Quorgyle moderators being totally unprofessional in the Economics sub-forum

Just like I mentioned four days ago, moderator Harold Evans4 locked a potentially great thread.

His approach was unprofessional, arbitrary, and dismissive toward certain members. He kept dropping red warnings—eight of them over 19 pages—thinking he was enforcing order, but his own mistakes eventually caught up with him.
On the flip side, he was super lenient with others. We see this same thing happening in the "Comparing life in America vs. moving abroad" thread (costs, services, bureaucracy, etc.).

From the start, he insisted on sticking strictly to the topic. To quote him: "Please stick to the thread title. We don't care about prices in Ireland, Germany, or Sudan... We have separate threads for foreign countries, so keep those discussions there.

Also, don't philosophize too much about quality of life. We've had pointless debates, like when someone tried comparing Indianapolis to New York City.

The problem is, his opening argument was flawed and just plain wrong.
Whether he realized it or not, he conflated two different topics (the comparison of life in America vs. the "exodus" thread) when using this bolded part as an argument.
I actually discussed that in the other thread—comparing the cost and quality of life in NYC, New York City, and New York City against Indianapolis. That ended up upsetting some users, believe it or not.
I used Numbeo as a tool to show that you can live a high-quality life even in smaller cities. I constantly faced insulting and condescending comments for that, which were mostly tolerated, even when they turned personal.

By writing that intro, moderator Harold Evans4 basically took a side and sent a clear message to me, even though I wasn't doing that in the previous thread (How much money do you need for a "normal" life?).

My recent warning on the thread—which happened because the mods couldn't handle an obvious troll and hater like Darude—was supposedly meant to "cool down passions," I guess.

The constant off-topic posts, trolling, undermining, insults, and the fact that the thread devolved into a chat are entirely the moderator's fault. The topic is good and useful, and all the tools to manage it are in the moderator's hands.

In the end, the moderator closed the thread, claiming, "This has become ridiculous with how much you ignore warnings, but then again, you love filing appeals whenever things don't go your way."
He was clearly talking only to me (since I'm the only one who filed an appeal regarding a ban), yet he didn't even bother to give me a response to my appeal.

It looks like I'm being held responsible for the thread closing (even though I only contributed 29 out of 374 posts—you can tell how relevant mine were). I flatly refuse that. It's strictly on the moderator, who failed to take control of the thread from the very beginning.

What’s even your point?

Look, it’s not my fault the thread had to be locked—it’s because 90% of you guys are treating this place like an off-topic lounge. And yeah, you’re right, the topic itself is actually useful... it's just that your posts have nothing to do with it. Besides, I already warned you several times; check my last post if you need proof.
You’re seriously acting like I have a "beef" with you personally. Is it true I had to warn you before because you were derailing things? Yeah. But you aren't special. I could list ten other people who got the same warnings, including Darude, whom you mentioned. And honestly, saying I can't "rein in" someone is a pretty weird way to put it—what am I, a dog trainer?
So what, am I supposed to comment on your post title or that word "unprofessionalism"? If I don't hand out warnings, I get blamed, and if I do, you end up with a strike and eventually a ban. It's a lose-lose. Do you want me to moderate or not?
Honestly, all I want is to hop on here once a week, read the threads that actually matter, and learn something new. If everyone would just stay on topic and stop being difficult, I wouldn't have to deal with warnings or strikes. You think I do this because I have nothing better to do? You think there's some payoff in this? I’m just trying to moderate objectively and fairly. Usually, I'll go with a warning instead of a strike, unless we're talking about sensitive topics like Tesla, which have their own set of rules.
And don't even get me started on how much you guys love complaining about the moderation if we don't jump on a post within 15 minutes. People start spamming stuff like "Moderators, why are you letting these trolls run wild????" like this is a live chat where I'm expected to react instantly to every single message. Then you get salty when you get a strike for complaining about the mods.

velvetbadger172 said:Just like I announced four days ago, moderator Harold Evans4 took a potentially interesting thread and locked it down.
With his unprofessional, arbitrary, and condescending attitude toward certain users, and those constant warnings written in red (eight of them over 19 pages!), he supposedly tried to bring order to the thread, but his failures have finally caught up with him.
On the other hand, he was just lenient with others. We see the same thing happening in the thread comparing the cost of living in America versus moving abroad (expenses, services, bureaucracy...).
From the very beginning, he insisted on staying strictly on topic...

