What are the new standards at Politika?

There used to be some legendary users on this forum who got permanently banned for no reason.
Then you look at the people who seem to get away with absolutely anything:

McAuliffe said:Look, buddy—feel free to slide into my DMs along with the rest of you "tough guys." I’m available whenever—maybe I'll show you how a guy in his 40s handles things, assuming you still have any teeth left to rearrange. Or maybe I'll just mail you back to your parents so they can finish raising you properly, since they clearly missed the mark the first time around...

The old guard from the Republican establishment ruled the roost, much like Sanader did, and people like you are living proof of that legacy...

You can act out however you want, but at the end of the day, you're still the same person...

I know this user is probably going to get a warning for that, but honestly, it's not their first time and it won't be their last.
Can we please try to stick to some actual standards here?

So, what, you get called out on a threat and suddenly you're the one feeling insulted? Is that how this works now?

hiddenfox64 said:So, if you get threatened and then react, you're suddenly "offended" or something?

The threat wasn't directed at me...

Anyway, this particular user is pretty well known for attacking people personally—but honestly, it doesn't bother me much since being insulting is usually just a cheap substitute for having actual arguments.

On the flip side, though—making direct threats toward anyone... yeah, that definitely bothers me.
Is that weird to say, or what?

It feels pretty weird that you have to be some kind of high-priced attorney just to represent the person being threatened...

And don't even get me started on how you decide who’s a top-tier poster and who isn't. The legends get banned without any actual proof—just because they're labeled "conspiracy theorists"—while everyone else just gets a slap on the wrist with a warning...

Honestly, it feels like we're back in kindergarten...

hiddenfox64 said:it seems pretty weird to me that you have to be the lawyer for whoever received the threat...

it’s just like your little ranking system of who’s a "great" forum member and who isn't. The great ones get banned without any actual reasoning—just pure conspiracy theories—while everyone else just gets a warning...

honestly, it feels like we're back in kindergarten...

Physical threats against anyone aren't a joke... right?

You mention lawyers...😂but what are you doing here then? You're acting just like an uninvited lawyer, defending someone... aren't you?

That's all I've got to say—I'll leave it to the mods to weigh in...

The controversial comment was deleted, yet the user faced zero consequences.
No warning, no ban, nothing...

And that’s not all.
The debate kept going—the same guy continued his insults—but then that part of the thread was wiped too.
Seriously, no strike, no ban, no...

I’m asking the mods to actually step up and sanction this user.

What’s the issue? That post was banned, along with a similar one right before it, yet curiously, nobody mentioned this specific one here. Interesting. Just let things be; the deleted posts are gone now.

Charles Fox10 said:Where’s the issue? That post was flagged, and so was the one right before it—which you guys all went nuts about—but strangely enough, nobody bothered to quote it here. Interesting. Just keeping things quiet while posts get wiped...

The post preceding the controversial one was immediately and rightfully flagged for insults—something any regular user could see clearly.
That’s why it wasn't specifically called out here.

However, the actual problematic post was deleted instantly, leaving everyone guessing whether it was just flagged or gone for good...
Charles Fox10, you claim that deleted post was also flagged, so I'll take your word for it...

But that's not really the point.
Let me restate the offending post:

McAuliffe said:Look at this post
"Man, feel free to hit me up in the DMs—I'm happy to oblige—so you can see how a 40-year-old guy handles his business, assuming you still have teeth left to show. I'll send you back to your parents, who are probably still clutching their old Democratic Party membership cards, since you clearly missed out on a decent upbringing the first time around..."

The establishment types—the ones following the likes of Karamarkov or Sanader—have always been in control, and people like you are living proof...

Go ahead and act out all you want; you're still going to be exactly who you are.

I’m wondering—are there actually any measurable criteria to determine what kind of penalty a post like this deserves?

In the real world, a report like this would bring the police straight to your door... but in the virtual world of an online forum, does a physical threat result in a simple flag, a warning, a month-long ban, or a permanent lockout?

Let's clear this up so we can set a precedent. It'd be good if users knew in advance whether a threat of violence earns them a slap on the wrist while they continue insulting people, or if it's going to cost them much more dearly.

Thanks in advance.

crimsonjackal63 said:The post preceding the controversial one was immediately and rightfully kartonirati due to insults—something any user could see.
That’s why it wasn't singled out here.

However, the controversial post itself was deleted so quickly that users can't tell if it was kartonirati or not...
Charles Fox10, you claim that deleted post was also kartonirati, and I'll take your word for it....

But that isn't really the point.
Let me restate the controversial post:

I wonder if there are any measurable criteria to determine what kind of penalty posts of this nature deserve...?

