Moderating the immigration thread

lonebadger6 said:Here’s your actual post, and since the admins can track everything—including deleted posts—there’s really no point in arguing: http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p...6#post55361056

Based on your own words, it's pretty obvious you saw the warning from Bradley Sanders4 and decided to just brush it off with a smug little smiley face...

No, I didn't. Now you're going to sit there and try to interpret my words too?!

Besides, feel free to slap a red card on my post instead of just deleting it. Is that how we're doing things now? If you had, we wouldn't be having this whole misunderstanding, and honestly, it would actually be helpful to see how you guys moderate a thread.

Am I seriously supposed to comment on your little attempt at a pivot: "now back to the topic."

I mean, after you and your FEW moderators literally butchered the thread, what exactly is left to talk about.... oh right, immigrants. But we won't mention the rapes, the riots, the wrecked hotels, or the clashes with the police, because apparently, it’s just not polite when you two insist on calling them refugees.

Michelle Evans said:I’m talking about their specific comments regarding enrollment—comments they clearly left without permission, which is why they're being called out for being absolute muppets. Of course I'm not asking for a link to something that doesn't exist anymore. Please, next time, actually read the reason behind the warning before you come in here to laugh... and please don't quote my moderator warnings or try to debate my moderation decisions within this thread. That kind of back-and-forth isn't helpful for anyone here. My inbox is always open if you want to talk privately. The deleted posts were truly unnecessary. There's a reason the original post was kept general—because we're complaining about deleted content, making links impossible—so debating that point is just pointless...

And how exactly was my response to Meadow considered trolling?

Charles Wells71 said:But I did post them, didn't I? The moderator claims I'm trolling, but all I did was drop a link that completely contradicts what the other moderator is saying. Meadow thinks there's zero point even discussing Sharia in Europe and wonders why on earth we're debating it, yet the second I post a link where Muslims are explicitly stating they want to implement Sharia in Belgium, I get slapped with a warning just for repeating it. It's not like I had the brilliant idea to delete it; I don't see the logic there.

Not to mention I got a second warning basically just because of the timing—while I’m mid-sentence typing out my reply, Bradley Sanders4 swoops in with a moderator notification that I can't even see until after I hit post. So, I end up getting warned right after, and it wasn't even Bradley Sanders4, it was lonebadger6. Like, man, try to actually follow the flow and the rhythm of the conversation for once.

The only warning I actually deserve is the one where I commented on the mod alert. Everything else feels like a straight-up attempt to suppress free speech.

Not exactly where you’re complaining about the forum users' sign-ups (like Edi Bosanceros?) whom you think are trolling the thread, even though their posts are still there...

Charles Wells71 said:And how exactly was my response to Meadow considered trolling?

I don't moderate Politics, just this specific thread. You'd have to ask the moderator who issued the warning, or a senior Politics mod. Or maybe the admin, eventually...

Michelle Evans said:I’m talking about their specific comments regarding enrollment—comments they clearly left without permission, which is why they're being called out for being absolute muppets. Of course I'm not asking for a link to something that doesn't exist anymore. Please, next time, actually read the reason behind the warning before you come in here to laugh... and please don't quote my moderator warnings or try to debate my moderation decisions within this thread. That kind of back-and-forth isn't helpful for anyone here. My inbox is always open if you want to talk privately. The deleted posts were truly unnecessary. There's a reason the original post was kept general—because we're complaining about deleted content, making links impossible—so debating that point is just pointless...

There, I posted the link. You all looked at the post and now everyone's staying silent. It’s just as ridiculous to demand links and then ignore what's actually provided.
Now, I’m going to report the post I just linked, along with a few of her others, just to see how "principled" you all really are. Let's see if you react the same way you did when you were punishing or banning other users.

Michelle Evans said:Not exactly where you’re complaining about the forum users' sign-ups (like Edi Bosanceros?) whom you think are trolling the thread, even though their posts are still there...

