Moderator "aryna" just hit me with a 100-point troll penalty

Can someone please explain what exactly counts as "trolling" in this post, and specifically why it deserves a massive 100-point penalty?

I mean, I’m genuinely curious—WHAT exactly here warrants 100 points?

Look, for heaven's sake, if we're talking about credentials, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were actually governors of their states. And Franjo Tudjman headed up the entire administration of the US Armed Forces and later ran an institute of history—he had actual references, he did stuff. He wrote books, managed systems, taught classes... he actually worked.

And Angela Merkel, just like you pointed out, was a physicist—so, you know, she actually did something with her life and has experience.

But what has this climate activist—this Marxist hack and total deadbeat—ever done in his life? Has he actually accomplished anything besides lying around on the streets at protests? Did he write anything? Teach anything? Lead anything? Work anywhere? Literally anything?

By that logic, Greta Thunberg would be a great candidate for Mayor, right? Because hey, she protested against the weather! She has the exact same resume as Tomasevic—once he finishes school and college, his educational background will be identical to hers. Both of them have zero days of actual work experience.

It’s ridiculous—honestly, just plain ridiculous.

So, what part of this earns such a penalty? Which specific section is so controversial or goes against the forum rules so badly? Please, just point out exactly which part is the problem.

Did I insult anyone? Did I write something inappropriate? 100 points? Are you kidding me??

Honestly, that little comment of yours is nothing more than a tiny dot on the massive map of your relentless trolling in this thread. If we’re being completely honest about your "intense trolling," wouldn't it be more accurate to say you've been doing it repeatedly and quite persistently?

So, this is how things stand after that last post—I ended up getting hit with a nearly "symbolic" 10-point penalty, which I suppose means my trolling card was downgraded from 25 points down to 10.

I think I’m actually going to get behind Tomašević. Doesn't he just strike you as the kind of person who will work tirelessly toward the complete downfall of this city—and by extension, the entire country?Is it any wonder that everything seems to be working out so perfectly for him, especially when you consider how many people claim he’s just another one of George Soros's protégés? It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? From where I'm sitting, it looks like every move Soros makes is driven by nothing more than pure humanistic values and a genuine commitment to philanthropy. I’m honestly going to give him a fair shot at this, just so he can finally finish the work that the absolute mess Bandić started. At the end of the day, don't we all want someone who can actually get things done? I really think Tomašević might be able to handle the job with much more skill and efficiency than what we've seen lately. I honestly have a feeling that you might actually be quite good at this, don't you think?

And yet, he just kept on going, sticking to that exact same pattern without missing a beat.

I’ve actually left you enough rope in several different posts to keep going, thinking that maybe, just maybe, you’d take the hint like a seasoned forum veteran and realize exactly when trolling crosses the line from being a bit of fun into something that really needs to stop.

And yet, even after that first warning shot was fired, they just kept right on going with the exact same pattern, didn't they? It’s like they took that initial red card as a suggestion rather than a lesson, continuing on with that same unmistakable style.

Is there any hope left for this city, or has the corruption finally become too deeply embedded to ever truly fix? Honestly, I find myself wondering if we shouldn't just tear everything down to the studs and start over from scratch. It feels like the foundation itself is compromised beyond repair. If we were actually serious about a total reset, wouldn't Tomašević be the most effective choice to lead that charge? He’s got that youthful drive and raw energy that someone like Bandić simply lacks. Don't get me wrong, Bandić puts in the effort, but he moves at such a glacial pace that it feels like nothing ever actually changes. We don't need incremental progress right now; we need someone with enough momentum to dismantle the old system entirely within a single term.

?!

Pa opet sljedeći post:

Well, that’s just classic Tomašević for you. We're looking at a man who possesses absolutely zero practical experience in actually running an organization or managing anything of substance, yet he fancies himself ready to step right into the role of Mayor of Washington, D.C., as if it were his very first day on the job. If we follow that specific line of reasoning, wouldn't any college student walking across a graduation stage without a single day of internship or real-world training be perfectly qualified to take over the mayoralty of a massive metropolis like Washington, D.C.? There really wouldn't be a shred of difference, would there? It makes you wonder—what has Tomašević actually achieved or worked at in his entire life?

Honestly, I feel like someone exactly like that would be absolutely perfect to come in and completely dismantle whatever little remains of Washington, D.C. after the mess left behind by Bandić, so you can bet you'd have my full support on that one. Doesn't he have all the right connections and just the perfect amount of "professional experience" to make sure he compares the capital to a total wasteland in every possible way?

