Posts by Nicholas Williams7

Sarah Sanders34 said:Are you talking about those recent threads where a small clique just drifts away from the actual topic and starts their own private inside joke session that nobody else finds funny?

Yeah.😁

Since you’re so quick to call out the mods in every single philosophy thread, why don't you actually be specific and give an example for once. 😁

Sometimes you're actually pleasant, other times you're just a total cold-hearted bitch. 😁

Where exactly have I been calling out the moderators? Please. I haven't called them out, nor have I reported anyone's post to the admins. You see my activity, so you should know better than that. This whole thread isn't even about attacking the staff; I'm genuinely trying to figure out what changed with the rules on the forums. I spend enough time there to understand how things usually work—what flies and what doesn't. A little off-topic chatter was never an issue before, but if they've tightened the leash, fine. Just put out a notice saying the tolerance for deviating from the original post is now zero.

And it's not just that they're nuking a few posts where people are drifting off-topic regarding, say, some massive breakthrough in tech that could change the world. They're also scrubbing posts that use slightly rougher language—stuff that used to be perfectly acceptable here.

Fine, you want an example? Besides the random chat, look at my deleted comment on that thread where some user was asking about smartphones and giveaways. I wrote that I'd rather shove one up her ass. 😁
I know that kind of thing wouldn't have been touched before, much like any light banter that your highness decides isn't "funny" enough.

graniteridge6 said:Joshua Jones13, is this all because of that smartphone and vibration thing? 😁
I just noticed they were deleted. 🤣
If they enjoy going back and sterilizing threads after the fact, let them. I didn't even realize they were deleting anything. 😁

Exactly.
But there's been deletions of other stuff lately too. 🤣 😁

Let them sterilize everything if they want, but damn, if we can't even mess around a little on a forum, what's the point?

Like the title says, I’ve noticed a ton of posts involving a bit of banter—stuff that used to be totally fine and even encouraged as long as you didn't overdo it—are just getting wiped out.

Look, this whole forum is supposed to be a laid-back community. To me, this shift toward some sterile, clinical way of posting where everything has to stay strictly on-topic without a single joke or a little off-topic detour... it just kills the vibe and drags down the quality of the discussions.

So, what's the deal with this sudden pivot in how things are being moderated?

Starting this thread actually reminds me of when the admin, AH-64 Apache, basically stormed into the discussion. I’d run into him over on the old military forums before, but honestly, looking back at your posts, it’s only just clicking that he’s the admin. The color of his username doesn't mean much to me since I can't tell it apart from everyone else's. As for you and Strilet, I know who you guys are—it doesn't matter what color your names are 😁

Fine, whatever. It’s clearly not exactly at the top of the owner's priority list anyway. And honestly, there aren't enough active admins hanging around to match the energy of the actual users—not that I know many who aren't already on my radar—so it’s not a massive headache, except for when someone suddenly drops in out of nowhere. This is more of a general observation for any new users running into the same wall I am.

I’ve been meaning to bring this up for ages, but it always seems to slip my mind. Here’s the deal: for some of us—myself included—distinguishing between certain username colors is a real struggle due to color blindness. In my specific case, I can’t tell the difference between regular forum members and the admins; they both just look like the same shade of blue to me. 😁

I mean, most of the time I can probably guess who’s running the show and who isn't, but just recently, I only realized that AH-64 Apache was an admin by reading through their posts and seeing how rustydrifter10 was being addressed. It’s not like it’s the end of the world or anything, but I figured I’d start a thread to see if we could pick a different color for admin handles—something that doesn't look so much like everyone else's.

Matthew Anderson said:Which topic are we actually talking about here?

Your question is way too vague.

The thread is "criteria for permanently deleting appeals in the banned users section."

I didn't get a chance to respond to Alex and her little theory about me playing detective or her being totally confused about why I even started this thread or why Greenlander got banned—which, by the way, was a complete misdiagnosis—so what I really want to know is: is there some unspoken rule of etiquette on this forum where you give someone a chance to reply before locking down a thread that doesn't even show a hint of trolling or insults?

