Posts by Nicholas King

swiftbear86 said:The church isn't the one driving this. It's actually those parents and godparents who can't get enough of showing off. They want to look important. Plus, kids end up having all these expectations because that's exactly what their parents drilled into them from day one.

No, it didn't—but then again, they certainly didn't go out of their way to expose or overcome the people who actually did.

Nancy Reyes85 said:I am uncertain if I am addressing the correct forum for this inquiry. What are the legal implications when a child is chronically absent from school, yet the parents haven't received any formal notifications from the elementary school administration? Does the school face any accountability or sanctions for failing to communicate these issues earlier? I recognize there is a degree of parental responsibility here for missing parent-teacher conferences—in this case, the mother has been dealing with significant health issues and the father lives out of state—but the timing of the communication feels egregious. The teacher only reached out a few days ago to mention that the student has been skipping classes periodically since the first month of the school year. Now, with the academic year drawing to a close, the child is facing retention. Are there specific federal or state education laws governing this type of oversight? If anyone could provide a link to relevant statutes, it would be immensely helpful.

I believe there is a legal requirement for the administration to notify parents within a certain timeframe—however, I honestly can't wrap my head around the logic of parents who try to solve their child's issues—especially when that kid has been skipping class for five straight months—by pointing fingers at the school🤦.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Yeah, exactly. If you were a moderator in Politics, you'd get it. There is a MASSIVE difference between showing up with a trash nickname to drop political bombs and then switching over to the gardening section to geek out about pansies using that same handle.

So, until this thread actually blew up, the only issue was the controversial name. I mean, the guy was literally told to find a better handle "and everything will be okay," and as far as I recall, it wasn't exactly declared a "day kindness to troll."

We're just spinning our wheels here. They didn't even get banned immediately just for trolling, otherwise a permaban would have looked weird. If they had, everyone on the PŽK would have lost their minds over a cloned Marshall with like three posts... 😁(just kidding). The combo of the username and the actual posts made it obvious what the goal was, so removing that shady handle from Politics was the right call by the mods.

Seriously, I'm confused too. 😕

Look, you can certainly speak for yourself—and please, by all means, go ahead and do so—but don't expect me to just nod along with whatever opinion you decide to throw out there. I have my own perspective on this, which, granted, might be a bit more nuanced than yours, but that's hardly the point. I suppose some people just prefer to live in a bubble of their own making, ignoring the broader context of the situation, but I can't say I'm surprised. It's just... well, it's how things are, isn't it? You see it all the time in these online discussions—people making sweeping generalizations without a second thought for the actual facts at hand. I’m not saying you’re wrong, per se, but I am saying that your view is far from the only one worth considering.

He wasn't even banned that quickly—he’s just out here trolling at this point. Honestly, jumping straight to a permanent ban would feel a bit excessive right now. I mean, imagine the absolute chaos and uproar we'd see erupting across the PŽK if they actually pulled the trigger on a permanent ban over some guy mimicking Marshall Party with nothing more than three posts to his name. It would be a total circus. 😁 (just kidding)

First off—and I’m not even suggesting otherwise, since you mentioned it yourself—these little drive-by provocations and the inevitable bans that follow them are just par for the course on Politics. It's practically a daily occurrence. Honestly, I can't recall a single instance where one of those bans actually caused a massive uproar or triggered some kind of investigation—so, if anyone is claiming otherwise, I'd say that argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever.

Secondly—and I really feel this needs to be clarified—when that first ban on the Marshall Party occurred, the issue wasn't actually about the appropriateness of their username, nor was it some grand statement regarding American history between 1945 and 1990. It was much simpler than that: they were just banned. Period. And as for any sort of external reaction to that specific ban—who actually stepped in? Who voiced an opinion? Honestly, nobody.

Based on that, I suppose I have to respect all the little spins being thrown around in an attempt to construct a more polished, more "historical" timeline of this whole mess—not to mention the sudden, rather convenient pivots in the logic and... It’s an ad hominem attack—pure and simple. Just when the actual arguments start getting interesting, someone decides to take a cheap shot at the person instead of addressing the point being made. It's such a lazy way to dodge a difficult conversation, I guess. Instead of engaging with the logic, they just go straight for the character assassination. Honestly, it's a pathetic tactic, though I suppose we shouldn't be surprised given the current state of discourse online. Sarcasm—honestly, it’s just not working for you guys. I mean, seriously.

