Posts by steelskipper5

mistybison said:I am merely pointing out what happens when a strict moderator takes over a sub-forum. 😉 Typically, a group of users will complain about one or more specific members due to personal friction and demand that the moderator intervene on their behalf. When a moderator becomes strict, or a new strict moderator is appointed who penalizes everyone causing trouble, it usually leads to disappointment. The complaining users realize they only win partially, as they often find themselves penalized alongside those they personally dislike—or even alongside themselves. This triggers a new battle against the moderator for being "unjustifiably harsh," which once again floods the sub-forum with complaints. 😁

A second possibility is that users actually desire stricter moderation because they feel Social Science is moderated too leniently. 🙂 In any case, I believe it would be appropriate for the long-term, regular contributors who truly understand the dynamics of this sub-forum to weigh in. What we see here are mostly complaints from a handful of relatively new accounts with only about 50 posts each, and such grievances rarely carry much weight. 😉

Jerry Roberts15 said:Ugh, this is starting to get seriously exhausting...

steelskipper5, major props for everything you do, but for four whole pages now, about ten of us have been stubbornly hammering away at this single point without any luck whatsoever:
the expertise of certain individuals isn't even being questioned here. We are talking strictly about communication culture, and how people treat the 99% of folks who are just well-meaning people looking to learn something new.

We’re pushing back against intolerance toward different perspectives, baseless irritability, belittling, blatant humiliation, verbal attacks, insults... things that DRIVE people away instead of drawing them in. We're talking about behavior that discourages the very people we should be praising and encouraging—mostly young people hungry for knowledge. They're rare gems that need careful nurturing, not this vulgar, aggressive, "tough guy" attitude that just tramples over them.

I don't know why, but I can't write this post without mentioning Abby:
You even admitted yourself that they aren't exactly the most pleasant conversationalist... well, that's precisely the issue! So, what are they doing here?!? If they want to show off and, yeah, lecture everyone, they should stick to closed, professional forums, not a general public forum open to everyone. If they actually want to help out here, they need to tone it down, calm the hysteria—who knows what triggered it—and try to foster some actual decency.

You said: "Regarding the complaints about Abyssus and her behavior, even those quotes aren't any kind of proof against her."

Really? How does that work, my friend? Based on what criteria or arguments? Who is this girl to be so untouchable? It's like saying: people complain about her (and her clones 🤣) more than anyone else, people provide specific examples and logical points, but that doesn't count as proof against her, which basically means: people, you're simply wrong.

Is this really the level this discussion has reached?

Sad.👎

steelskipper5, props to you for everything, but we've basically spent four pages—about ten of us—stubbornly hitting the same wall with zero luck:
the expertise of certain people isn't even being questioned here; we're strictly talking about the communication culture, the way people treat the 99% who are just well-meaning folks looking to learn.

we oppose intolerance toward differing opinions,

belittling, open humiliation, spitting, insults... things that REPEL people instead of attracting them; things that discourage those who should be praised and encouraged, because they are (mostly) young and eager to learn... a rare flower that needs careful nurturing, rather than being trampled in this vulgar, typical backwater way.

I don't know why, but even this post couldn't happen without Abby:
you admit yourself they aren't the most pleasant conversationalist... so there it is, that's the whole point! What are they even doing here?!? If they want to lecture, they should go hang out in closed, professional forums, not a general forum open to everyone. If they actually want to help here, they should lower their tone, calm down whatever hysteria they're triggering, and try to encourage better behavior.

says: "Regarding the complaints about Abyssus and how she acts, even those quotes aren't actual proof against her."

Really? How does that work, my friend? Based on what criteria or what kind of arguments?

who is she, this little girl, to be so untouchable? I mean: people complain about her most (and her clones 🤣)

people are providing specific examples and arguments, but that isn't any kind of proof against her, basically, you guys are simply wrong.

and this is the actual level of this discussion?

sad 👎

redmarlin3 said:This whole thread caught my eye, so I did a little digging through Social Science, and I’ve concluded that I wouldn't turn to Abyssus for help even if my life depended on it.