...My recent strike on this thread, caused by his inability to control the obvious troll and hater Darude, was supposedly meant to "control the passions," I guess.
The constant off-topic rambling, trolling, baiting, insults, and the fact that the thread turned into a total chat room is entirely the moderator's fault. The topic is good and useful, and all the tools are in the moderator's hands...

...and again, I repeat, it is exclusively the moderator's failure for not "controlling the thread" from the start.

I shortened the quote to hit the main points.
So, let me get this straight: I close an old thread (which was going nowhere), open a new one, rename it, write a long intro, and then drop eight moderator warnings over 19 pages because people weren't following the rules to keep the discussion on track... yet people still ignore the rules and spend three pages arguing about something else, forcing me to penalize a bunch of posts and lock the thread. And now I'm the bad guy for doing "bad moderation"? 🙂

Harold Evans4 said:What's your point?

Look, it’s not my fault I had to lock this thread. Most of you guys are treating this like an off-topic lounge instead of staying on track. Like you said yourself, the topic is actually useful—it's just that your posts aren't sticking to it. I already gave you several warnings about this, too. You can find the proof right there in my last explanation.
You’re acting like I have a grudge against you. It's true I had to step in before because you were veering off track, but you aren't special. I could list ten other people who got those same warnings—including Darude, whom you brought up. Also, saying I need to "rein in" someone is a weird way to put it. Sounds like you're talking about an animal.
So, should I just comment on your post title and that word "unprofessionalism"? It’s a lose-lose situation for me. If I issue a warning, you'll just claim I'm piling it on until I end up banning you, but if I don't say anything, I'm failing at my job. Do you actually want me to moderate here or not?
I’d be happiest if I could just pop onto the forum once a week, catch up on the threads that actually interest me, and learn something new. If everyone just stuck to the topics and played by the rules, I wouldn't have to hand out warnings or deal with any drama. You think I do this because I'm bored? Or like there's some big payoff? Maybe. Regardless, I try to keep my moderation objective and fair. I usually prefer sending a quick warning rather than jumping straight to a ban, unless we're talking about those messy Tesla threads—those have their own set of strict rules.
People love to lecture the mods when we don't jump on a notable post within fifteen minutes. You see comments like, "Hey mods, why are you letting these trolls run wild?" as if this were a live Twitch stream where I need to react instantly to everything. Then people act shocked when they get flagged for constantly nitpicking the moderation.

I trimmed down the quote to just the essentials.
So, I close an old thread because it was going off the rails, start a fresh one, rename it, and write a massive intro. I even left eight moderator warnings spread across nineteen pages just to try and get everyone back on track. Instead, people ignored the rules and spent three whole pages arguing about something else entirely. Naturally, I had to penalize a bunch of posts and lock the thread. Now, suddenly, I’m being told I'm doing a bad job moderating? Give me a break. 🙂

The point? I already said it above.

You dropped some pretty heavy insinuations in your opening post that just aren't true. I already laid out the facts in my first reply in bold so I wouldn't have to repeat myself. You kept demanding everyone stick to the topic, yet you let Darude run wild. He completely derailed this thread by picking fights and insulting anyone who disagreed with him. If you had stepped in and shut that down sooner, this discussion would still be on track. Either hand out an off-topic penalty or move the drama over to the chat.

The previous thread about how much money you need for a "normal" life was a bit of a mess. It’s impossible to pin down a specific number because everyone defines "normal" differently. This new topic is much better designed. It could actually work if people just stuck to what was said in the opening post and followed the rules—specifically, just being decent to one another during a discussion.

I’ve gotten seven bans from you in just one month?! Seriously. I’ll be right in the middle of a solid discussion about how people can cut down their grocery bills, explaining the actual logic behind it, and then some random parachute jumper drops in. They aren't even part of the conversation—just a classic troll throwing out a single line like, "If small towns solved all life's problems, nobody would move to the city." Then, they vanish before the debate even gets going.
I wasn't talking about living in the countryside or growing your own food. I was strictly talking about cutting down on grocery costs.

