Posts by Jerry Garcia

15 😛

No, you really didn't need to ask me this via a public post 🙄

Advocating for specific users has never been allowed on this subforum, and it isn’t starting now. I’m not going to sit here and explain to you why someone was banned.

This discussion has lost its purpose. If you have issues with issued warnings, use the dedicated megathread. If you think a post should have been flagged, use the report button. Arguing in circles like this won't get you anywhere... and you might just end up getting flagged yourselves, since the moderator here is much less patient with this kind of talk than the social science mods are.

Just another totally logical complaint 🙂 Someone takes issue with a single topic, and suddenly you all churn out 130 posts about it? How do you even find the energy?... 🤷

nah, enough 🙄

The purpose of this subforum is basically just to mess around. I honestly don't get why everyone is being so serious about how "the moderator shouldn't have allowed that thread..." Look, guys, this is the playground sub!

Innocent got banned for a few days because she really did cross the line. A few other posters on that thread got flagged too—and yeah, I'll admit things spiraled out of control for a moment and they should have stepped in harder 😉—but the thread was closed.

And this one is the same story...

ps: Kisikana, please find a new hobby. This whole thing where you hunt for moderator mistakes isn't funny anymore

This thread is closed because there’s nothing left to say. In my opinion, it just stayed open far too long 😉

Just because the thread is locked doesn't mean those who were insulting others, trolling, or breaking forum rules won't face consequences. I have no idea where people got the idea that closing a thread acts as an amnesty for everything that happened inside it...

Alright, that’s enough of that 🙂

You got what you wanted (at least from those of you actually trying to be helpful). The subforum is getting another moderator. To be clear, the subforum isn't "falling apart"—there are just a few trolls and some rude people hanging around (just like any other subforum 😉 ).

The selection process for the moderator is underway. We'll let you know who was chosen in due time.

Thanks for participating 🙂

Just so you don't say this complaint went unnoticed: I've read everything you wrote. I agree with some parts, but not others...

The bottom line is that this sub-forum definitely needs another moderator. Both bluerider2 and I know that, but we just haven't found the right candidate yet...

Regarding expertise, none of us moderators demand a resume. Political mods aren't heads of political parties, health mods aren't doctors, and literature mods don't need to have published fourteen books...😉. Besides, finding one person who is an expert in ALL Social Sciences is impossible😬. How many degrees would they need to hold for that?

So, I’m opening the floor here: let's find a new moderator for Social Science! Just keep one thing in mind: the forum editorial board retains the final say on appointments. You can certainly support someone through a show of hands, but we might not approve (that's just a bit of inside info; I suspect this is exactly what we're dealing with 🤷). Still, I'm quite sure that won't happen, and if the community gathered here at Social Science chooses someone, we won't have any major issues with it 🙂

Alright, let's wrap this debate up, please.

The topic itself is interesting and timely. It’s framed specifically to spark conversation, which gets people reading and responding. There was never any intention here to provoke, spam, or mock anyone. Honestly, does it even matter if every single detail is factual? 🤷

We used to have that one user, whom everyone knew was just making things up because they were clearly clones, yet their stories were engaging and widely read—nobody complained back then. Personally, I don't care if what deedy wrote is 100% true, and frankly, you shouldn't either. Like someone already pointed out, this is a forum; we're here to have a good time. If a thread doesn't interest you (just like it doesn't interest me), then don't read it, folks... but don't come in here demanding justice. 😉

The forum rules state quite clearly and plainly that moderators have the authority to delete posts, move threads, issue penalties, and so on. They decided to leave this one up. Simple as that.

You totally deserved that ban on Reddit, and spamming here definitely isn't going to help you get back in there.

Users don't have the ability to delete their own threads.

Alright, thanks for the discussion. It really highlighted a few things. Let me summarize my thoughts here:

1) Every single debate regarding current Politics (including right here on PŽK) eventually devolves into a fight between the far-left and the far-right.
2) There’s just no way for the Forum administration to show good faith by letting users participate in decision-making without it turning into a joke. Our attempts just end up looking tragicomic. >
3) When users are actually given the chance to nominate someone for moderation, they suggest three names: one person with only 44 posts who nominates themselves, and another with 14 PAGES of bans for some of the most disgusting posts I've ever seen.
4) No matter what, the right will claim every moderator is a leftist, and the left will claim they're all right-wing.
5) Pallas was a great moderator. 🤣 🤣
6) Most moderate and reasonable users probably aren't even trying to contribute anymore... they already know exactly how these threads will end up.