I don't want it to seem like I'm just talking nonsense without any backing; if anyone is actually interested, feel free to check out my posts (and the posts of others, like sal mirabilisa, morbidangela, gotterdamerung, etc.) over in the Chemistry-help and Biology-help threads, or in those big top discussions about snakes and other animals. Without being modest, I truly believe that's how you should approach someone who "doesn't know" something, especially in the specific forums meant for that purpose. 🙂

On the other hand, our moderator bluerider2 isn't to blame for this situation. There isn't a penalty for being irritating. 😬 There’s absolutely no basis for sanctioning Abyssus. Honestly, the best solution is just to hit that ignore button if she bothers you. It doesn't bother me, since I don't hang out in those corners 🤷 and if I ever actually need advice from a linguist, I'll just go ask steelskipper5. 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:And what exactly is the situation regarding the rules on maximum image size? 😉

Roger Foster95 said:👍

You've hit on all the core issues that prevent this forum from ever being high-quality.🙄
Beyond the constant deleting of posts, you've got unjustified thread locking, using "trolling" as a catch-all excuse for subjective penalties, a general failure to apply rules objectively, and a system that shuts down any chance to prove anything if it doesn't suit the moderator's interests.
If the administration actually had the will to fix these five key problems, I think this forum could finally reach a higher level of quality. ☕

Lisa Ortiz2 said:
How boring, you little swallow. 🙂 As I’ve already pointed out, you won't actually be satisfied if you manage to drive all the believers away from the religion. They are essentially the salt of the earth. 😉

Religion is a volatile forum—not quite as much as Politics, but certainly not far behind—and it requires proactive moderation. Responding to reports is just firefighting; it's reactive. While it's true that the need for such measures might decrease once moderation becomes more active, over time, the forum will eventually become a much more pleasant place for discussion.

Good grief. 🙂 At least you're an advocate for it, 😂 even if you aren't a true believer yourself.
I am in complete agreement regarding more active moderation. Here... let me offer you my support. And of course... I suspect you would be a very strict moderator yourself. 😍

Go jump in a lake, you three. 😂

Lisa Ortiz2 said:Exactly. That is precisely why there is so much deleting going on.

rowdyhawk10... relying solely on reports isn't enough to moderate properly.🙂 We really should have stepped in long ago to prevent the kind of issues that are now incredibly difficult to fix.👎
Are there enough moderators? Why not just recruit five, ten more... I don't know... call in Samadhi... he could probably handle it all himself😍, steelskipper5🙂, but you still have to actually read the threads. 🙂
I don't report posts... honestly, rowdyhawk10. But I have spent a significant amount of time on this forum...🙂
I wouldn't anymore... though I will naturally return once I feel the atmosphere on the religion board becomes a little bit more pleasant and welcoming again.
I am feeling quite cold today.😲😁

rowdyhawk10 said:Quote: Good or Evil

What are you thinking? Send me the link.

Quote: Good or Evil

We have already addressed the matter of spirituality. I suppose one has to wonder if a forum actually needs a subforum that functions like a church. I believe I explained this to cosmicseal5 previously—we simply cannot turn a religion subforum into a sanctuary within a digital space like this. www.catholics.org , I suppose this website might be worth looking into, though I can't say for certain what one might find there. It seems like just another corner of the internet. I suppose there isn't much more to say on the matter. www.orthodoxy.org Our subforum shouldn't be a place where atheists are penalized simply because they refuse to subscribe to a specific dogma. For instance, we shouldn't be banning someone just because they express doubt regarding the Quran, the Bible, or Jesus, or even various other deities. I think the forum should allow for free expression from every individual, provided they don't cross the line into personal attacks. In my opinion, we should probably apply stricter penalties when it comes to bringing discussions down to a personal level—like trolling or insults—specifically when it's the same person repeatedly doing it. That might actually solve a lot of our problems.