I'll just say it: surviving on nothing in the countryside looks much better than doing it in the city. Another user actually backed this up by mentioning a family that raised and put three kids through college out in rural America just by farming. If they had tried that in a major US city without an income, they would have been totally broke and starving.
Where’s the trolling in that?

Don't take this as me whining about unfair bans, though.
I'm telling you, you haven't "mastered the topic." You can tell because this thread eventually devolved into constant arguing and heavy chat. It started as a great discussion with useful info on what it costs to live a "normal" life.

It’s like what I mentioned on the PŽK thread. The same thing happens in the "Comparison" thread where a few users intentionally troll, insult people, and go off-topic for ages. That’s an old problem that existed long before you became a moderator.
The latest, funniest example is when I quoted "Starbucks closed its branch in Munich."🤣

Now that this cost-of-living thread is closed, you're acting like a victim of unruly users who won't stay on track. In reality, you have all the tools needed to keep the discussion civil. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, and I'm not trying to take your job.

I agree—the moderators aren't managing certain threads very well and they tend to stifle actual discussion. Take the cost of living thread, for instance; it keeps getting shut down just because people drift into off-topic territory. I personally ended up with ten warnings for the exact same thing;

https://i.ibb.co/3TSbyCd/Izrezakaa.png

Change your approach—either fix the thread title or just let people exchange ideas and follow the flow of conversation. If things get too far off track, steer the discussion back yourselves with a relevant post rather than just dropping a warning on us.

The forum isn't just for the ten regulars who spend all day in the chat—it's also for the five to ten times as many people who mostly just lurk and rarely post...

If you haven't been hanging around the economics section for long, you might not realize that the previous two versions of this thread basically just spun in circles—generating hundreds (okay, thousands) of identical posts and endless, pointless arguments...

Harold Evans4 tried warning everyone several times—quite patiently, actually—but those warnings wouldn't even last two or three posts before everything slid right back into the old patterns..

We have a dedicated chat thread on the subforum, so feel free to move over there more often.

velvetbadger172 said:Look, don't take this as me whining about unfair mods,
but you haven't exactly "mastered the art of moderation." Proof? This whole thread devolved into nothing but nonsense and toxic arguments. It used to be a solid discussion with actual useful info about what it costs to live a "normal" life.

Now that this thread on living expenses is locked, you're acting like some victim of unruly users who won't stay on topic. But honestly? You have all the tools to keep a conversation on track. Not that I'm trying to tell you how to do your job—I'm not looking for your seat.

Me, mastering the topic? Based on your logic, you think I'm supposed to train you guys like a pack of dogs. Look, people didn't want to stay on topic. So what if the thread's gone? It wasn't serving any purpose anyway. I have no clue what you think my "job" entails here, but if you expect me to beg users to behave every single day, you've got to be kidding me. Take it or leave it... bye.

As for the rest, I'm no victim... you're the one who filed a complaint and is playing the martyr. No matter how you spin it, there’s always someone going to complain (if not to the admins, then via DM). Locking a thread is a tool, plain and simple—especially when after endless warnings, nobody wants to play ball.

Just so we're clear. What's your big suggestion?
Should I hand out "off-topic" warnings to everyone on the last three pages? Which, by the way, is partially what I did.
Should I hit them with "violating site rules" instead, which would just end up banning half the forum?
Should I skip the warnings entirely and just drop ten notices over a couple of weeks? Or write an eleventh one two days later? And so on, and so forth.
Should I just beg you all to act like mature, civilized adults as if my life depends on it?

velvetbear372 said:I agree that the mods aren't managing certain threads well and they're stifling the debate. That thread about the cost of living got shut down just because people kept drifting off-topic; I personally got slapped with 10 warnings for the exact same thing.

Change up the attitude, or change the thread title and let people actually talk about whatever the conversation leads to. If things get out of hand, redirect them with an actual post about the topic instead of just throwing a warning at them.