I don't moderate Politics, just this specific thread. You'd have to ask the moderator who issued the warning, or a senior Politics mod. Or maybe the admin, eventually...

Oh, so you’re acting all smart with me now, huh? 😉 I ask what the weather is like in Split and you give me some nonsense answer about how things are over in $1.75. 😉

I don't moderate Politics, just this specific thread. You'd have to ask the moderator who gave you the warning or maybe a super-mod from Politics. Or even an admin if you want the final word.

Then where am I supposed to go to complain about an immigration thread and the warnings being handed out there if not here? If you don't have any authority to moderate how people behave in a thread that's literally your purpose for being here, then what are you even doing?

Drew Brooks8 said:There, I posted the link. You all looked at the post and now everyone's staying silent. It’s just as ridiculous to demand links and then ignore what's actually provided.
Now, I’m going to report the post I just linked, along with a few of her others, just to see how "principled" you all really are. Let's see if you react the same way you did when you were punishing or banning other users.

Ja vas tražim linkove da žalbu konkretizirate i da ona ne ostane na razini postova u kojima su kometari na razini subotnje kave, a s čime ste počeli. Jer ovdje komentiranje ne bi trebalo biti samo sebi svrhom nego se treba pogledati što nije u redu. Kad to napravite, tako da stavite linkove, oni kojih se to tiče će pogledati o čemu se radi. Kada budu mogli. Prošlo je pola noći. Neki ljudi možda i spavaju. Strpite se malo i budite razumni.

Charles Wells71 said:Oh, so you’re acting all smart with me now, huh? 😉 I ask what the weather is like in Split and you give me some nonsense answer about how things are over in $1.75. 😉

I don't moderate Politics, just this specific thread. You'd have to ask the moderator who gave you the warning or maybe a super-mod from Politics. Or even an admin if you want the final word.

Then where am I supposed to go to complain about an immigration thread and the warnings being handed out there if not here? If you don't have any authority to moderate how people behave in a thread that's literally your purpose for being here, then what are you even doing?

I already explained my authority to you. And I'm wondering who exactly is calling whom a 'smart-ass'...

Edi Bosanceros, none of these posts were ever deleted

Drew Brooks8 said:Alright, here’s the link
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...postcount=6979
What does this post have to do with the immigrant thread? And why hasn't it been banned or deleted, especially since the political moderators were active in the discussion while it was being written?
Are they just pretending they don't see it?

And why on earth would we delete that post? Does it actually break any of the subforum rules or trigger some moderator warning?

Edward Ortiz77 said:To actually understand what Meadow and Edo are doing here, you need to scroll back through at least ten pages of this thread. You can't grasp the big picture if you just react to posts one by one. In this specific instance, the issue lies with the criteria being used. They aren't applied equally; there's a double standard between users who don't hold strong opinions, like lonebadger6 and Bradley Sanders4, and those who do. My own post, which I pinned to the top of this sub-forum, looks completely unfair if you try to weigh it against the body of work produced by Edo and Meadow over the last ten pages.

An example of hate speech slipped right under the radar because Bradley Sanders4 dismissed it as mere "trolling." Let me present it once more for clarity:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...7&postcount=34

Remember how the Germans used to view us sixty years ago when we were migrating en masse—no paperwork, no trade skills, barely speaking a word of the language. That was our global reputation back then, and that was the demographic leaving. Canadians and Herzegovinians in ragged socks, people who had never even seen a television or a phone in their lives. Don't even get me started on the lack of running water or basic plumbing. At least these Syrians know how to use a smartphone.

North American pigs... See how quickly those North American pigs got used to having soap and toothpaste, and how quickly they panicked at the thought of someone taking that very same soap and toothpaste away from them.

If a gentleman making comments about "Canadians, Herzegovinians... North American pigs" is treated with the same weight as my post regarding Index's laziness, then we really have nothing left to discuss.

Yeah, they’re arguing.