I have to say—and I mean this sincerely, without a hint of sarcasm—it’s actually a relief that such a controversial topic didn't just vanish from the KZB overnight. There used to be a certain level of... let's call it "spirited debate" happening around these things, and honestly, we could probably use a bit more of that kind of discussion again.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:That is straight up false. It's a total lie. Nobody's getting banned because of their politics.

Why not? Honestly, I doubt anyone would even notice if Josip Broz Marshall, the Communist Party, or even Stane Dolanc were posting about gardening on some hobbyist forum.

There’ve been plenty of cases like this before, nothing flashy, like I said. The arguments have already been laid out right here in this thread multiple times... I still think my point stands: you're just bored. As soon as you find some other "mistake" by the mods, you'll move on to that. 😉

Thanks for the attention. Catch you later when the next "massive crisis" hits.

Look, I really don't see any point in diving into a sea of sarcasm right now—honestly, it just feels incredibly childish. Shifting the focus toward... It’s always the same old story—when someone actually brings up a valid point or presents some hard evidence that can't be ignored, the opposition immediately retreats into the gutter. Instead of addressing the actual substance of the argument, they pivot to an ad hominem attack. It’s a lazy, transparent tactic—really, it is—designed to discredit the person rather than the idea. I guess it's just easier to insult someone's character than it is to actually engage with their logic, isn't it? It’s a pathetic way to dodge a debate, and frankly, it makes the whole discussion feel incredibly shallow. It’s that classic, tired little tactic used whenever someone needs to pivot the conversation away from the actual point—but I wasn't born yesterday, you know.

By the time you actually manage to stumble upon a moderation "oversight" that holds any real interest for you—if you even can—you’ll probably have already moved on to something else entirely. I guess that's just how it goes. 😉

You’ve got too many quotation marks in there.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt that we’re dealing with a total troll—someone who’s likely just some clone of an existing user, probably registering through a proxy to hide their tracks—but the real kicker here is how the admin handled it. For the longest time, the moderator treated this person like a legitimate member of the community, as if their only "crime" was having an inappropriate username. It’s honestly baffling. I mean, when the user actually asked, "Can I just open a second account since I won't be posting under this one anymore because Daniel Ward87 isn't in a good mood?" the response they got was simply, "You cannot post on the Forum using that nickname." It’s such a strange, measured way to handle someone who clearly doesn't belong here. Find a better option first—then maybe everything will finally fall into place.".

As far as I can see—and I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am—until this thread actually caught fire, the only real issue was that controversial username. I mean, the guy was quite clearly and loudly told that if he just found a better handle, everything would be fine. As far back as I can remember, nobody had officially declared this some sort of "day kindness to troll."

So, if the initial response had just been, "You're a troll/clone—goodbye and good riddance"—which, let’s be honest, I believe is a frequent occurrence over on Politics, then it would have been a solid five out of five. But honestly? It feels like an insult to the common sense of any actual reader when, within a single thread, you go from...That being said—and I say this after looking closely at how recent investigations into communist atrocities have unfolded across the country—I honestly believe it might be wiser to head off any potential provocations before they even start. Perhaps it would be better to simply prevent certain individuals from posting on the Forum under their current handles altogether... wouldn't that be the more prudent way to handle things? I suppose I should probably get around to actually doing something—though, if I’m being honest, I’m still weighing all the variables first. It’s not as simple as just jumping in, you know? There are layers to consider—consequences, timing, the general atmosphere—and I’d rather not rush into a decision only to realize later that I missed a crucial detail. Maybe I will eventually, but for now, I think I'll just sit here and process everything.Yeah, he got Banned because he set up a burner account just to go around stirring the pot over in Politics. ".

swiftcrane96 said:Look, you're asking me? 🤣

I’d probably include those two as well. I mean, who cares which high-ranking officials we pick? 🙂 😳 They were the ones calling the shots behind those crimes, so whatever—they get banned from the forum, big deal. 😳

Which criminal Communist Party elite? 🧐

Honestly, they were criminals, so what am I supposed to say? 😳

So, let me get this straight—you actually think it’s a smart move, even though you clearly don't agree with it.

swiftcrane96 said:"This caught us all off guard, I guess"

Who exactly are we talking about here? You and Lastan?