Rachel Sanchez11 said:I wasn't talking about you. An admin shouldn't be responsible for this, because at the end of the day, Politics is just one tiny section out of maybe 30 or 50 total. Having the head admin deal with these issues would be like asking the CEO of General Motors to personally fix a brake fluid issue on an Opel.

Having an Admin/supermod specifically for Politics would give the mods some real weight. You’d still be getting hit with the same appeals you get now, but the endless, toxic arguments would actually stop there.
And I clearly remember the details of when one guy in the Politics section got a permanent ban.
Get this: his name was Anderlon, and he was reinstated. Later on, he even got promoted.
Now, give me Mark Twain or Jeremy Diaz or driftingdriver who actually has authority over that guy. He's deserved a permanent ban a hundred times over by now

One Admin with direct backing from the head admin—someone who holds the line for the mods and can step in to permanently remove someone—would bring actual order to this place.
The mods could still do their jobs, bicker with users, explain their decisions, and defend their moderation, but those marathon debates would end instantly the moment someone hits the "stop" button. No more endless chatter, no more chasing ghosts.
Every subsequent post would just be a ban with a reason: "Clone of a permanently banned user..."

And now some guy is going to tell me that all the high-quality debaters will die off.
Well, I'll say this: plenty of people from that generation want a normal internet experience, but when they see the state of the Politics section, they just don't feel like writing, and that's how both Politics and the forum lose.
Who are we losing them to?
We're losing them to the people who have been polluting Politics for years and make every single discussion look exactly the same.
Go read some threads over there; they're all identical...

Edit:
By the way, Phoenix was banned 500 times until one night a certain lady finally had enough and snapped.
It wasn't until she made the call that the arguing actually stopped.

Also, it's easy to make a decision that makes everyone happy. But the decisions that nobody likes—not even you—are the ones made by the brave or those who have actually outgrown the nonsense.
And the worst decision of all is no decision at all!
Politics stays messy and is allowed to rot. Just read the sentence right above this one.

We already have a supermod over on Politics. Every time he does something the users don't like, they either migrate here or come crying to me. Even if it's just deleting one trashy post—honestly, you wouldn't believe half the things people whine about here. Then again, you probably would, considering you complained because I didn't reply to your PMs 😉.

If we had an Admin, they'd just demand more from them. When I make a decision and clearly state that it's final, people still go looking for Anderlon
.

edit: Simba banned Phoenix 😉

granitefox16 said:Whatever. The only tool you guys actually have is swapping someone out when they screw up, but the joke is you barely even use it. We've had mods on certain subreddits who don't show up for a year, or subs where one mod is doing everything while the rest are MIA. Besides, even Mark Twain spent a whole year running things in Politics without getting kicked out.

Since you guys are so obsessed with talking about mods...😁

1) There definitely were mods like that. Not anymore, though. Now there are just a few desperately clinging to their positions, popping up for maybe 15 days at a time hoping everyone forgets they haven't done much. But an example of someone being gone for a full year? That simply hasn't happened. 😉

2) It's true we have subforums where one mod carries the load and the others are barely active. That’s their internal agreement. As long as the subforum stays functional, it isn't a massive issue, even if I personally wish things worked differently.

3) I think Mark Twain was a mod for less than a year, but I might be wrong.

@ Rachel Sanchez11: I could spend all day, every single day, sitting on this thread resolving complaints, but it would be a total waste of time. The end result would just be people claiming I'm wrong and telling me to go talk to the higher-ups like the CEO or some government official. They'd say I'm on a payroll, or planted by a secret agency, or just biased. It wouldn't do any good. The other consequence would be that people would start complaining significantly more...😉
Look, when there's a legitimate complaint, it reaches me. When a user was unfairly banned once, I had nine different MODERATORS reaching out to me at 9 PM begging me to look into it. People watch what happens here. And, believe it or not, the moderators actually trust me—I don't know what 🤷 is in their heads. 95% of the complaints are completely baseless and simply don't warrant a deeper look...

granitefox16 said:And what happened once he became a mod?

Never seen anything like it... all those deletions, stupid bans, zero understanding of context.

Is this that old story about a guy getting power and immediately losing his mind?