In this specific instance, the whole thing boils down to the criteria. It’s just not a level playing field. You've got people like lonebadger6 and Bradley Sanders4 who don't really have an opinion on anything, and then you've got everyone else who actually stands for something. The rules aren't being applied equally to both groups.

Not really. Honestly, some people's takes just align more with... Look, let's talk about the rules of this forum. Seriously.It’s about fairness—making sure one person isn't treated differently than everyone else. To be blunt, it means people who wrap their opinions in insults based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, or any other identity are going to get flagged way more often. If you're out here promoting or calling for criminal acts defined under the U.S. Penal Code, or if you're glorifying Nazism, fascism, or any racist or xenophobic garbage, expect to get banned. You'll be kicked off the forum a hell of a lot faster than the people actually playing by the rules.

This particular example of hate speech flew completely under the radar—the kind of stuff that Bradley Sanders4 just dismissed as "trolling." So, let me lay it out for you one more time:

Look, I know it’s technically none of my business to be answering for you—especially since other people's bans and moderation drama shouldn't really affect my life—but since we're actually talking about how this place is moderated, I figured I’d weigh in on this specific complaint. It feels right to give an answer here.

I was actually giving that post some serious thought—wondering if it qualified as hate speech or just some really aggressive trolling. But once you take a closer look, it’s pretty obvious that the slur used toward the Canadian folks isn't actually his own opinion. It’s a direct reaction to that comment about refugees having "mindsets from the 12th century," where the author implies that's how Germans used to describe immigrants from the North America who "refuse to integrate." Since you mentioned we need to look at posts in context, this one can only be read as a sarcastic jab at people pushing that whole "failure to adapt" narrative. Yeah, it's trolling, for sure, but that's why it got flagged.

Look, your case was already picked apart in another thread, so there’s absolutely nothing left to debate here.

Other people's bans don't concern me in this debate. My goal here is simply to demonstrate your incompetence and your inability to moderate this thread, which stems entirely from you catering to the petty whims of one female user. I see she’s constantly praising you, and since her intervention, you’ve been promoted to handling the immigration topic. That same woman has been harassing and bullying a moderator across several threads. The last thing I saw was her mocking him on a thread about the United Kingdom because of his title, using subtle, snake-like insults to provoke him on a personal level—but that’s your business, and frankly, I couldn't care less. If you’re willing to let people run things who actively bully your own colleagues and leak their private information, then I care even less. I am merely collateral damage here. I didn't bother reacting to the other "immigration" thread on Reddit because I didn't want to give her the satisfaction of a performance, though it's a shame, as I believe she deserved a much harsher penalty for the slander she leveled against me.

My own experience on this forum *does* concern me. You can pack up and leave until Judgment Day for all I care, but it remains an objective fact that you labeled blatant hate speech as mere trolling, while this thread is crawling with bans for much lesser offenses. I have no intention of digging through the jungle of this thread to pull out every single one of your moderating acrobatics. By linking this comment, my goal was to highlight the massive GAP in how you apply criteria to your friends versus your critics. I'll leave the final judgment to the higher-ups.

Quote:>

I remember how the Germans used to call us sixty years ago when we were migrating en masse—no papers, no trades, and no idea how to speak the language.What kind of worldview did we have back then? What kind of population was leaving?. Canadian and Herzegovinian peasants in ragged clothes, people who had never even seen a TV or a phone in their lives. Not to mention the lack of running water or plumbing. These Syrians, at least, know how to use a smartphone. North American pigs... Vis how quickly those North American pigs got used to soap and toothpaste,and how quickly they shat themselves fearing someone would take that very same soap and toothpaste away.

Let me repeat myself.

In the very first paragraph, he distances himself from "German impressions" and makes it clear he is expressing his own opinion when he writes: "What kind of worldview did we have back then? What kind of population was leaving?"
The answer provided is:
Canadian and Herzegovinian peasants, followed by a list of insults. The sentence where he concludes, "these Syrians, at least, know how to use a smartphone," confirms this isn't just about "German impressions."

