Moderator "Aryn" issues another 100-point trolling penalty

And here we go again—Aryn the moderator, who’s clearly an Eric Adams fanboy and won't tolerate even a shred of critical thought about him.
And let's be real, she's obviously got a massive vendetta against me because this is the second time in a row I've been slapped with a warning on this specific topic.

So, look, I am politely requesting that the higher-ups review this penalty. I want a clear, detailed explanation of what exactly in my post warrants a 100-point deduction.

And how did he even make a living? He was probably just living off government grants through those non-profits he hung around in. At the same time, he played the "activist" role—just like Donald Trump, constantly showing up at protests against everything under the sun, hoping it would land him some political leverage to secure his lifestyle for the rest of his life. And hey, that's exactly what happened once he got into US Congress. If he hadn't made it into Congress, you have to wonder where he would've worked or who'd actually hire someone like him... I mean, normally people build a career first, prove themselves in a field, and *then* decide to jump into politics... but this guy jumps straight in without any actual professional background. People used to mock Bernie Sanders for stuff like that, and their stories are basically identical—except Bernie at least had some real-world experience before politics, working jobs like at ExxonMobil, loading things, whatever...

But Eric Adams... he's a total blank slate when it comes to work experience outside of activism—if you can even call activism "work." He has about as much professional history as Donald Trump does.

That's why he dodges the question every single time. When he's confronted with the fact that he wants to be Mayor despite having zero relevant experience for such a massive role, he gives some nonsense answer along the lines of, "Well, I don't want *that kind* of experience," implying he's avoiding Bernie Sanders's style of shady dealings or something. Instead of being a man about it, showing some backbone, and just admitting, "Yeah, I don't have any prior experience, and that's a flaw of mine," he just deflects.

Please, moderator—and I apologize in advance if I got your gender wrong, I just got the impression you were female—could you please bold for everyone here exactly which part of my post was problematic? I want to know specifically what you were targeting when you handed me this 100-point penalty.

Thanks.

Come on, man. You already called out Eric Adams, claiming his claims were false, so why the surprise now? I don't live in New York City, so I can't speak to every single one of a candidate's flaws or virtues—and it didn't occur to me to weigh in on the topic—but I really don't think we need to be letting what you wrote stand.

Charles Fox10 said:Come on, man—you basically trashed Eric Adams by saying those claims weren't true, and now you're acting surprised? Look, I don't live in New York City, so I can't claim to know every single pro and con of every candidate, and it doesn't occur to me to write an essay about it, but I really don't think we should be letting what you wrote slide.

Charles Fox10, thanks for chiming in. Very classy move on your part, truly. Appreciate it.

Anyway, since you're claiming I "trashed" Eric Adams—since when does criticizing someone, or what you're calling "trashing," get you slapped with a 100-point penalty on this forum? I've been around here a long time, but I don't recall any rule—correct me if I'm wrong, please—that says you aren't allowed to criticize a specific public figure.

I didn't even insult him! I mean, I'd understand if I'd dropped some heavy-duty insults, sure, but... this was just standard criticism. Nothing offensive about it, and I stand by it. Besides—and even if I *had* insulted him, which I didn't—you don't just drop a 100-point hammer out of nowhere. Usually, there's a warning first (which is something you always do, by the way, and honestly, it’s a good look—you could probably teach the other moderators how to handle things without immediately nuking someone with 100 points) or maybe a warning card that doesn't lead straight to a ban.

But what actually happened here? Your colleague just slapped me with 100 points right out of the gate without any justification whatsoever. I even politely asked her to highlight the exact part of my post she was penalizing in black text so I could learn for next time, but she couldn't even be bothered to do that. It’s so much easier to just hit someone with 100 points and then, when they ask for an explanation, pretend it has nothing to do with you. She won't even offer the bare minimum of decency by providing a simple reason.

Since you decided to show up, I'm asking you to take what I've said into account. Just look at it objectively: is my post really so catastrophic that it deserves a full 100 points? Is there actually anything in there that warrants such a penalty? Does it make any sense to punish mere criticism with a 100-point card?

I'm not expecting you to play favorites or take her side—all I'm asking is for an objective assessment of whether there's anything in here that justifies a 100-point card, which, for me, results in a 3-week ban.

By the way, just so we’re clear, your colleague is pulling this exact same stunt on me for the second time in a row—that's two times now she's slapped me with 100 points just for criticizing Eric Adams (who, let's be real, she's a total superfan of, and if anyone even breathes a word against him, she shuts it down instantly). And both times, she tried to play it off as "trolling." Look, you and I have been hanging around here long enough to know damn well what trolling actually looks like, and what's happening here has absolutely nothing to do with it, let alone deserves a massive 100-point penalty.

You mentioned that "what I wrote about Eric Adams shouldn't be let slide," so would you mind pointing out exactly which part of my post you're talking about?

And seriously, just be honest with me—and yourself—would you actually hit me with 100 points for this post? Or would you have given me a heads-up first with a smaller warning? Because we both know a little nudge works way better than straight-up repression, and you know that better than anyone.

John Wayne, your reasoning for this ban is identical to the last one, so there’s really no point in us wasting our breath typing all this out again, is there?

I’m not quite sure what you were picturing here, but surely you didn't think you could just keep trolling us indefinitely by recycling the exact same tired arguments? You keep circling back to the same nonsense—questioning people's work experience or claiming their only life achievement was lying around on the sidewalk in Times Square.

Are you seriously suggesting I should have personally reached out to warn you before things escalated? When you first started this trolling spree, you were handed a ten-point penalty. Instead of changing your tune, you doubled down on the exact same behavior, which is why you got banned. Then, the second your ban expired, you jumped right back into the thread with the same old narrative, and now you’re acting like someone should have given you a heads-up earlier?!

I honestly don't have anything left to say; the supermod has already stated their position, and when you filed your last appeal, the moderator Zoran Oštrić was kind enough to spend his time patiently explaining certain concepts to you to help you understand. But clearly, it was all for nothing since you refuse to accept anyone's logic or explanations. If the admins have nothing more to contribute, then I think we can just lock this thread and move on.