Posts by Jeremy Diaz9

hollowtrucker77 said:I’m actually digging the direction this conversation is heading in right now
(not trying to be a jerk here)
So, what I'm wondering is, what's the absolute best way to tackle this specific part of the problem?
The ground rules are simple: we need to keep it honest and stay completely objective.

Maybe appoint someone specifically to handle oversight—not necessarily to process the grievances themselves, but to monitor them.
By tracking the complaints filed against moderators, this person could have the authority to remove a moderator from their position, or at least formally recommend it to the higher-ups...
The fundamental requirement would be that they aren't part of any moderator cliques, though I suppose you guys would probably deny that such factions even exist.
If you’re asking for a name, there is one moderator who is more than capable of handling this.
They're young, incredibly fair, knows all your flaws, and wouldn't just look the other way when a moderator makes a mistake.
But I won't say who, because under these specific circumstances, I'm certain they wouldn't accept the role anyway...
By the way, looking at how you track complaints, it's obvious that custom user Titl govnar is being targeted again, and you all know it, yet it seems like nobody really cares.
And honestly, that’s where your constant criticism comes from.
Do you realize what this kind of behavior leads to?
It leads to a certain number of people becoming perpetually frustrated, having to be incredibly loud and persistent just until a moderator finally loses their cool and quits.
And I wonder why that happens?
But then again, that tactic doesn't work on the thick-skinned types, like the second-in-command or the elders. It fails because any user who complains gets labeled as some sort of revolutionary, so no one takes them seriously, and they often end up catching a ban in the process...
That's pretty much it.
Merry Christmas!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:@Eminem
Man, what can I even say... honestly, massive respect to you!!!

It would be absolutely incredible to actually pull this off—if there was even a way to make it happen. I’m talking about wiping the slate clean once and for all. No more warnings, no more temporary bans, and definitely no more permanent bans—unless, obviously, you're just spamming ads on Reddit. If someone can't handle whatever goes down, they can just hit that delete button and get lost. Period.

Finally, we’re actually gonna see the full spectrum. Everything's about to get colorful.

Look, let’s be real—if we actually let people talk about certain topics without any filters, freedom of speech would hit its absolute limit. And honestly? I don't even know if a "limit" like that even exists in the first place.

So, look, there’s this massive, glaring issue hanging over the whole thing—and I’m gonna lay it out as a question for you. Since you’ve clearly spent way too much time obsessing over this beautiful little idea, maybe—just maybe—you actually have an answer.

So, how do you actually fix the whole mess of nationalism, religious fanatics, dealers, creeps, and all those other "honorable" citizens? Honestly, it feels like trying to plug holes in a sinking ship with pieces of gum. You’ve got people obsessed with their borders and flags, zealots who think they have a direct line to God, and then the absolute bottom-feeders—the pushers and the predators—just running around like they own the place. It’s a goddamn circus. There isn't one magic button you can press to make society stop being a dumpster fire, but man, if we could just get everyone to chill out and stop acting like their specific group is the only one that matters, we might actually stand a chance. But hey, that's probably asking too much from this world, right? 🙄😁 Think about all the absolute characters in this modern society of ours—the kind of people who would definitely crawl out from under their rocks if everyone was allowed to moderate their own threads. ☕

@Jeremy Diaz9,
Honestly, I don't care what anyone thinks—actually, scratch that, I love it when people disagree with me. Like, seriously, give me all the contrarians you've got. It’s way more entertaining when everyone isn't just nodding along like mindless drones; things get way more interesting when there's actually some friction in the room.
Not you? Seriously?
Whatever, whatever—I actually ended up reading that greeting from that legendary permanently banned user, Krule. 😍)

And I suppose there isn't much point in overthinking it or trying to explain too much...
Just think back to the old days on Discord and how people would immediately kick you out if you showed up with a different opinion.
That’s basically what would happen here if the person starting the thread was also the moderator for that specific topic..
So, yeah, it’s been tried before, and it didn't exactly work out all that great.....

Kenneth Peterson5 said:@Eminem
Man, what can I even say... honestly, massive respect to you!!!