In the real world, a report like this would bring the police to your door immediately... but in the virtual world of an online forum, is a physical threat punished by deleting the post, a simple warning, a month-long ban, or a permanent ban...?

Let's clear this up so we can establish some precedent. That way, in some hypothetical scenario, users will know in advance whether a threat of physical violence earns them a mere warning while they continue insulting others, or if it's going to cost them much more dearly.

Thanks in advance.

And I ask again, what's the issue given that both posts were kartonirati??

I read one as a direct threat and the other as a conditional one.

If wiredangler5, acting as the head moderator of the Politics sub-forum, thinks it's cheap, he'll escalate accordingly without worry.

Threats aren't allowed. Penalties range from a small warning to a permaban, depending on the context of the writing, the discussion, and likely which sub-forum it happened in.

Charles Fox10 said:I’m asking again—what exactly is the issue here? Both of those posts were already nuked.

I read one as a direct threat—and the other? Purely conditional.

If wiredangler5 decides that whatever this is counts as "cheap," then as a supermod over at r/Politics, he’ll ramp it up in a heartbeat—no second thoughts.

Threats are strictly off-limits here—period. As for the penalties, we’re talking anything from a slap on the wrist to a permanent ban, depending entirely on the context of what was said and how the debate was going. Honestly, it might even come down to whatever's written in the official PDF guidelines.

On one hand, I’m seeing nothing but straight-up insults—and on the other, actual physical threats. It's getting ridiculous.
To make things easier to follow, I'm going to drop both posts here so you can see how the whole debate actually went down.

I can't even begin to wrap my head around this—it’s just absolute nonsense. Honestly, at this point, you have to wonder if anyone is actually paying attention or if we're all just collectively sleepwalking through this. It's ridiculous. kaže:
Exactly—it's not like Karamarkov's people have actually held power before. But hopefully, they won't be getting that chance anytime soon either. Well, you guys are absolutely toast once they finally get around to running that purge through the system.You’ll see for yourself that I'm right—just wait and see. Cheers.

I'm still waiting to see if anyone actually has a coherent thought about this—it feels like we’re just circling the drain at this point. Honestly, most of the commentary lately has been nothing but noise. I'll be interested to see if anyone brings anything real to the table, or if it's just more of the same empty chatter.McAuliffe Check out the post.
Look, man—you and all you other "tough guys" are more than welcome to hit my inbox. If you really want to go there, be my guest. I’ll be waiting right here to show you exactly how a guy with over 40 years of experience handles dental work.If you still have those people around—the ones sending stuff back home to their parents who are likely still hoarding their old Communist Party membership cards somewhere—then maybe it’s time for some serious re-education. Since you clearly missed out on being raised right the first time around...

Karamarkov held the reins just as firmly as Sanader did—and people like you are living proof of that.

You can pass whatever laws you want or push whatever agenda you like—it won't change a thing. At the end of the day, you’re still exactly who you were before.

The first post got a red card—and no, I didn't delete it.
His second post was wiped clean right after he reported it—only for everyone to find out later that he just got a warning.

Do we actually need to sit around waiting for a supermoderator to weigh in, or is the situation already crystal clear?

crimsonjackal63 said:The post right before the controversial one was immediately kartonirati for being offensive, which any regular user could see.
That's why I didn't call it out specifically here.

But since the problematic post was deleted instantly, users aren't sure if it actually got a warning or not...
Charles Fox10, you're saying that deleted post was also kartonirati, so I'll take your word for it....

Charles Fox10 told the truth—that post definitely got kartonirati. Personally, I upgraded that warning to a 7-day ban. It was just too disrespectful to let slide.

crimsonjackal63 said:But that's not really the point.
Let me restate the post in question:

I'm wondering if there are any measurable criteria used to decide how much punishment a post like this deserves...?

In the real world, a report like this would bring the police straight to your door... but in a virtual forum setting, is a physical threat punished by deleting the post, a simple warning, a month-long ban, or a permanent ban...?

Thanks in advance.

I gave his post a warning, and McA is also under a 7-day ban for that specific post. Ideally, policy should have zero tolerance for both types of posts that showed up. I agree with your take, and that's exactly how I handled it.

wiredangler5 said:Charles Fox10 was spot on—that post was total garbage. Honestly, I just upgraded the penalty from a warning to a 7-day ban. It was straight-up insulting, plain and simple.

I nuked his post too, and McA is also sitting out with a 7-day ban for theirs. Look, the Politics sub should have zero tolerance for either type of post we saw here. I’m with you on this one—that's exactly how I handled it.

Thanks, cheers...

No problem, hope you have a good one too.