?!

Pa sljedeći post:

How can anyone seriously look at this individual and see a leader? We're talking about someone who doesn't have even a single day of actual work experience under their belt, let alone anything resembling a background in management! Is it really possible to expect someone to steer a ship when they've never even stepped foot on a deck before?

Still going at it with the same arguments, aren't you? And honestly, it’s just plain wrong.

Pa sljedeći post:

So, I have been sitting here wondering—and please, bear with me, because I know this sounds like a bit of a deep dive—but what exactly is it that people *do* in the public sector? When we talk about government agencies or those massive bureaucratic institutions, it often feels like we’re looking at a black box, doesn't it? We see the headlines and we hear the political chatter on CNN, but what is the actual, day-to-day substance of that work? Are we talking about the essential infrastructure that keeps a city like Washington, D.C. running, or is it more about the complex web of policy-making and regulation that shapes our lives from behind the scenes? I mean, when you really peel back the layers, is it all just paperwork and endless meetings, or is there a much more vital, pulse-pounding engine driving the country forward that we simply don't see?

Pa sljedeći post:

If you’ve truly run out of arguments to defend this Marxist hack who hasn't actually worked a real day in his life—spending all his time just showing up at protests—then honestly, why bother bringing up Bandić in his "defense" at all?

Moving on to the next point:

So, is marching in protests and being a career activist without any actual work experience really the standard for becoming Mayor? Is that what counts as a resume these days?

Like I said before, it doesn't bother me one bit, because if he’s going to ruin this city, he'll likely do a much faster job than Bandić ever did; after all, he's younger, so everything will move at double speed. Bandić was just too slow for my liking.

And then there you are in your last post, stubbornly sticking to that exact same tone, earning yourself a full hundred points for being such an unrelenting troll.

By the way, this supposed "support" of yours for Tomašević—based solely on the idea that he’ll work tirelessly to dismantle this city and, by extension, the entire country—is hardly a narrative that deserves any sympathy or an open invitation to keep posting like this.

Thanks for reaching out—unlike some of your fellow moderators, you actually bother to show up here. So, thanks again for that.

Alright, let me try to address this head-on.

First off—saying I want a candidate who’s going to "completely wreck what little is left of Washington, D.C." is a perfectly valid opinion. It doesn't break any forum rules. I didn't insult anyone, I didn't use profanity, and I certainly wasn't praising any totalitarian regimes or anything of the sort.

It’s just a basic stance. Is someone actually not allowed to express an opinion anymore?

When you claim that my take "isn't a narrative that should be supported," what you're really saying is that if a perspective doesn't sit well with you, you have the right to penalize it. Basically, you'll only support writing that aligns with the moderator's mindset? Is that it? Are you essentially privatizing this thread and deciding that only posts favoring your own views are welcome? That seems incredibly sketchy to me—but hey, if that's how you're running this thread, then just be upfront about it. Just say, "Look, I won't allow anything that contradicts my personal agenda."

There—that’s my response to those comments accusing me of claiming Tomašević is a "real person" who will finish destroying the city. You seem to think having that OPINION warrants a penalty. It’s like we’ve regressed to the era where you could only say what the government told you to say—except on this forum, the "government" is the moderation team.

As for the other type of posts—the ones where I point out Tomašević's lack of work experience, which you clearly disagree with—I’d love for you to actually tell me where I'm wrong. Go ahead, tell me it's not true, tell me "Tomašević worked at X or Y." Give me something to work with! Give me actual arguments instead of just shutting me down. And let me be crystal clear: I specifically wrote that "participating in City Council debates shouldn't be counted as professional experience in the sense that a Mayor actually needs."

So, if you're trying to hand me a ban for that, you're really grasping at straws.

So, let’s recap... you've given me a 100-point penalty because: a) I expressed a view that Tomašević will finish ruining this already crumbling city; and b) I believe the guy has zero real-world experience managing a complex system (which, again, I explicitly specified—*managing a system!*).

Please, for the love of God, read all of this again and ask yourself if it makes any sense to penalize someone just for voicing their own opinion.

And while we're at it, I'd love for one of your colleagues to look at this and decide if there's actually any justification for a 100-point strike.

Or, better yet, why don't you just update the rules to state clearly that expressing an opinion contrary to the moderator's view results in a 100-point fine.

To wrap this up, I've always thought you were a very fair user and I haven't had any issues with you until now. So this sudden pivot is honestly baffling—where posts are suddenly being sanctioned simply because the views expressed in them cause discomfort.