It would be absolutely incredible to actually pull this off—if there was even a way to make it happen. I’m talking about wiping the slate clean once and for all. No more warnings, no more temporary bans, and definitely no more permanent bans—unless, obviously, you're just spamming ads on Reddit. If someone can't handle whatever goes down, they can just hit that delete button and get lost. Period.

Finally, we’re actually gonna see the full spectrum. Everything's about to get colorful.

Look, let’s be real—if we actually let people talk about certain topics without any filters, freedom of speech would hit its absolute limit. And honestly? I don't even know if a "limit" like that even exists in the first place.

So, look, there’s this massive, glaring issue hanging over the whole thing—and I’m gonna lay it out as a question for you. Since you’ve clearly spent way too much time obsessing over this beautiful little idea, maybe—just maybe—you actually have an answer.

So, how do you actually fix the whole mess of nationalism, religious fanatics, dealers, creeps, and all those other "honorable" citizens? Honestly, it feels like trying to plug holes in a sinking ship with pieces of gum. You’ve got people obsessed with their borders and flags, zealots who think they have a direct line to God, and then the absolute bottom-feeders—the pushers and the predators—just running around like they own the place. It’s a goddamn circus. There isn't one magic button you can press to make society stop being a dumpster fire, but man, if we could just get everyone to chill out and stop acting like their specific group is the only one that matters, we might actually stand a chance. But hey, that's probably asking too much from this world, right? 🙄😁 Think about all the absolute characters in this modern society of ours—the kind of people who would definitely crawl out from under their rocks if everyone was allowed to moderate their own threads. ☕

@Jeremy Diaz9,
Honestly, I don't care what anyone thinks—actually, scratch that, I love it when people disagree with me. Like, seriously, give me all the contrarians you've got. It’s way more entertaining when everyone isn't just nodding along like mindless drones; things get way more interesting when there's actually some friction in the room.
Not you? Seriously?
Whatever, whatever—I actually ended up reading that greeting from that legendary permanently banned user, Krule. 😍)

You know as well as I do that most of the people on this Reddit are just narcissists at heart, so that whole idea isn't really going to fly here.
Honestly, they should just run the experiment and see where it leads. I suspect it would eventually devolve into nothing more than a complete joke and a total mockery of itself.
Moderators have to exist. It’s just how things work everywhere, and honestly, I think that's the way it has to be.
Anyway, getting back to the point at hand...
If your proposal actually manages to pass, we’d probably find ourselves staring down a situation pretty similar to a total change in administration.
So, I suppose if a forum member actually managed to take over the moderator position, they’d probably spend all their energy trying to get revenge on everyone who ever handed out them a penalty...
And that’s exactly why communism collapsed in the first place.
Not a single bit of that.
I suppose a moderator really ought to be handpicked by the site administration. In my view, they need to have the full backing of the higher-ups to function properly, essentially just stepping in to carry out whatever tasks are assigned to them on a daily basis.
The only consistent complaint I hear regarding this forum is that the leadership... He doesn't actually read the complaints from the Reddit users with any real understanding..
If things actually worked that way, I guess those two guys I just replied to would have blue usernames too...
They aren't the only ones, either. For instance, you've got this person who is basically walking fashion disaster material—they really ought to consider changing their font color.
Days... just days.
P.S. Have you ever noticed how quickly someone changes their Custom User Title to something aggressive the second they get appointed as a moderator?
If you aren't paying close enough attention...
Honestly, it feels like everyone around here is trying to be some kind of Terminator lately...
I mean, just try to wrap your head around a scenario where someone actually gets licensed to kill within a single month. It’s a wild thought, isn't it? I guess you have to wonder how that kind of authority would even be vetted in such a short timeframe. Maybe it's possible, but honestly, it seems like a massive Risk to me. Just an interesting thing to ponder, I suppose.
You know that old saying people always toss around—that if I were given just five minutes of power...
That's about it, I suppose.

Nicole James said:Hey, everyone—just so you all realize how incredibly difficult it is to find decent moderator candidates on most forums nowadays; honestly, people wouldn't even dream of suggesting any changes to the current staff... if anything, they’d probably be demanding that we make it a mandatory full-time job 🙂

I can see why it’s such a struggle...
On this particular forum alone, there have been at least a hundred applications from people wanting to take on mod duties this year...
And honestly, if you're lucky, they might even give you some kind of seniority credit or something......