I didn't get a chance to reply to a few posts aimed at me over in the banned users thread, but that topic's been locked in the meantime. Honestly, I would’ve loved to fire back at those pretty condescending remarks from Alex. It felt like she was clearly just trying to shut down any conversation about the total dismissal of appeals in the banned section and the way things were handled regarding Greenlander.

Look, I’m not going to repost my replies here—that would be pointless since this thread will probably be locked in a heartbeat. Instead, I’m asking a question about forum etiquette: how much time am I actually allowed to have before a thread gets locked, provided the person who started it hasn't broken a single rule or insulted anyone? Is there an actual window in the rules that gives someone a legitimate right to respond to a post before the mods step in?

rustydrifter10 said:Yeah, it happened. Look, we don't want that kind of trash cluttering up the forum, and honestly, there’s no need to broadcast why someone got banned or why their posts were nuked. That info should stay strictly between the user and the admin team.

I actually think it would be perfectly fine for this community if we could see what kind of ban a random user is serving and how long it lasts—without digging into anyone's private business or exposing the specific reasons behind the strikes and deleted posts. Just a simple readout: the duration of the ban and the number of points that triggered it. Nothing more.

By the way, your old avatar was way better. It actually made you look a bit more approachable, which helped soften that whole "strict administrator" vibe you've got going on. This new one? It just looks a little grotesque to me. 😁

graniteridge6 said:I honestly don't get why they wiped it. I'm guessing he started throwing insults after we all saw it, but that’s just on him. You lock the thread—delete the truly disgusting posts if you have to—and move on. 🤷
If you leave his mess visible, people walk away thinking it wasn't even that big of a deal, leaving them scratching their heads wondering what the fuss was about.

Or better yet, don't delete anything at all. Just lock the thread so everyone can see exactly what went down and why someone got banned. It keeps things transparent. Take that guy "Old Man Banjo," for instance. He opened five or six different threads right after getting locked, hurling insults and threats left and right... yet not a single one of his complaints was ever scrubbed, even after he dragged things all the way to the Supreme Court. 🤷

Matthew Anderson said:The whole thing went south when he started getting pretty nasty and insulting, but luckily, the mods scrubbed it.

Well, it must have been pretty extreme then, because if you look at the ban appeals section, there are hundreds of complaints involving all sorts of insults—cases that were reopened multiple times despite warnings and lectures... yet those weren't deleted.

Maybe I just missed the specific post, because his appeal seemed fine. It was just like what happened with Ant recently; one minute it’s a perfectly normal question about hiking permits in the Forest, and then, suddenly green, they're gone. 🤣

If there isn't a rule against asking, can anyone shed light on what kind of ban he actually got? :just curious: 😁

I noticed that the appeal posted by Green Mountain Man over in the banned users section has vanished. It looks like administration might have wiped it entirely, which got me thinking... what’s the actual playbook here? I'm curious about the specific criteria they use to decide whether to just lock a thread or go ahead and delete an appeal from existence altogether.

rowdytiger13 said:Because it’s pointless. Everyone who tries ends up getting baited into an argument and handed a ban, which is clearly the end game.
Personally, I just get sent links packed with nothing but biases and falsehoods, often paired with being addressed as "OP" as if I'm not even worthy of a proper username.
If I had fired back with links showing those same kinds of prejudices regarding Islam (which are certainly present), there would be a massive uproar here; yet, if I actually reported them, people would start screaming about defending freedom of speech and expression (which has happened before).
Just more of the same...

Why do you even care what someone thinks or what their final thoughts might be? Whether it's yours, mine, or some random third party's, everyone has the right to voice their opinion on a democratic forum. If someone finds it offensive, that's neither your problem nor mine!

Morgan Carter said:The fact that you lie and fabricate information is not my concern; quite frankly, I don't care. Your dishonesty doesn't affect me. You can act however you please. My only grievance is that you are granted this supposed "freedom of speech" while others are systematically denied it.

Where exactly is that happening, and who's being silenced?