Next time, at least give me a heads-up. Just send a message saying, "Hey, don't write that, or you'll get penalized." That would be fair, and I wouldn't have an issue with it because at least I'd know where the line is drawn.

I truly believe my colleagues should take some time to sit down and really weigh all the options here.

And I wanted to say thanks to you as well for keeping this conversation so civil—which, let's be honest, isn't always the case on these forums, is it?

I’ve gotta give credit where it's due—Zoran Milanović absolutely crushed that interview on CNN.

Look, I never thought I’d be the guy typing this out, but I honestly agree with about 95% of what he was saying.

As a hardcore right-winger—a total conservative, a traditionalist, a nationalist, and someone who basically lives by old-school, small-town American values—I’m actually tipping my hat to him. His takes and the way he carries himself? Respect.

Look, you kept saying "zero experience," but let's be real—that's just straight-up fiction.

Sarcasm hits a wall when you overplay it.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, you’ve called me out for saying he has "zero work experience" more than a few times now, but honestly? That's just flat-out wrong.

Sarcasm stops being funny when you just keep hitting the same note over and over.

Fine.

Go ahead, debunk me—if you actually can—and I swear I’ll never bring it up again.

Look, I was being perfectly clear when I said I don't count "sitting on the City Council" as actual work experience. In my mind—and clearly in yours too—there hasn't been any real job history outside of that council seat, and here we are, debating it in front of the whole damn US Congress.

Don't just bark "that's a lie" at me. If you think I'm wrong, then do it right: tell me exactly where he worked. Give me a real example! That's how you actually debunk a point—with facts—not just by shouting "liar" without offering a single shred of a counterargument.

So, yeah, I'm waiting. Prove me wrong. Tell me where he was working before his stint on the City Council and how long he was there, because that's how a civilized conversation works. When someone makes a claim you think is off, you correct them with the *right* information instead of just throwing out a slogan and calling it a lie.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Ready when you are. Lay it on me.

Deny me one more time and I'm done talking. Period.

I already called you out on that. The head of the Sierra Club was doing their job professionally.

Look, I made myself crystal clear on this: sitting around in City Hall doesn't count as actual work experience.

That’s not even a real job. It doesn't go on your official employment record. That kind of setup is strictly for people sitting in US Congress.

But that's just how it goes. Work history? Please. It’s just a list of places that used you up.It’s way more than just "years on the clock." Most folks would tell you those four years weren't just spent sitting around—it was real experience, learning the nuts and bolts of how the city actually runs. He’s been studying that stuff for a long time.

Years on the clock. Just more time traded for nothing. It’s just a technicality—basically everything you ever scribbled down in your work log.

Don't just bark "that's a lie." Actually say, "Look, he did X at Y location." Hit 'em with a specific example to shut down the nonsense once and for all.

I already told you this exact thing in another thread, but you just completely ignored me. Honestly, I’d give you a red card if I could.

He’s officially on the payroll at the Brookings Institution now. Sure, you can call that a dead-end gig if you want—hey, it's your opinion—but when it comes to him actually racking up seniority? That's just straight facts.

Thanks for getting back to me.

Alright, so now we know he was the head of the Sierra Club (I'm assuming that's some kind of non-profit association?), but let's be real—they aren't actually creating any value through production or anything like that. Instead, they just rake in money from the government via subsidies. Honestly, being the president of an organization where you have a guaranteed stream of cash coming in—money you don't even have to break a sweat to earn—doesn't exactly make you qualified to be a manager for anything, let alone run a massive system with a budget north of a billion dollars. It's just not a valid credential.

Also, regarding political ecology—could you break down what that actually means? I get the general idea of ecology—you know, the science of how organisms and their byproducts affect the environment—but what is "political ecology" specifically? What does that field even deal with?

Joseph Stewart38 said:Being the president of an association where you've got a guaranteed money stream you don't even have to sweat for...

Clearly, you've never sat on a nonprofit board before.

Regarding political ecology, can someone break down what that actually means?

Message boards aren't exactly the place for deep learning. Just look up "political ecology"—there's a whole entry on Wikipedia and book series on it. Use the internet for what it's actually for: finding info and getting educated, not just scrolling. here's a paper that gives a quick overview.

I'd suggest checking out Slaven Ravlić's "world ideology." It breaks down modern political ideologies, one of which is "environmentalism." (Not to brag, but my name is even listed as one of the promoters of environmentalism among Americans.)