I’m honestly all for holding a contest to see who can come up with the most absurdly stupid reasons for handing out bans...
today, the mods dropped at least two justifications that had me absolutely losing it...
could you guys please just provide some actual, legitimate reasons instead of stuff that makes everyone on Reddit laugh their heads off?
Merry Christmas to everyone, and maybe try to chill out a little...
P.S. I know one mod is trying to forbid anyone from saying Merry Christmas before midnight, but that’s an old tradition, and I don't think even he can change that...

rowdyhawk10 said:I have been dwelling on this particular idea for quite some time—actually, for years now—that every user should automatically act as the moderator for any thread they personally initiate. Essentially, if we could configure a script so that the thread starter is also its editor by default, they would be responsible for editing and removing insults or any content that disturbs the flow of their topic or steers it in an undesirable direction... In this scenario, Kenneth Peterson5 would manage their own thread, Dervish would lead theirs, Satori would guide theirs, steelskipper5 would handle theirs... and so on.

What would be the outcome here? I suppose the threads that actually gain traction would be those where the starter knows how to steer and direct the conversation effectively. Conversely, those threads where the starter lacks the ability to lead or proves themselves to be somewhat immature would likely be ignored by participants, meaning people simply wouldn't engage with them. It would function as a sort of supervisor system within the subforum, where someone would only need to step in to prevent trolling threads and similar issues. Kenneth Peterson5, what are your thoughts on this? 🙂 And what about the rest of you? 🙂

I suppose you’ve spent years wasting your time on that idea...
If that happened, we wouldn't even have a forum anymore; it would just turn into some mindless chat room. You'd end up with a bunch of people constantly sucking up to one another within the threads, while anyone who dared to hold a different opinion would probably just get kicked out immediately. I guess on certain PDFs, having a dissenting view is actually considered important, but here? It feels like that's changing. 😍)....
I just can't help but wonder where they even find people to pick these kinds of moderator modes...
sons of the sunshine...

rapidstag2 said:Make no mistake, this is by no means a public poll. ☕

you want it public? 😍
I mean, I see people reporting posts left and right, yet they're perfectly fine with signatures if it means advertising some corporation...
it’s basically pay-to-play at this point...

Daniel Ward87 said:Sorry friend, but they can pretty much write whatever they want into the rules...

I suppose I could prove my point via this link.

But you should really pay attention to this part specifically:
"The use of offensive or generally inappropriate signatures is prohibited. The Moderator reserves the right to determine what is appropriate and what is not."

It’s not an American site, but obviously, something like this could be implemented on Reddit too. So now, any moderator here can basically decide for themselves what counts as appropriate and what doesn't...😉 In other words, if they put that in the rulebook, by staying here, you're essentially giving the mods the authority mentioned above.

Daniel Ward87

First off, the two of us aren't exactly friends.
Second, that wasn't even what you were talking about; you made a completely different point entirely.
Third, I am fully aware that the mods here act like they're God's gift to the world, but I'm also well aware that most of them were picked based on the same logic used to promote sergeants in the US Army.
Because of that, I just don't participate in certain threads where the mods lack basic culture, so I try to keep my level of trolling to the absolute bare minimum.
Every time I step into a thread where a mod has decided their role is to be an absolute authority, an absolute truth, and an all-knowing deity, I end up getting banned.
And since I have no desire to deal with self-important types, I just avoid those places.
I'm just waiting until someone actually cleans up the situation over in Politics, so I can go there and peacefully post my opinions on current events.
We all know (the regulars, anyway) who is primarily responsible for the state of things in Politics, and it'll be a long wait before anything actually improves. The issue isn't the rules themselves; it's the people in charge, the subordinates, and the higher-ups. 🙂
You get what I'm saying?
P.S. It's always a particular "joy" to see a regular user—someone I actually enjoyed reading—become a mod and change overnight.
I guess that's just the metamorphosis from an ordinary guy into a little sergeant...

hollowtrucker77 said:Jeremy Diaz9, look, I’m no lawyer—just an amateur interested in legal dynamics.
From my perspective, it seems perfectly logical that any owner has the right to decide which clientele they host; there are countless examples of that all over the world.
Just like newspapers decide what they print, or how clubs dictate who can enter and under what conditions, a forum should be able to establish its own way of operating and define which behaviors aren't acceptable.
I mean, a local pub is a public space, just like the restaurant at the Beverly Hills Hotel is a public space, but if those guests started mixing...