The second part—"North American pigs." Only the phrase "North American pigs" answers the question in the first paragraph; everything in between and after is his personal opinion, which constitutes a severe form of hate speech.

He uses "North American pigs" as a way to drive home the insult: "shat themselves fearing someone would take their soap and toothpaste."

Given your supposedly rigorous standards, this ban is a joke. It serves as an extremely telling and crucial argument for this entire discussion regarding poor moderation, proving exactly what many users have already pointed out on this thread.

What is written above isn't just hate speech directed at two types of people.

Bradley Sanders4 said:And why on earth would we delete that post? Does it actually break any of the subforum rules or trigger some moderator warning?

Yeah, they’re arguing.

In this specific instance, the whole thing boils down to the criteria. It’s just not a level playing field. You've got people like lonebadger6 and Bradley Sanders4 who don't really have an opinion on anything, and then you've got everyone else who actually stands for something. The rules aren't being applied equally to both groups.

Not really. Honestly, some people's takes just align more with... Look, let's talk about the rules of this forum. Seriously.It’s about fairness—making sure one person isn't treated differently than everyone else. To be blunt, it means people who wrap their opinions in insults based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, or any other identity are going to get flagged way more often. If you're out here promoting or calling for criminal acts defined under the U.S. Penal Code, or if you're glorifying Nazism, fascism, or any racist or xenophobic garbage, expect to get banned. You'll be kicked off the forum a hell of a lot faster than the people actually playing by the rules.

This particular example of hate speech flew completely under the radar—the kind of stuff that Bradley Sanders4 just dismissed as "trolling." So, let me lay it out for you one more time:

Look, I know it’s technically none of my business to be answering for you—especially since other people's bans and moderation drama shouldn't really affect my life—but since we're actually talking about how this place is moderated, I figured I’d weigh in on this specific complaint. It feels right to give an answer here.

I was actually giving that post some serious thought—wondering if it qualified as hate speech or just some really aggressive trolling. But once you take a closer look, it’s pretty obvious that the slur used toward the Canadian folks isn't actually his own opinion. It’s a direct reaction to that comment about refugees having "mindsets from the 12th century," where the author implies that's how Germans used to describe immigrants from the North America who "refuse to integrate." Since you mentioned we need to look at posts in context, this one can only be read as a sarcastic jab at people pushing that whole "failure to adapt" narrative. Yeah, it's trolling, for sure, but that's why it got flagged.

Look, your case was already picked apart in another thread, so there’s absolutely nothing left to debate here.

Are you being serious right now, or is this some kind of joke?
We're in a thread discussing the massive crisis of mass immigration, and she’s over here rambling about what Muslim women look like in swimsuits on an American beach—whether they wear headscarves or not, and how many she's seen?😵
Can you seriously not see how wildly off-topic that is?
Just be honest for once: you didn't delete the post because it was off-topic; you deleted it because the moderator is the one who wrote it.

Drew Brooks8 said:Are you being serious right now, or is this some kind of joke?
We're in a thread discussing the massive crisis of mass immigration, and she’s over here rambling about what Muslim women look like in swimsuits on an American beach—whether they wear headscarves or not, and how many she's seen?😵
Can you seriously not see how wildly off-topic that is?
Just be honest for once: you didn't delete the post because it was off-topic; you deleted it because the moderator is the one who wrote it.

Meadow didn't start this conversation. You're complaining about supposed double standards, yet you're applying them yourself...
To make things even more amusing, the whole topic—though framed much more to suit your own views—was actually kicked off by another moderator too.
Neither post was deleted.
But somehow, there isn't a huge outcry about why someone else talking about Muslim women's clothing and hijabs hasn't caused any drama...
She basically set the tone for the whole thing.
So much for those "standards" of yours...
Our rule remains the same—nothing was deleted, and we saw no reason to hit the delete button.