I’m not changing my tone. The thread title was already updated (did you even bother reading my reply above, velvetbadger172?). My opening post explains everything, and there are plenty of follow-up posts where I explicitly told you guys to stay on track.
If you want to swap opinions, there are a ton of other threads for that, plus the Chat thread where you can talk all you want. There are even specific threads for small businesses, income levels... stuff like what you were talking about in that closed thread.

What, am I supposed to overhaul my entire moderation style every time some random user decides to critique me?

Btw, I thought I had a grudge against velvetbadger172... how come you're the one getting buried in warnings while velvetbadger172 is over here complaining about getting 7 in a single month? 🤔

Harold Evans4 said:Mastered the topic? Based on your explanation, you think I need to train you guys like dogs. Look, you didn't want to stay on topic, so I don't see the harm in the thread being gone, especially since it wasn't serving a purpose anyway. I have no idea what you think my "job" is here, but I'm not crazy enough to beg users every single day to behave. Take it or leave it. Bye.

As for the second part, I'm not playing the victim... you wrote the complaint and you're acting like the victim here. No matter how you spin it, there will always be someone complaining (if not to the mods, then via DM). Locking a thread is just a tool, especially when people refuse to cooperate after plenty of warnings.

Just purely informative. What's your suggestion?
Should I give everyone on the last three pages an "off-topic" warning, which is partially what I did?
Should I give everyone on the last three pages a "rule violation" warning, which would result in several bans?
Should I skip the warnings entirely and just issue a tenth warning in a few weeks? Or a tenth one in two days? And so on.
Should I beg you all to act maturely and civilized in discussions as if my life depended on it?

You didn't master the topic and it failed. Instead of "begging," you should have handed out warnings on time to keep the thread alive.
What do you mean by "it had no function"? You think the thread was useless?

I got warned and banned even though I wasn't trolling—I even provided examples. I'll ask again: where is the trolling? I didn't insult anyone or provoke anyone. I wanted to contribute constructively, while others did the opposite, and that's why you closed the thread.

Look, I'm not a moderator and I don't know every rule, but couldn't you have warned individuals privately when they broke rules? That way everyone knows who you're talking to. Then warn them again if they persist. After a third or fourth warning, it's clear they are intentionally provoking, and then you ban them.
The way you did it, handing out warnings after the fact once everything already went south, just looks like you're covering your own tracks.

I still say that Darude ruined this thread. In my opinion, you were way too lenient.
It's obvious who the trolls are and who came here to provoke and insult based on their posts and "arguments."

Harold Evans4 said:I’m not changing my tone. I updated the thread title (did you even read my reply above, velvetbadger172?). My opening post explains everything. I’ve also posted several times telling everyone to stay on topic.
If you want to debate, there are plenty of other threads for that, plus the chat room where you can talk freely. There are even specific threads about small businesses and income levels... (like what you were talking about in that closed thread).

Should I change how I moderate every single time some random user criticizes me?

By the way, I thought I had beef with velvetbadger172... how come you're getting hit with a pile of warnings while velvetbadger172 is complaining about getting seven in one month? 🤔:

I don't get the sarcasm. You've already tried to insult me with those false insinuations. I didn't see your response, so I'll just say it again if I have to.

E. Honestly, I have no idea when to move over to the off-topic section. There are so many threads here—it’s never quite clear to me how you all decide what counts as off-topic while a discussion is still actively unfolding. In my view, everything being said stays relevant to the core topic at hand.

velvetbear372 said:Man, I seriously don't get when I'm supposed to move to off-topic. There are so many threads here, and honestly, I have no clue how you guys decide what counts as off-topic while a conversation is actually happening. To me, everything being said is clearly tied to the main topic.

Look, if the thread title doesn't make it obvious, then the very first post should.
Specifically, take this thread I just locked today: link
Even if the original poster isn't hanging around anymore, the subject matter is clearly defined. I get it, most of you are fed up with the state of the American economy, but you can't just hijack every single thread to turn into a random vent session about politics or social issues.
That specific thread should have been used to dive into the actual data—looking at how the economy shifted, for better or worse, after opening up to the European Union markets and dealing with the massive brain drain of workers leaving the country. Instead, it just drifts back into complaining about American bureaucracy, which was just as bad—if not worse—long before everyone started fleeing.
And it's not like I didn't warn you two pages ago: link