A forum isn't a private club; it's a public space.
Services like AOL Instant Messenger, IRC, and things like that function more like clubs.
Newspapers, on the other hand, have a very clear editorial policy.
Exactly—it's that clear editorial policy that seems to be missing from this PDF policy.
And please, let's not have anyone try to claim again that you don't fall under electronic media laws or that you aren't a public gathering place, because the rules in one specific PDF state loud and clear that you acknowledge your own status!

hollowtrucker77 said:sweet/bitter, I suppose
rules can't technically violate the law, but they can exist outside its direct scope—meaning they might be stricter or more granular than what's written, perhaps banning things the law doesn't explicitly penalize.
Like how a high-end nightclub might refuse entry to someone without a tie or anyone under 25.
That isn't mandated by any statute; it's just the club's prerogative.

But that seems to clash directly with the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and expression.
And if you look at the regulations regarding electronic media, the definition of what constitutes an electronic medium is pretty clear.
There’s just no way they can legally suppress free speech.
That would be straight-up censorship, and it's unconstitutional!
Amen!
If I'm not mistaken, you're a lawyer, so you really ought to be more familiar with these kinds of nuances.

cosmicseal5 said:I don't know. To me, this smells a bit like what used to be called a verbal offense...

It’s obviously just a matter of free speech!
There is a massive difference between WRITING about something or DEBATING it, and actually ACTING on it.
In other words, I’m not breaking any laws just because I state loudly and clearly how much I despise certain nations.
But if I start chasing people down the street to beat them up, then yeah, I’m criminally liable.
By that same logic, I'd also be liable if my actions were intended to instill fear in people from other backgrounds. And I suppose I should also be held legally responsible if I turn someone away from joining some extremist group?
These are subtle distinctions, and I guess the mods over in Politika aren't quite mature enough to grasp them.
As for who would be better suited for the job, I have no idea, and it’s certainly not my place to decide!

Daniel Ward87 said:🤷..Forum.hr isn't owned by America, the US Government, or any public institution, nor is it their mouthpiece. The Law of America clearly dictates what can't be promoted or encouraged, and currently, we just have to deal with the alignment between US law and the rules of Forum.hr - 😕

Forum.hr is basically Anderlon's private playground where he uses admins, supermods, and mods to enforce his own set of rules. If he decides he doesn't want to see any extreme political fanaticism here, then that’s just how it’s going to be. As far as I can tell, he isn't breaking any US laws in the process. He's the owner; he gets to decide who stays and who goes on this Forum because, at the end of the day, it's practically his "house," and we all know how personal those things get. To put it simply, if you walked into my house and started shouting extremist political slogans, I'd kick you out. I wouldn't be breaking any US laws by doing that, as far as I know. You have the right to your own way of speaking, but not in my shop.

Anyway, that's just my personal take, not some absolute truth, so take it for what it's worth...

Daniel Ward87

there's already been plenty of debate about this....
The internet is a public space.
A Forum isn't someone's living room; it's more like a local diner.
Even a diner owner can't just ban you whenever they feel like it, though if they really wanted to...
But let's not reopen old wounds; there's a new law regarding Electronic media coming out soon, which will explicitly state the rules for internet forums and why they exist.
By the way, even under this law, the responsibility falls on you—the mods and admins—before it ever reaches the owner!

And maybe save that "my shop" talk for the teenagers over at your local high school hangout; it doesn't fly here.......
Oh, and one more thing: using a .us domain carries its own set of obligations and restrictions.
At that point, any argument about this being a "playground" just falls apart.
djenja!

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Once again, an authority on etiquette (and a true veteran of this forum) has emerged 🙄🙄🙄
. Not only does this individual possess a certain flair for writing, but they serve as a shining example of courtesy to all our fellow forum users—and especially to the ladies among us 🙏
. It’s quite a phenomenon... it honestly feels as though I were to wander into a discussion about lawn care just to argue against people smoking on their own grass 😂
.