I'll give him this: his posts used to be constructive, but it's a shame his only obsession was the USA and the war on terror...☕

🤣

I haven't the slightest clue... 🤷

Look, we’ve always operated on the assumption that a high-quality forum user makes a great moderator, but that is COMPLETELY wrong. Still, damn it, what else do we have? There isn't any other standard for picking moderators—not just regarding Politics, but anywhere. If there’s some other paradigm out there that actually yields better results, let's lay it out and try applying it...

Drew Brooks8 said:If I'm going to be brave enough to throw out two suggestions🙂 I’d say we have two absolutely top-tier political forum regulars here

Gregory Howard and Kexx 🤷

Thanks, I knew someone would eventually show up with a solid suggestion. I'll take a look... we'll discuss it... 🙂

@Sarah Wilson95: Just because you post in the Politics section doesn't mean the rest of this Reddit isn't just as high quality. Sports journalists are basically just tabloid hacks stealing content from the sports subreddits... Living... On the "let's gossip a bit" segment, Ana Ugarković brings up the exact same stuff people complain about here in her shows (just a few examples that come to mind). And one more thing: my coworker at work mentioned on Tuesday that she read something on Reddit... 😉 I have absolutely no doubts about just how much power this Reddit holds... 😉

Sarah Wilson95, I’m telling you for the fifth time... instead of just tearing down the current moderators, constructively suggest someone new. Why is that so hard?...

Yeah, 500 posts that actually made sense—composed, analytical, polite, and respectful. Posts that weren't just a single smiley face, but usually long stretches of text explaining a point of view.

Sarah Wilson95 said:I assume there’s a certain level of disrespect involved, especially since that’s how a specific group of users here has been addressing me lately, but regardless of the tone, there is an unwritten rule on these types of boards about distorting someone else's handle. So, I thought I would mention it, just so you don't end up breaking your own rules.

As one of the institutions within the Politics sub-forum on Reddit.

😁 Is this some kind of joke about my post count? Well, I suppose after all these years, things just have a way of piling up. 🤣

I honestly find myself wondering if the current moderators possess any real understanding of politics at all. It seems to me that they are quite politically illiterate when it comes to navigating the complexities of the subject matter.

No, I don't quite see it that way. Take, for instance, those two individuals whom I simply cannot place within the same political spectrum—granitefox16 and the observer—though that alone isn't enough to make the point. From what I can gather, the observer spends most of his time fighting against windbags in the former American circles, and as for granitefox16? Well, I haven't run into him in a hundred years, but he certainly isn't politically illiterate either.

You’re suggesting that they're biased.

It really is just part of being human, isn't it? It’s simply "human nature," and honestly, I don't think it's worth trying to fight against that kind of fundamental reality.

The only way this works is if the moderator is someone completely detached from the fray—someone who doesn't belong to any of those established political factions. You need someone who is deeply politically literate, someone who truly understands the fine line between the democratic right to free speech and the blatant abuse of that very right. There has to be a distinction made when people hide behind the guise of freedom of expression just to spout various forms of idiocy that violate both legal standards and basic moral frameworks. That, quite frankly, is the core of the Politics of the Republic of America.

And that really just sums her up.

I honestly think this proposal isn't a bad idea—specifically regarding how the moderators on Politics shouldn't be getting directly involved in the debates. You might want to try approaching it that way, because the chaos is just getting too intense to not take a little bit of a risk. Then again, given how many people are visiting, it probably won't even be noticeable.

Oh, right, one more thing:

I honestly feel that we need to draw a clear line between two fundamental approaches to moderation—to put it in layman's terms:

The individual responsible for monitoring profanity, personal insults, flame wars, ad hominem attacks, and similar behaviors. It seems like you're referring to those little nuisances or those pesky troublemakers that always seem to pop up when you least expect them. How suffocating and exhausting certain things can be, both for the regular folks hanging out on Reddit and for the mods trying to keep everything running smoothly.

Taking a reasonable, politically informed, and legally sound approach to addressing violations of plurality means recognizing when the fundamental principles of democratic political culture are being undermined.

You’ve got a complete mess on your hands here. They go after people with cartoonish insults because they approach moderation like straight-A students following a rigid rulebook, yet those incredibly toxic, thinly veiled labels that are totally unacceptable get wrapped up in this convenient little package called "freedom of speech." When it comes to the PDF-politik, that’s usually just a fancy way of doing what I call crnalegija.com.

Since this Reddit community is so incredibly active, allowing things like this to slide isn't just an eyesore or a sign of a pathological environment; it’s a glaring demonstration of incompetence and a fundamental lack of understanding regarding legal boundaries, especially considering we are dealing with private property that is by no means Excluded Corp from following the law.