I’m leaning toward supporting the decision, mostly because it seems like the smart move, plain and simple. 🤷

And what about the section regarding Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc? 😁

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:The Admin didn't screw up anything here... none at all.

This guy showed up on the politics board, merging over from Proxy—probably just some clone of one of those political trolls, using a fake handle just to stir the pot. It was obvious from his very first post in that sub-forum... he's just here to provoke. On the politics side, we’ve dealt with a million useless trolls like this before, no big deal. If Uncle Strile hadn't banned him, one of the politics mods would've eventually stepped in and handled him anyway...

Nicholas King is bored out of his mind... ☕

Given how Josip Broz Marshall showed up on this subforum and those first posts of his, the decision is more than just smart... it's a no-brainer.

The issue isn't actually the ban itself—it's the lack of a coherent argument used to justify it.

Nicholas King is just bored. ☕

It seems when an observer runs out of actual points to make, they inevitably resort to the standard, lazy mockery.

swiftcrane96 said:

Uncle Strile Asks:
Look, just a heads-up regarding your account: the Forum editorial team reserves the right to modify or even delete your profile if they decide an Action is warranted. I guess it’s just the way things work here. Also, keep in mind that these rules might be tweaked at any time without us giving you much of a warning beforehand.

Uncle Strile Asks:
Look, I’ve already laid out my reasoning behind this decision. If you and a handful of others aren't happy about it, that’s really not my concern. It’s all clearly stated in the rules—exactly what can happen under these circumstances—and everyone here agreed to those terms when they joined. As the Admin, my accountability lies with Anderlon. If you want to go complain to him, be my guest. Honestly, if he actually decides to listen to you, I’d probably be the happiest person on this site.

Look, since you aren't an Admin, you don't get to call the shots on when we implement "emergency protocols." It’s not that simple—you just don't have the full picture. I’m not obligated to lay all my cards on the table for you, and honestly, I'm probably not even allowed to.

She’s a smart one, I guess.
And honestly, they could probably just wake up one morning and decide to ban all those other handles, too. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. 🤷

It really depends, I suppose. It’ll likely come down to how people decide to carry themselves and what kind of tone they pick when using those handles. Who knows, really? 🤷

The Admin made it perfectly clear—and I don't think there's any room for debate here—that Stane Dolanc is absolutely fine.

It really depends, I suppose. Where exactly is this all headed, and more importantly—how on earth are we actually going to pull it off? I honestly can't say for sure, but looking at the current trajectory, things seem incredibly uncertain. Maybe there's a way forward, or maybe we're just spinning our wheels, but I guess it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting. I suppose people will be posting under those handles, I guess. 🤷

What am I even supposed to make of this? It seems like Stane Dolanc is allowed to jump into a thread about planting pansies, yet he’s somehow barred from discussing Psychology? I guess it just doesn't add up—it feels completely arbitrary, if you ask me. 😕.

rustydrifter10 said:Oh, I see my name popped up here! Sorry about that, guys, I might not have the full scoop on this specific situation.

I took a quick look at the profile and went through their recent posts, and honestly, here’s my take on it. It looks like someone signed up with a handle that might seem harmless enough at first glance, but then they immediately started dropping nothing but problematic, troll-style comments. Basically, they look like a troll and they're acting exactly like one. In my opinion, if this user had chosen a less "flashy" username or if they had just engaged in normal conversation without trying to provoke everyone, they probably wouldn't have been banned so quickly. But when you combine a loud username with constant agitation right when they join the community, it’s a massive red flag. It’s usually better to just clear them out fast before they cause real damage to the vibe of the board. Just like how we jump on spammers or people posting ads the second they show up, sometimes we have to do the same with trolls if that’s the only reason they’re even here. Honestly, two posts can be more than enough to make a call, especially when the username itself is screaming for attention.