And you, naturally, will seize any given opportunity to sneak in a little plug for drugs.
Isn't that right?

feralmaker7 said:It wasn't intentional—I was just trying to type a normal reply and it ended up looking like this. Honestly, it might be best if we don't chat, since you clearly already have a negative opinion of me. I'll try to fix the post, though the last one already took way too much effort. Actually, I don't even know how to fix it—I just checked and the edit option is gone.

Anyway, let's not hold a grudge.
The bottom line is, playing editor for other people's comments never ends well; it always just ends up provoking someone into an argument.
Just look at where this thread has headed ever since you showed up with your "editing skills."
It’s particularly irritating when someone who is also illiterate tries to act like an editor.
You can claim you're perfectly literate, of course, but you aren't.
And I would never, ever nitpick about someone forgetting a space after a comma if you hadn't taken it upon yourself to correct others.
The same thing applied to Jason Campbell70.
And this thread itself is proof of that.
Let me repeat: whenever editors show up—whether they mean well or not—the whole discussion goes off the rails.
That's all there is to it.
As for how you write, frankly, I couldn't care less, as long as I can understand what you're trying to say.
Is that clear enough for you now?

feralmaker7 said:So, that's it.

This is what happens when I try to quote your comment.
How am I supposed to actually talk to you like this?
Maybe take a moment to learn how to use the quote function.
It’s not about being rude or nitpicking, but there really is such a thing as forum etiquette.
Fix your post, and then maybe we can start over...

feralmaker7 said:As for me—what bothers me about your attitude is just how rude you're being... Maybe by your standards I'm not a great writer, but I'm certainly more coherent than you are. In that little post I quoted, the author wasn't even making a major point—and I definitely wasn't quoting them just to lecture them. If you're feeling insecure because of your own typos—or worse, because you're acting out with this unprovoked, aggressive tone—that's your baggage to carry. Take those frustrations somewhere else instead of taking them out on me. And I don't even know what you mean by my "behavior"—you don't know how I act, you only know how I type. I haven't been putting anyone down or giving lectures; I'm just stating my opinion, which is my right—unless you think you're the only one allowed to do that, considering you're doing exactly that to me right now. It's not my fault if you can't grasp the distinction—or simply refuse to. You can complain about my spacing all you want, but you're the one misspelling words because you genuinely don't know how they're spelled—whether it's here on a forum or on a piece of paper. Sure, there's always an excuse—sometimes people just don't feel like it (like me), sometimes it's a typo, and sometimes people just plain don't know how to write—which seems to be your situation.

Oh, so now I'm the rude one.
Why exactly am I being rude, in your eyes?
Because I pointed out that you don't have the right to correct anyone, for at least two reasons.
First, given the nature of this medium, trying to proofread someone in a reply to their post can never come across as polite.
It always ends up looking blunt and obnoxious.
Even my colleague ruggedfox28 tried to explain that to you.
The second reason is that you're uneducated too.
Feel insulted all you want, but the fact remains.
Claiming you're "less" uneducated than someone else doesn't help; it's irrelevant. The point is, you lack basic literacy. I remember the rules about spacing after a comma perfectly well from elementary school.
But I'm not throwing that in your face, and frankly, I don't care.
I wouldn't bring it up if you hadn't come in here acting all high and mighty trying to correct others.
Hopefully, you get the point now. If not, there's nothing I can do to help you. And fine, I'll admit to being rude, but I've formed a rather unpleasant opinion of you—one that should probably worry you more than being labeled "rude."...
By the way, I'll say it again: in certain parts of America, there is absolutely no difference between those two specific vowel sounds.
In reality, that specific accented letter doesn't even exist there.
Oh, and for the record, I don't have any complexes of that sort, despite your explosive reaction!
P.S. "say" vs "said"...
That specific variation is a legitimate part of regional dialect.
Someone who learned to speak that way, simply because they were born and raised in that region, will never—and cannot—pronounce it the other way. There's another explanation for that linguistic quirk, but this isn't a linguistics seminar.
Besides, many of us remember being mocked back in the day during our service in the military just because of our regional accents.
Since I've heard enough about grammar policing and condescending jabs at speech in places where I couldn't defend myself, I don't need it here. I'll always stand my ground to the very end.
The American language is diverse, and as such, it should be respected. Likewise, forum users should be respected based on WHAT they said, not HOW they wrote it.
After all, this is a forum for various topics.
Isn't it?