Quote: Good or Evil

It isn't anarchy, Lisa Ortiz2.
If you only knew the sheer volume of work we deal with... being a moderator for the religion section means seeing firsthand just how much content we have to scrub, especially all those posts that start poking into other people's business. Personality.If there were less trolling and fewer outright insults, I suppose things might be a bit clearer. Furthermore, with my own... By remaining silent. I suppose you aren't going to actually solve anything by staying silent on the forum. It honestly surprises me that you’re being this stubborn about it. I mean, surely you realize it's better to just post and then deal with any fallout as it happens? Any post that breaks the rules can be reported, and since the moderation team has been beefed up, we should be able to get to every report eventually. However, we don't always see everything people write the very moment they post it. Most forum users... They aren't reporting it. I suppose these posts are somewhat unnecessary—though I should probably give credit where it's due to the few people actually reporting them. It does suggest they care about maintaining the quality of our forum, I guess. Regards.

Most users don't report indecent posts (so much respect to the tiny handful who actually do, since it shows they give a damn about keeping this forum decent). Cheers.

Nicole Mitchell said:I don't know about you guys, but I’m starting to think some people just love hearing themselves talk—it’s like they aren't even listening to the actual argument. Seriously. Roger Bishop22, you’re making some pretty wild leaps here—I mean, maybe you believe that, but where's the logic? It feels like you're just grasping at straws to make a point that doesn't really hold up under any scrutiny. And honestly, steelskipper5, if you're going to jump in, at least bring something useful to the table instead of just adding to the noise. It’s getting a bit ridiculous at this point. We should probably get back to the actual topic before this whole thread turns into a complete circus. Or maybe I'm just being cynical—I guess we'll see.

This is a straight-up provocation based on nationality, and honestly? It deserves at least a 30-day ban—maybe even a permanent one. But since the moderator is actually playing the game, I guess we won't be seeing any real consequences here. 🙏🙏🙏

Jeffrey Sanchez7 said:coastalbison6, I mentioned you $33 because the moderation and the setup here on Forum.hr is starting to look more like a paid media campaign than a democratic forum. The fact that that part was deleted only confirms my theory.

Personally, I'm all for a forum without rules. If someone is an asshole, let them show it; there's no reason to delete anything unless they're spamming or repeating themselves like a broken record (like you 😁).

As for that slur, to me, it's a degrading term, very colloquial. If I used it, then I apologize to the Jews, because I respect many of them deeply, contrary to the old view that they should all be killed.

coastalbison6, so does that mean the fee is higher?

Personally, I'm all for a forum with zero rules—if someone's being an absolute jerk, let them show it. The only reason to delete anything should be spam or if someone keeps repeating themselves like a broken record (kind of like you, 😁).

crimsonhound80 said:Kenneth Peterson5, I’ve been following your posts for a few days now because you’re actually an interesting person to read, but there is something I’m struggling to wrap my head around;

if you’re standing so firmly by your stance on intelligence in your "recent" posts—and look, I get where you're coming from—do you honestly think it’s okay for an intelligent, engaging, witty person, someone who is generally well-liked by the moderators and the rest of the community here, to snap at an "average" user and tell them to "eat shit monkey retarded" or scream some profanity about their mother's stupidity in a fit of rage? (Which, let's be honest, is sometimes hard to distinguish from just being a jerk)

Look, I get humor. I get sarcasm and all those other stylistic flourishes, and I even understand being pissed off—trust me, I’ve never handed out a ban myself—but when someone repeats the same insult five times in a row, like Cp.Tar or that guy using the alias steelskipper5, then I lose my cool, and yeah, I have to issue a strike.

Honestly, I think you would be incredibly strict—maybe even tougher than any of the moderators on this American forum—but God hasn't given you the chance yet, so don't feel bad about it.

Believe me, this is a hell of a job, and it's not something just anyone can handle—not because of a lack of intelligence, but because of what's... well, "missing" in a healthy brain.😉

Scott Nguyen2 said:If my seniority on this Reddit—specifically on this sub—actually counts for anything, then I’m calling on it now. Not to hurt the feelings of the younger users, mind you, but just to make it clear: the constant bickering between users isn't why I'm walking away. People can focus on the secondary stuff if they want, and yeah, maybe staying silent is less "useful" than posting, but the drama among users isn't the reason I'm boycotting this place.

