#1 ·
Hello.
As the title suggests, I have an extensive inquiry regarding the moderation of this specific thread, and I would appreciate some direct answers.
I’ve been a heavy contributor to this discussion for years, and frankly, I’d hate to walk away from it permanently. That’s why I’m attempting this approach—to get some clarity and decide if there’s any point in continuing.
I haven't posted here since Election Day, and for a very simple reason: there was a massive shift in how things are moderated at that exact moment. A huge number of users were slapped with warnings or banned, a trend that just kept rolling in the following days.
Naturally, this was triggered by the arrival of the moderator lonebadger6, who jumped into this thread like some glory hunter right after the election, despite having zero involvement beforehand (he had exactly 0 posts on the pre-election thread). What followed was a wave of warnings and bans—heavy-handed ones, in lonebadger6's signature style—effectively purging most of the long-term participants who had been part of the conversation before the vote. Most were kicked out for the same reason: trying to expose the potential fraud that occurred during the election.
Unlike many of them, I have a much calmer temperament. I don't feel the need to post if I know I’m just going to get flagged or if I'll end up debating the moderation itself. Seeing the current state of affairs and the attitude toward users, I decided to step back from the thread.
It isn't a secret that I’ve been avoiding any threads regularly moderated by lonebadger6 for quite some time. I said that publicly a while ago, again for a simple reason: I've realized it's impossible to have a constructive debate when he's around. He hands out unjustified, excessive warnings—something I’ve experienced firsthand myself (otherwise, I haven't had a warning in years, except from him)—and he seems unable to separate his personal opinions from his duties as a moderator.
But, as I mentioned, this is one of my favorite topics and I’ve been involved for a long time. I won't be falsely humble: I've made a significant contribution here (unlike the aforementioned moderator), and I am willing to go above and beyond if I can just get clear guidelines on what, how, and why certain things are allowed or forbidden.
Therefore, I am looking for the stances of the moderators and the administration on the following points. Please be as precise and detailed as possible so we can avoid any future warnings:
- (1) Any mention or analysis of the election theft—what some media outlets called the "robbery of the century."
- (2) Direct evidence of such fraud, such as voting by deceased individuals, multiple registrations (and multiple voting), ballot harvesting, turnout exceeding 100% in certain areas, ballot tampering, etc.
- (3) Indirect evidence, such as indications or bizarre statistical anomalies that point toward a stolen election.
- (4) An analysis of the farcical way Americans vote, which remains vulnerable to mass fraud regardless of this specific election.
- (5) The possibility of receiving a warning via private message if I post something the moderation team deems undesirable (which, in my opinion, is what moderators should be doing anyway when dealing with a user's first "mistake").
That’s all for now. Once I receive an explanation, I will follow up if necessary.
I would prefer to hear from the highest authority responsible for this section of the forum first, and only then the moderators themselves. This is to avoid the classic administrative "washing of hands" where they simply say, "I agree with the moderators."
As the title suggests, I have an extensive inquiry regarding the moderation of this specific thread, and I would appreciate some direct answers.
I’ve been a heavy contributor to this discussion for years, and frankly, I’d hate to walk away from it permanently. That’s why I’m attempting this approach—to get some clarity and decide if there’s any point in continuing.
I haven't posted here since Election Day, and for a very simple reason: there was a massive shift in how things are moderated at that exact moment. A huge number of users were slapped with warnings or banned, a trend that just kept rolling in the following days.
Naturally, this was triggered by the arrival of the moderator lonebadger6, who jumped into this thread like some glory hunter right after the election, despite having zero involvement beforehand (he had exactly 0 posts on the pre-election thread). What followed was a wave of warnings and bans—heavy-handed ones, in lonebadger6's signature style—effectively purging most of the long-term participants who had been part of the conversation before the vote. Most were kicked out for the same reason: trying to expose the potential fraud that occurred during the election.
Unlike many of them, I have a much calmer temperament. I don't feel the need to post if I know I’m just going to get flagged or if I'll end up debating the moderation itself. Seeing the current state of affairs and the attitude toward users, I decided to step back from the thread.
It isn't a secret that I’ve been avoiding any threads regularly moderated by lonebadger6 for quite some time. I said that publicly a while ago, again for a simple reason: I've realized it's impossible to have a constructive debate when he's around. He hands out unjustified, excessive warnings—something I’ve experienced firsthand myself (otherwise, I haven't had a warning in years, except from him)—and he seems unable to separate his personal opinions from his duties as a moderator.
But, as I mentioned, this is one of my favorite topics and I’ve been involved for a long time. I won't be falsely humble: I've made a significant contribution here (unlike the aforementioned moderator), and I am willing to go above and beyond if I can just get clear guidelines on what, how, and why certain things are allowed or forbidden.
Therefore, I am looking for the stances of the moderators and the administration on the following points. Please be as precise and detailed as possible so we can avoid any future warnings:
- (1) Any mention or analysis of the election theft—what some media outlets called the "robbery of the century."
- (2) Direct evidence of such fraud, such as voting by deceased individuals, multiple registrations (and multiple voting), ballot harvesting, turnout exceeding 100% in certain areas, ballot tampering, etc.
- (3) Indirect evidence, such as indications or bizarre statistical anomalies that point toward a stolen election.
- (4) An analysis of the farcical way Americans vote, which remains vulnerable to mass fraud regardless of this specific election.
- (5) The possibility of receiving a warning via private message if I post something the moderation team deems undesirable (which, in my opinion, is what moderators should be doing anyway when dealing with a user's first "mistake").
That’s all for now. Once I receive an explanation, I will follow up if necessary.
I would prefer to hear from the highest authority responsible for this section of the forum first, and only then the moderators themselves. This is to avoid the classic administrative "washing of hands" where they simply say, "I agree with the moderators."