feralmaker7 said:I notice typos because—honestly, when I'm reading, things like a missing letter just jump out at me. If you want to call that "keeping tabs," fine, be my guest. On the flip side, I don't really care if someone forgets a space after a period, a comma, or a parenthesis. I'll never nitpick that—mostly because I make the same mistake myself since I rarely write on a desktop and I'm just not used to hitting those extra spacebar strokes. I don't see it as a spelling error or anything major, but hey, if you want to frame it as my own failing and lecture me about it, go ahead. Like I said, I'm not going around the forum calling people out on their typos, but the truth is, it does bug me when I see them. Why? I don't know—that's just how I am. When I'm typing, I'm not always thinking about perfect spelling (usually), but I *do* have to think about spacing, and I just don't have the bandwidth for it right now, as you can tell.
Btw, I don't mind the question, but I really don't like the tone you used.

I brought it up because, in my view, you're basically just picking on other users here.
What really gets to me about your logic is how you care more about whether a word is technically "correct" than actually understanding what the person was trying to convey.
It’s also pretty grating that you act like you're above everyone else when you make just as many typos as the rest of us.
So, go ahead—decide for yourself what I was actually getting at!
I suppose there's always an excuse for why someone misspells something or ignores grammar rules.
Whether it's your habit of skipping spaces after commas or someone else's struggle with vowels...
But again, I'll repeat: that isn't the point of this discussion.

feralmaker7 said:Thanks for pointing out the slips. I'll try to stay on top of it—though honestly, I don't pay much attention to it... bad me🙂 😁

huh?
So you don't pay attention, yet you're still keeping tabs on everyone else's posts and nitpicking their mistakes?
Could you maybe walk me through that logic, please?.......

hollowtrucker77 said:lol, wiredsailor10, thanks
though, I honestly doubt that my arrival would change even a single shred of how people perceive the moderation of Politics here
let’s do this just for kicks—list the Politics mods and drop your grievances
🙂
at least from my perspective as a PZK moderator, I've kept an eye on them
if Jesus himself showed up, the only difference would be that they'd probably nail him to the floor with an electric nail gun this time around

Rachel Sanchez11, I can only sign my name to what you wrote here

You’re a solid moderator for PZK, especially if you step in like reinforcements during some wild PDF thread where the mods have totally lost their grip on authority.
If you were a moderator for Politics, I suspect you’d face three times as many complaints as the mods who came before you.
It wouldn't be because you're making mistakes, per se, but rather because of where you draw the line—if you catch my drift.
And frankly, a moderator like that isn't needed in Politics; they might actually just get in the way.

Jerry Garcia said:Go ahead, shoot. 🙂 I'm here. I started this discussion, but I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just listening to what people think about who would make a good mod.

Someone who actually has enough free time to hang around the Reddit threads all day.
On the Politics section, we’ve got a real issue with comment flooding.
The moderators aren't really keeping up, so they can't read everything, which leads to them handing out punishments based solely on reports.
It happens quite often where they start handing out bans halfway through a thread.
I also think a moderator should probably have an academic background—basically, they need to be an intellectual.
Right now on the Politics board, it seems some gentlemen can't tell the difference between a heated debate and actual rule-breaking, so they hand out bans somewhat arbitrarily. When they try to provide an "academic" justification for those bans, it honestly feels a bit tragicomic.
Specific names?
Well, let's say Gregory Howard, and I say that with full responsibility.
I've known Gregory Howard for a long time from another forum (the WSJ forums); he isn't exactly someone I agree with, let's be clear about that, but if my memory serves me—and it usually does—the man is calm, well-read, educated, and always brings solid arguments to the table.
From what I recall of him, he's only lost his cool maybe two or three times, and even then, it was only when he was being genuinely insulted or unfairly penalized.
But the most crucial thing in this whole equation is that a moderator on the Politics board SHOULD NOT COMMENT, they should only MODERATE!
And given that reality, I highly doubt Gregory Howard would ever agree to that.
Thanks, cheers!