Let’s not mince words here. I am boycotting this because of the deliberate, systematic discrimination based on faith being carried out by the moderators—specifically rowdyhawk10. They are targeting members of the modern Salaf movement due to their religious beliefs and outlook... (people who don't agree call them Wahhabis—and I'm only mentioning that to identify a specific group, regardless of what label anyone wants to slap on them)

This has nothing to do with my personal chats with any particular user, whether they follow Salafism or not. It’s about the fact that there is a conscious, unfair effort to stifle their presence here—even though, honestly, I don't even agree with all their interpretations and views myself.

Secondly, I’m boycotting the general trend where atheists try to turn the Religion sub-forum into their own little ideological stronghold at any cost. The proof is right there: there are fewer and fewer believers left in the Religion section (which is supposed to serve them, by the way). And it’s not because they lack "arguments"—it's because the insults being thrown around go way beyond anything remotely decent or human. (Okay, there are exceptions, sure).
Now, look, I'm not saying we should kick the atheists out of the Religion sub. No. I'm saying something needs to be done about the culture of conversation here. Nobody comes here to act as a punching bag for someone else's frustrations. To show you how ridiculous this is, just try opening a thread in the 'Science' sub titled 'Evolution is a myth based on scientific evidence' (just as an example)... either the thread gets nuked immediately or it gets moved back to 'Religion,' making 'Religion' look like some kind of trash bin for those people. On the flip side, as a total paradox that proves my point, you have the 'Atheism' topic pinned right there in the Religion sub.

Everything I’m laying out here is happening systematically and intentionally to turn this sub into anything *but* what it's actually meant to be. Basically, the Religion sub is slowly sinking into the mud of the entire forum. And when you add the fact that Josh is trying to systematically "cleanse" the "Wahhabis" from that mud—who are believers, no matter how people perceive them, and therefore deserve the basic rights afforded to everyone in this sub—it turns out this isn't a sub "for religion" at all. It's a private playground for the moderators, using their power to push their own agendas. Whether that's an agenda of "modernization" (where religion is just a tool for their specific worldview), pushing pro-gay ideology, or pushing secularization under the guise of "human rights." These moderators judge a user's value solely based on whether they fit their worldview. If they do, they look the other way and let "insults" slide (just look at the complaint from Tyler Scott3). But if you don't fit their mold, they discriminate against you—banning you, etc.
This sub has never seen worse moderation than it is seeing right now.

Since the goal seems to be driving believers out of the space that should belong to them (I mean, the sub is called 'Religion,' not 'Ideology') while keeping the "moderates" around, I—as a "moderate"—feel for everyone who has been treated unfairly here. I’m sacrificing myself because every other way of handling this—negotiations, talking it out—has proven to be completely useless. That is why I am boycotting. Until things change, there is no point in posting. For things to change, the moderators need to admit they've messed up. That’s all I’m asking. I'm not calling for a revolution or trying to "topple the government," I'm just asking the "powers that be" to guarantee that people can write freely without having their religious feelings trampled on.

Look, I’m not saying atheists should be kicked out of the Religion sub—not at all. What I am saying is that we need to actually do something about the culture here. Nobody came to Reddit to play therapist for everyone else's personal frustrations, right? Just to show you how ridiculous this is—try going over to the Science subreddit and starting a thread titled "Evolution is a total myth based on scientific evidence." Go ahead, try it. Either the thread gets deleted immediately, or it gets moved straight back to the Religion section. It basically makes Religion look like some kind of catch-all trash bin for people who don't know where else to put their nonsense.

On the other hand, we’ve got this total paradox happening—which actually proves my point—where the whole 'atheism' thread is just sitting there anchored right inside the Religion sub-Reddit.

