Moderator's revenge on CNN

Just a quick response to your very detailed post Witches:
I realize all my posts regarding the romance might seem a bit tedious at times, but I promise I’m not just trolling; every single one was sparked by a specific episode that really hit me, so I felt like your reaction to my last entry was perhaps a little overly intense.

I actually had no idea I could reach out to you via private email—thanks for letting me know! I honestly thought I was limited to venting right here in this thread.

Regarding that last sentence you pulled out, when it's presented without context or the knowledge of what actually happened in the episode, it does look quite bad, almost as if I'm downplaying violence against women, which isn't the case at all. Throughout my entire history of writing about soap opera television, I've frequently called out the constant depictions of sexual assault and violence, and I've even posted several times specifically to protest those themes.

In fact, there was one series I completely stopped watching because the violence was too much, and also because the lead character basically got away with everything simply because he was so handsome.

That particular sentence was actually referring back to a point made by user forumašica@Sogo before me, where she mentioned how melodramatic Julia was being while describing the incident. Up until then, through the flashbacks, we hadn't actually seen the reality that Julia was in her late stages of pregnancy and had been severely beaten. At the time, the scene only showed a few slaps and a blow to the stomach, so I wasn't trying to minimize the violence like you're implying, but rather commenting on how overly sentimental her description was.

And yes, I suppose I do prioritize myself quite a bit, and I don't let other people's opinions get to me too much.

@Sandra Adams66/">@@Sandra Adams66, I honestly don't even know how to respond to you, and I don't think I have a single emoji that captures the feeling of: "what is there even to say to that?"

mellowotter17 said:I started this new thread—not really because of my own post, but more about the report I filed regarding The Witch.
So that's why.
I’m not even gonna complain about the cardboard itself—it doesn't really bother me that much. It’s just completely pointless. It’s obvious this isn't just some random piece of packaging for a single post; it's clearly meant to be part of the entire artistic vibe.

People hand out warnings for "contributing to the topic" way too often, and honestly, those warnings don't always make sense based on just one single post. Like I said before, this wouldn't even be an issue if you hadn't been posting the way you have lately. I think a 25-point deduction for trolling is pretty light, but hey, you said yourself it wasn't that big of a deal, so let's just move on.

Look, like those girls already explained, I’m not a moderator for the TV network, so I don't get any of the reports. Can you please be a bit more specific? What exactly did you mean, and which post were you reporting—and why?

restlessheron8 said:Here are a few girls who are totally obsessed with Sinan from the show starring Faziletka—though she’s been permanently banned because she convinced herself they're all clones.

Every single ban—whether we're dealing with clones or permanent bans—is done in direct coordination with me. So, rest assured, there wasn't some random decision by The Witch just for the sake of it.

I was out all weekend, so sorry for the late reply! I'm back now.

Nathan Turner3 said:Giving out warnings for "contributing to the thread" happens quite often, and those warnings don't necessarily have to stem from just one single post. As I mentioned before, this specific post probably wouldn't have triggered a warning if it had stood alone, but it's really more of a result of your recent posting patterns. Honestly, I think a 25-point penalty for trolling is actually pretty lenient, but since you mentioned yourself that it isn't such a huge deal, let's just move past it.

Since the ladies already explained it to you, I'm not a moderator on the TV side, so I don't see the reports, so could you please be a little more specific about what you meant and which post, specifically, you reported and why?

Any banning of clone accounts or permanent bans is done in coordination with me, so I can promise you there weren't any bans issued just because Witch felt like being arbitrary.

I was away over the weekend, but I'm back now, so please excuse my late response.

It was Post 414, as I linked earlier, in the Girl from the Countryside soap opera television thread.

And that right there is the crux of the matter—it wasn't about my "entire body of work" or my "contribution to the topic," as the girls so eloquently put it.

As for the whole situation with the clones, I honestly haven't a clue and it's not really relevant here.

Just for the sake of fairness, would you mind terribly scrolling through those 24 pages—about 462 posts in total, including my fifty or so—and seeing what could possibly be wrong? I'd love for you to look at what led to this opinion from the moderator and her "spokesperson," who suddenly popped up out of nowhere despite the fact that I've never once addressed her personally or even replied to her posts. If it isn't too much trouble, I'd appreciate it, because it feels like the real issue is just the overall impression of the moderator reacting in such a tense and irritable way. Personally, I feel like the reaction wasn't professional moderation, but rather just typical forum drama, and to me, that is the fundamental issue.

I’ve been reading through this thread, and honestly, looking back at the post you mentioned, I think The Witch was totally justified in leaving it. They were acting as a moderator, but they're still a regular user too. You can't really separate those two roles—it's the same person.

Since you knew that specific post came from a moderator, even if it wasn't highlighted in a different color, I feel like you should have taken it as a heads-up regarding your tone. Instead, you kept going and ended up getting a formal strike just a few hours later.