Look, this isn't actually a debate about whether we're dealing with a troll or not—anyway, Henry Hernandez7 raised a question regarding his seven-day cooling-off period following those allegations about cloning within the Communist Party, and so far, he hasn't received a single answer or any sort of clarification.

If the official explanation from the mods had mentioned trolling, cloning, or anything of that nature, this entire thread wouldn't even exist. However, first over at the KZB and now here as well, Uncle Strile insisted all the way until the semifinals that the sole reason for the ban was the inappropriateness of the username, only to bring up the famous background info in the very last post ("Since you aren't an Admin, you don't get to decide when "extreme measures" are taken just because you lack all the necessary information. I am under no obligation to give you access to that, nor am I allowed to.").

Daniel Ward87 said:"The Forum staff reserves the right to modify or delete your account if they feel it's necessary. These rules can change at any time without notice."

In other words—if you ask me—the Forum editors haven't actually decided that removing Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc is warranted.

Thirdly, I suppose it boils down to this: Marshall's party not good, while Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc are good.

As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and lock it.

What is the deal with Stane Dolanc? 🙂

Daniel Ward87 said:cyberTITO - last active 10/24/2008.
comunistito - last active 01/23/2010.
drox-marshall - last active on: 04/23/2009
drugtito - last active on: 05/28/2008.

I didn't go through every single one, just picked a few names at random. Some of these users have zero posts and haven't been online in ages, so they aren't really saying anything. The issue starts when they actually begin posting.

Furthermore,

Adolf. H. - last active on: 10/12/2008.
Adolf Hitler - last active on: 05/10/2011, has one post
Adolfo Hitler - last active on: 09/06/2009

As far as the names that hit close to home historically go—well, Saddam and Co. don't really apply here, so I won't dwell on them. Looking at the last activity dates, you can tell how serious these people are about their handles. You’ll probably try to argue about the universality of dictators, war crimes, and all that. But look, we live in America, and we have our own specific history to deal with. Even though I get why it's controversial, I want to avoid any unnecessary drama that could stem from a user's nickname. So, my stance on the Marshall Party remains the same.

I think there's been a fundamental misunderstanding here—it isn't actually about what the final decision will be, or whether it might eventually change. The core issue is that the Forum rules explicitly state, as the single applicable rule in this specific instance:

no one is going to get banned or run into trouble with the moderators because of a "username that violates the rules," since—aside from the first two items—these are merely recommendations rather than strict mandates.

It seems somewhat peculiar, if I may say so, for a ban to be issued on this platform for something where the rules explicitly state that no one will face a ban. So, we aren't even talking about some vague, undefined gray area; we are looking at an action that runs directly contrary to a clearly stated rule.

Now, I have no issue with an administrator exercising discretionary power to permanently ban any username they deem inappropriate for whatever reason—but if that’s the case, it really ought to be clearly formulated and documented as an actual rule. That way, everything remains transparent for everyone involved. Though, I suppose they should probably provide at least a rough definition to clarify what constitutes an "inappropriate" name (for instance, what would happen to a serious, highly active user like Stane Dolanc?).

Nicholas King said:The Democratic Party basically tossed us into the dustbin of history just because of a username.

Meanwhile, you’ve got people registered on this forum using names like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Joseph Stalin without any issues at all. I’m sure there are probably a few other cheerful nicknames floating around too, but honestly, I have better things to do with my life.

I've actually forgotten what I was even trying to ask... 😬.

Fine, I lied—I don't actually have 🤦

Let’s set aside those other cheerful handles for a moment; however, if you search for the string "marshall" among currently active usernames on this forum, you end up with (among others) the following live accounts: cyberTITO, Comrade Marshall, drugtito, Josip Broz Marshall, marsal marshall, marsal-marshall, maršal-marshall, marshall i partija, Marshall pionir, and Marshall-Juga.

Each one of them is intriguing in its own way—though, arguably, the most interesting thing is that "marshall i partija" is permitted, while "Tito_partija" is not 😕.

Moving on: within the forum's guidelines regarding usernames, there is a sentence (albeit an old one) that states:

no one will be banned or face issues with the moderators due to a "username that violates the rules," because, aside from the first two points, these are merely recommendations rather than strict mandates.