By the way, over in Politics, both of them are just regular users, with no more authority than anyone else on the forum.

lonebadger6 said:Meadow didn't start this conversation. You're complaining about supposed double standards, yet you're applying them yourself...
To make things even more amusing, the whole topic—though framed much more to suit your own views—was actually kicked off by another moderator too.
Neither post was deleted.
But somehow, there isn't a huge outcry about why someone else talking about Muslim women's clothing and hijabs hasn't caused any drama...
She basically set the tone for the whole thing.
So much for those "standards" of yours...
Our rule remains the same—nothing was deleted, and we saw no reason to hit the delete button.

By the way, over in Politics, both of them are just regular users, with no more authority than anyone else on the forum.

I don't have double standards. I'm not out here defending anyone—I have no reason to. You guys are the ones with the double standards, and you're proving it yourselves.

And I have no idea what "drama" you're talking about 🤦. Honestly, I don't even care who started it. But if you guys noticed who the instigator was, it just shows you left troll posts from the moderators—in this case, nasmijanonebo and Meadow—allowing them to go off on tangents about irrelevant stuff. Meadow wasn't penalized because she didn't start it, yet at the same time, some random guy gets flagged just for responding to Meadow, who *did* start it.

The most bizarre part is that neither you nor Bradley Sanders4 see any reason to delete those posts, which suggests you barely have a clue how to moderate a politics board or distinguish between off-topic chatter and actual trolling. And saying both moderators on the politics board are just regular users with no more rights than anyone else? That’s just plain false. The post I linked proves it.

Nah, the gray world isn't being punished because of that...

lonebadger6 said:Nah, the gray world isn't being punished because of that...

Exactly, it isn't. But the fact remains that she went completely off-topic, which is exactly how she baited everyone into replying, and you all just left her hanging.
He got called out because he pointed out that what she was saying was totally contradictory—just getting lost in her own nonsense.
Which, let's be real, is the truth.🙂

Bradley Sanders4 said:So a red card shocks you, but landmines and machine guns don't?

Since when are cards handed out based on whether someone is personally shocked? And since when did we decide hate speech is synonymous with militarism? Personally, I think the whole thing is nonsense—but then again, what does my opinion have to do with the rules?

With Powerlock leaving and Bradley Sanders4 showing up, the whole vibe of this thread flipped 180 degrees in just a few days. Looking at some of the posts shared lately, it feels like people are just hunting for any tiny technicality to shut down certain users and kill their freedom to speak their minds.

In a world drowning in today's political correctness and censorship, reading this thread back when Powerlock was running things was a breath of fresh air. I honestly thought, "Damn, there are still pockets of the internet where free speech actually matters." Sadly, those days are over.

If you can't see that, no amount of evidence will change your mind—especially not links to deleted posts, which, frankly, I have no clue how a regular user is even supposed to track down.

Bradley Sanders4 said:A headscarf isn't proof of fundamentalism. Anyone who thinks that should take a look at how our grandmothers and aunts used to dress back in the day.

I honestly don't think any comment is necessary here—except maybe for a potential 👍

swiftstag66 said:With Powerlock leaving and Bradley Sanders4 showing up, the whole vibe of this thread flipped 180 degrees in just a few days. Looking at some of the posts shared lately, it feels like people are just hunting for any tiny technicality to shut down certain users and kill their freedom to speak their minds.

In a world drowning in today's political correctness and censorship, reading this thread back when Powerlock was running things was a breath of fresh air. I honestly thought, "Damn, there are still pockets of the internet where free speech actually matters." Sadly, those days are over.

If you can't see that, no amount of evidence will change your mind—especially not links to deleted posts, which, frankly, I have no clue how a regular user is even supposed to track down.

It wasn't just him leaving, though; it was more like Powerlock was forcibly removed, unfortunately.

Between Bradley Sanders4 and lonebadger6, they’ve effectively suffocated any remaining freedom of speech here, haven't they?

Lockheed Martin hasn't gone anywhere; he’s still one of our fellow moderators.