Everything I’m saying here is that there is a systematic, deliberate effort going on to turn this entire section into anything but what it’s actually supposed to be—a place for Religion. Basically, step by step, the Religion subforum is being dragged down into the "mud" of the general forum. And when you add the fact that they're trying to systematically purge the "Wahhabis"—who are just believers, no matter how anyone chooses to view them, and therefore the Religion subforum should guarantee basic rights to everyone regardless of their affiliation—it becomes pretty obvious. It turns out this isn't even a subforum "for religion." It feels more like a private playground for the moderators, who seem to be using their moderation powers to push their own ideological agendas. Whether those goals are some forced "modernization" (where, for these people, Religion is just a tool to fit their own self-contained worldview), promoting gay ideology, or pushing secularization under the guise of "human rights," it's all the same. These moderators judge a user's value solely based on whether they align with their specific worldview. If someone fits their mold, they look the other way—they let certain "insults" slide right past them (just look at the complaint from Tyler Scott3). But if someone doesn't fit their personal agenda? They discriminate against them—banning them and throwing the book at them.
Honestly, this subreddit has never had worse moderation than what we’re dealing with right now.

Since someone’s goal seems to be driving believers away from a 'space' that should actually be dedicated to them (I mean, the sub is literally called 'Religion,' not 'Ideology'), while keeping the 'subordinates'—read: the moderates—in power, I, as a 'moderate' myself, feel for everyone else who's been treated unfairly here. I'm basically sacrificing myself because every other method—negotiations, etc.—has turned out to be completely useless. That's why I'm boycotting. Until things change, there's really no point in posting anything here. For things to actually improve, the mods need to realize where they messed up. I'm not asking for a revolution or trying to 'overthrow' anyone; I just want the leadership to guarantee that people can post freely without being forced to violate someone else's religious feelings.

Nicole James said:I already explained to Angie why that wasn't just some minor oversight—and I’ll say it again. The individual in question churned out several posts in a row that were, to put it mildly... absolutely horrific. On his very last post, I handed him 500 points for "overall impression." It’s not like I missed the sheer lack of backbone in his arguments, or that I was simply choosing to look the other way.

Nicole James said:I honestly regret not just locking this thread the moment it devolved into this endless back-and-forth regarding gay rights versus opposition to them.

Regarding the bans—if I recall correctly—I was actually quite lenient with the more extreme stances taken by the anti-gay side; what I actually stepped in to ban were the threats of violence, the truly horrific insults, and similar behavior. I think the core issue here is that Tyler Scott3 and Lisa Ortiz2 accused me of taking sides, and they both ended up getting flagged for trolling because of it. Both of them have been around this Reddit community for a long time, and frankly, they should have learned by now that if you have an issue with how a moderator handles things, you don't vent about it within the threads—you use the official grievance process.

If anyone thinks the state of this forum is ideal, they couldn't be further from the truth. The Religion sub is massive and incredibly volatile; Danaye and Blaise haven't been active for quite a while, and Scat has so much on his plate that he can't always get to everything. I try to step in whenever my personal life allows, but I simply don't have the bandwidth or the energy to meticulously comb through every single post. Most of the moderation happens reactively as reports come in, which is far from an ideal system. To be honest, I don't know how to fix all of this right now, but I do know that putting this kind of pressure on those of us still trying to keep this place alive isn't helping anyone.

cosmicseal5 said:Look, I’m asking straight up: are you actually going to file a formal complaint against this guy or what? It’s totally your call, obviously, but I honestly don't know if you realize that once you go that route, you aren't just some anonymous face on an internet forum anymore—you’re officially stepping out from behind the screen and putting your actual name and reputation on the line.

stormygull67 said:And what exactly will I write? Something like: "It appears that an anonymous user under the handle 'this and that' is threatening me, also anonymously. Please identify who is hiding behind these handles and provide the necessary information—specifically, let us know the exact details so we can file a proper report."

Mark Torres14 said:You can only file a request to initiate criminal proceedings based on suspicion of making a threat under Section 129 of the Penal Code, and that's only if the threat was directed specifically at you. This isn't something the state prosecutes automatically on its own; it requires a formal complaint from the victim.