Regarding those aforementioned "first two points," the first requires a username that is pronounceable (meaning random symbols aren't allowed), and the second states

Do not use the names of (American) public figures: this is prohibited because we do not want users impersonating people like Branka Bebić or Stjepan Mason on the Forum.

It all boils down to a very simple observation: once administration begins applying ad hoc criteria and regulations, you reach a point where "Tito_partija" gets a permanent ban, yet all sorts of other things—even "Marshall-Juga"—are allowed to persist.

I am not entirely sure if I need a disclaimer here (though experience tells me I probably should), but what I am writing is by no means intended as some sort of advocacy for Marshall on this forum.

This might seem like a bit of a pedantic question—is it actually possible to have a struggle that is purely "for" something, rather than necessarily being a struggle "against" something else? We can claim, for instance, that we are fighting for world peace—but then, by definition, we are also fighting against those who (and this is the key part: in our view) threaten that very peace.

The whole concept could easily spiral into a dozen different philosophical rabbit holes, but I’m not sure there’s much point in drafting some massive manifesto here—so let me just say this: I understand the fight for survival—and I don't mean that in the most literal, life-or-death sense—but anything beyond that feels like a bit much to me. I honestly don't get why people who wouldn't dream of complaining about a comfortable lifestyle they didn't even have to fight for are automatically labeled as lazy, or somehow less worthy or interesting in any other capacity: why is it that a blessing is only considered valuable because it was won through conflict?

I suppose if you take the stance that "struggle is an essential ingredient of life," you could find an argument for almost anything—including those religious perspectives that view earthly existence as nothing more than a series of tribulations to be endured.

The Democratic Party basically tossed us into the dustbin of history just because of a username.

Meanwhile, you’ve got people registered on this forum using names like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Joseph Stalin without any issues at all. I’m sure there are probably a few other cheerful nicknames floating around too, but honestly, I have better things to do with my life.

I've actually forgotten what I was even trying to ask... 😬.

Walter Perez14 said:Look, I don’t know about you, but I take emails and whoever’s sending them pretty seriously—and I’m not talking about that absolute garbage that litters my inbox, you know, those mindless jokes, weird chain letters, or those "inspirational" quotes that basically mean nothing. Obviously, showing up in person carries way more weight, but right now? With all these parents swarming the school districts for parent-teacher conferences and trying to haggle over grades? Yeah, no thanks. I have zero desire to deal with that circus. If I don't get an email response, fine, I'll just head down there anyway.

The only real difference here is that this time, you're actually the one hitting 'send' rather than just sitting there receiving the mail 🙂.

Charles Hayes6 said:But what kind of price are we actually talking about here?

An Envelope, filled with a decent chunk of cash—that’s all there is to it.

Now, let me ask you this: how much money does that actually represent? Let's try looking at it this way: can you picture a slightly larger one-time expense—something for a hobby of yours, your spouse's, or even the kids' (the point being, it has to be a luxury, not some "essential" like fixing the car or paying a utility bill)—an amount that isn't going to put you in debt for decades, but is enough that you might have to tighten your belt just a little bit during that specific month?

That right there is the amount. 🙂.

Charles Hayes6 said:...just curious, how much would be considered "normal" to chip in for a best man's gift?

I believe I’ve already mentioned this: $10745.

The more specific the question, the better the answer will be.

Susan James said:In my experience, once one person finds the courage to step up and speak out, you usually see more parents jump in to back them up or share their own stories.

It’s hardly irrelevant: do you actually have firsthand experience from the kind of environment sivko5 is describing?

Paul Kern12 said:For some, that harsh approach is perfectly acceptable—even preferred—while others seem relatively indifferent toward the school system and their children's education, essentially thinking, "as long as they just make it through middle school."
The teacher is certainly aware of this dynamic; he actually told me, "We'll have to see what the other parents think—you can't force my hand here."

I suppose the teacher is probably right, much as it pains me to admit it.

Don't you see how the divergence between your parenting style and everyone else's starts to manifest in the gap between your child and the rest of the group? It wouldn't be an unreasonable leap to assume that, over time, your child might—slowly but surely—become a bit of an outsider to their peers.

Looking at the long game here, how do you envision your child's future within a social circle that—if I am interpreting your situation correctly—is fundamentally different from your own values?