And naturally, within all of this, there should be absolutely no room for taboos or censorship. However, what truly matters is the standard of discourse being established. Based on what we have seen so far, the current level of conversation happening over there is such a mess that one could write entire treatises on it.

I don't know about any such rule 😁 they call me Bell, so I'm not upset, but again, sorry 🙂

😁 Is this what, making fun of my post count? Well, it's definitely piled up over all these years. 🤣

No, it isn't. Just a reflection on the fact that you've been here a long time, that you've seen many moderators, admins, and leaders come and go, that you stick to your views and always have something to say 😁 😁 😁

No, I don't think so. Take two people, for instance, whom I couldn't put in the same political spectrum (granitefox16 and the observer) — but that's not enough. The observer, from what I understand, fights against windbags in the old territory, and granitefox16? Well, I haven't seen him in 100 years, but he certainly isn't politically illiterate either.

Great, so we agree those two are very high-quality moderators. Let's assume there are more like them on the Politics subforum (there must be, statistically speaking): WHERE ARE THEY?

Only if someone completely outside is appointed as a moderator—someone with no ties to Politics or its various "factions," who is simultaneously politically literate enough to KNOW the difference between the democratic right to free speech and the abuse of it, when people use the guise of opinion to spout idiocy that breaks both legal and moral boundaries. That is the essence of the Politics of the Republic of America.

And where would we find someone from the outside? And why do you think one or two people "from the outside" would be the solution to the problem? Personally, I don't think so. I think it would be ideal to find 3 or 4 people from within, who would be willing to maintain objectivity and a cool head. It's just that, unfortunately, I don't see them right now...

I think this proposal isn't bad—how the mods on Politics should stay out of the arguments. Try it that way; the chaos is just too much to not take a little risk... And on the other hand, there's so much traffic that you won't even notice it.

Are you saying quantity will make up for the lack of quality? Hmm, I'm not sure I'm ready to go down that road.

@ wiredsailor10:

When I asked earlier, it felt awkward. If I hadn't asked, I'd just be ignoring the vox populi. Can you believe how everything the editorial staff produces can be twisted and given such a bad spin?

driftingdriver is an outstanding member here. He doesn't resort to insults, stays composed, remains calm, and is always ready to explain his reasoning. It’s precisely because of those qualities he was chosen as a moderator, only to decide to step down after less than four months in the role. My question to you is—how long should that trial period actually be? Do you really think someone can make a quality assessment in less than a few months? Honestly, I don't think 😉

@ Cheops: There was talk about the possibility of moderators not participating in discussions. But there's a catch: moderators are selected from among the HIGHEST QUALITY users on Reddit. It’s simply not practical to take the "best" user, give them a moderator title, and then strip away their right to join the conversation. That would, IMHO, significantly tank the quality of the debate 🤷

Sorry, Sarah Wilson95. I didn't realize that was offensive or that you minded being called by that nickname . I won't do it again, sorry 🙂.

I agree with you that Athena was an amazing moderator, but they're gone now. Neither you nor I can force them to come back. At least I can't, and I don't know about you. What I do know is that this Reddit is significantly different today than it was when Athena was a mod: there are ten times more users, and people jump into discussions much easier. Many of the old forum regulars mention that back in the day, when they first arrived, they wouldn't reply right away because they were intimidated. It took them some time to find the courage to write. Today, those boundaries don't exist; everyone just posts. We've been overtaken by this instant-access generation. Look, I moderated a thread over on Politics once because things were getting messy—you wouldn't believe the garbage I had to delete there, all the mindless insults and attempts to start totally off-topic fights. Believe me, the level of discourse you actually see is about 30 steps above what stays hidden.

And that’s why I’m telling you again, as one of the pillars of the Politics subforum, suggest someone. You think the current moderators are politically illiterate—then suggest someone who is literate enough. You say they're biased—then suggest someone you think will be impartial.

Why is there always talk about a lack of transparency, yet when given the chance to make suggestions, everyone just talks about general positions? Why haven't I seen three quality suggestions from you yet?

wiredsailor10 said:Everyone has an opinion, but there has to be some self-control.
Maybe we should look at who actually stays open to criticism and new ideas.
On the flip side, the person claiming they're the absolute best and the most liberal person on the forum is probably the exact opposite.

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.