Morgan Carter said:Does anyone actually care what someone thinks about Muhammad? That isn't the point here. The real question is whether this rule applies to everything else, or if it specifically targets Muslims and Islam. Does anyone truly have the right to hold an opinion on Hitler that no decent human being would ever agree with?

Personally, I couldn't care less what your take on Hitler is, because we’re talking about Muhammad—the guy who, according to the lore, has basically populated hell with women. You've got them stuck in eternal torment in boiling water, being beaten with mallets and having their skins replaced every time they burn off, all while living under the thumb of a minority of men. And all of this is coming from a man who had sex with a child, a fact recorded in the hadiths, in the holy scriptures of Muslims themselves, and through the eyewitness testimony of Aisha.

If some people think this site is just some low-rent soap opera, that's their problem, not mine. ☕

Justin Harris12 said:Here’s the latest post where some user is getting away with talking trash about me and Muhammad. They’ll probably claim it’s all under "freedom of speech," while I’m certain they’ll try to find some technicality to get me flagged—maybe claiming an image is too big or something equally ridiculous. That's what I'm talking about.



http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=480339&page=123

Regarding the police, let me be clear: I didn't say I was heading down to the station tonight. I was supposed to take everything over this evening, but I didn't make it. Tomorrow, though, I’m going to head over to the local Islamic community center a bit earlier to have a serious talk with them. I've already been in contact with them, and since they have people involved in politics and even on the City Council, I'm confident that if there's enough evidence, they will report this to the authorities. The police might not be able to unmask everyone behind these racist posts, but one thing is certain: they can shut down any platform that spreads racial and interfaith hatred. Don't kid yourselves into thinking you're running some untouchable site that exists outside of American law. If there's sufficient evidence, a court expert could easily request a temporary injunction to shut things down. I don't know exactly how it will play out, I'm just laying out the possibilities.

We'll see how Tyler Cruz32 and Nicole James respond, and we'll see exactly how things unfold on the Religion subforum firsthand.

So, I got banned just for you. Does that not sit right with you either? Because by your logic, I should’ve been flagged for my comments on Muhammad too. Honestly, I couldn't care less what he was about; having my own opinion on a guy who supposedly had sex with a six or nine-year-old girl is my god-given right.

The fact that it bothers you personally that people today call those types of actions pedophilia? I don't give a damn.☕

Oh, and go ahead, call the cops on me.☕

rapidskipper8 said:I’d rather fail my finals than give you the satisfaction of spewing such absolute garbage.

Maybe you call it "art," and hey, I'm not surprised—everyone sees what they want to see. But if you ask me? This show is basically a mirror image of Hitler's Nazi ideology. It’s just pure, unadulterated sadism, hatred, cruelty, and intolerance through and through.

All the "beauty" this series has to offer... 🤮

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzguXsBYReI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHUDdSHDTic

The clock is ticking, and honestly, it’s about time someone finally tore through that colorful gift wrap you've used to disguise your obsessive little mission to convert everyone else ☕

I’m backing this proposal, but honestly, it’s strictly because Depeche Extreme is the undisputed queen of emojis. 😁

Daniel Ward87 said:If anyone’s to blame here, it’s me. I’ve been grinding at the office from sunrise to sunset the last few days, so I haven't had much time to keep up with the Prime Minister's messages or the admin alerts.

The ban will be lifted eventually.

Still, there's a glimmer of hope for this forum.😍

Jose Ruiz2 said:I should probably tell the OP they shouldn't even be touching topics like this. I actually checked with the site admins, and they made it clear that whether someone gets a ban or not is strictly an admin matter. Honestly, the OP deserves a red card for this, and the thread should just be locked.

Man, give me a break. I’m actually choking on how serious you’re being here. ☕

Look, buddy, take a breath. You surely have bigger fish to fry in your life than obsessing over other people's problems that don't involve you. If certain folks here think the moderator is great, they’ve already made that known in this thread. If you personally can't stomach the idea of supporting someone you care about, well, that sounds like a "you" problem. This is just a forum where people chat and hang out; it isn't some formal petition for clemency for a mass murderer. ☕

The cinjenica is that Velvet asked for the ban before the new rules were even put in place.