That being said, I'm going to suggest that moderator posts should be set in a different color. It would make things much clearer and prevent official notices from getting mixed up with standard user comments.

I honestly didn't see you making a call like this coming.🍿

But, just for the sake of argument, if I were to flip the script and draft a post that might sound something like this to our lovely forum moderator:

"Since your approach seems to be strictly about hating on anyone who disagrees with you—basically just attacking dissenters while reflexively defending your favorites regardless of how many plot holes or logical leaps they make—it feels pretty pointless to debate you, especially since we aren't exactly discussing an Oscar-winning masterpiece here. You’ve just taken yourself and this show way too seriously."

Actually, that last sentence was plural, so I'm not even sure who else I'd be talking about besides myself. Unless, of course, I've somehow managed to clone myself overnight.

Be honest, would I end up getting a warning card for saying something like that?

This kind of post is totally off-topic. It’s basically just picking a fight with someone else. The mods should be the ones handling people like this, not the rest of us. That’s why I’m saying there needs to be a clearer line between when a mod is posting as a regular user and when they're actually stepping in as a moderator.

Nathan Turner3 said:That kind of post would just be off-topic, essentially just engaging with someone personally. It’s really up to the moderators to handle users like that, not the rest of us. That's why I feel there should be a clearer distinction between when a moderator is posting as a regular user and when they are acting in their official capacity.

Oh come on, Nathan Turner3, I see your point, I really do, and yes, I agree that it counts as getting too personal, which is exactly why I flagged it. It wasn't marked with any red, blue, or purple indicators, just plain black, and it said something like this:

"but since you're always just purely about hate, spitting venom, and criticizing just for the sake of finding faults—picking apart script errors, plot holes, or illogical focus—there's honestly no point in debating something that nobody is claiming is some Oscar-worthy masterpiece. You guys are taking both the series and yourselves way too seriously."

So, please, just be honest.

I’m well aware that click rates, views, and comment counts are huge financial drivers for the forum owner, but at the end of the day, these things are spoken out loud and read far more often than they are actually written, as we all know.
I'm certainly not trying to make myself "too important," as the moderator seems to think, but I truly believe that any discussion only grows in engagement if there are opposing viewpoints to spark debate.

My post following that one about The Witchin was simply about what happened in the show; for God's sake, it wasn't something I made up or just a random opinion.
You don't even have to watch the series to be able to tell from my post that those events actually took place, and if it gets under someone's skin that I'm pointing out certain plot points because they don't align with their favorite character, well, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less.

I have yet another question for the experts or those "institutions that actually get things done."

On most American forums, you can vent all you want about the US government, the national soccer team, any Prime Minister, or whoever happens to be sitting in the White House right now... but apparently, you aren't allowed to criticize a fictional character or a plotline from an American soap opera.
What on earth is going on here?
Is this some kind of attempt to disturb the peace, or is there something else at play?

mellowotter17 said:Look, Nathan Turner3, I see what you mean. I get that it’s just engaging with someone, which is why I reported it—not because the color was red, blue, or purple, but because it showed up as black, and it said this:

"But since you're always just about hating, spitting venom, and criticizing for the sake of criticism—nitpicking script errors, plot holes, or logic gaps—there's no point in debating something that nobody claims is an Oscar-worthy masterpiece. You guys are taking both the show and yourselves way too seriously."

So, just be honest.

I know click counts, views, and comments are huge money-makers for the site owner, but let's face it: these words are spoken publicly and they're read far more than they're actually written. You guys know that.
I'm not trying to act like I'm "too important," like the moderator thinks, but I truly believe a thread only stays active if there are opposing viewpoints.

My post following that The Witchin one was about things happening in the series—for God's sake, it wasn't some random theory or my own made-up opinion.
You don't even have to watch the show to realize from my post that those events actually happened. If it gets on someone's nerves that I'm pointing out stuff that doesn't fit their favorite character, honestly, I couldn't care less.

Alright, look, I know you can see it wasn't colored text. You and I both know that. I'm saying it *should* have been colored, and moving forward, we'll make sure stuff like that is colored. I don't know what else to say to you about this. Thanks for pointing it out.

mellowotter17 said:One more question for the mods or "the authorities doing their jobs."

On an American forum, you can trash-talk the US government, the US national team, any US Prime Minister, or any US President... but you can't criticize a fictional character or a plotline from an American soap opera television show?
What's the deal here?
Is this about disturbing the peace or something else?

I honestly don't even know how to answer that, but to put it in the words of Witch—it's not about trashing a character at all. The issue is that the way you're doing it kills any chance for a real discussion to move forward. Witch already covered all of this in post 19 of this thread.

I'm not going to repeat myself.