply shut down. It is quite a dictatorship, reminiscent of the darkest eras of American authoritarianism.