What are the criteria?

Topic: unnamed

Primjer kartoniranog posta 01):

unnamed said:Spot on—everything mentioned above pretty much hits the nail on the head. Unnamed is basically being hounded for everything she stands for—her opinions, her look, her core beliefs, and her entire value system. It's relentless.

That's it. Case closed.

Primjer kartoniranog posta 02):

unnamed said:Honestly, this entire thread is a perfect example of what I’m talking about—it’s basically just an endless surge of baseless hate directed at her. It reminds me of those "two minutes of hate" sessions from Orwell’s *1984*.
Take it from me—it seems like you’re seeing things that aren't actually there. I mean, look at the "moral panic" you were spreading just a few posts ago—completely baseless, by the way.

Let’s be real here—you're clearly seeing things that aren't there. Seriously! Just take a breath and calm down.

And man, the so-called mainstream media—it’s unbelievable how they go out of their way to demonize them. It’s just so incredibly forced.
Take a look at this—if your ideological bubble actually lets you see it:

Unnamed and unnamed are out here making noise about statements from unnamed—statements they didn't even actually hear. Seriously? It’s one thing to disagree, but it's another to manufacture a controversy based on nothing. Just a total lack of substance.

An analysis of how NBC lied about what unnamed said.

Primjer kartoniranog posta 03):

Pinzgauer. said:Exactly.

I’m fully backing unnamed here—she’s spot on about the dangers of this gender ideology nonsense. It’s refreshing to see someone actually pushing back against the political agenda designed to tear down everything we hold dear under the guise of liberalism.

We need to take every possible step to shut this down—we have to prevent these kinds of deviations from being pushed as something normal, let alone something desirable.

It’s honestly wild how far people will go just to tear someone down—the existence of that entire website dedicated solely to dragging her name through the mud proves exactly how much vitriol is out there. People really will try anything to defame her.

At the same time, it just goes to show how terrified the liberal crowd is—they’re so scared of losing ground that they aren't even afraid to stoop to the absolute lowest levels just to stay relevant.

I just gave an example of an unedited post on this same topic:

Alexis said:Lately, this horrific story has resurfaced about some individual who spent years abusing their dogs—they’ve finally been indicted, so we should be seeing a trial soon.

This whole thing kicked off back in September 2015. According to an article from September 25, 2015, in the New York Post, the suspect was arrested and the investigation began.

The reason I'm dropping this disgusting article into this thread isn't just because it's gross; it's because of what the original reporting actually said. Back then, a conservative revolution was shaking up the country—people were calling for a return to tradition and a brand of faith that’s ultra-conservative, claiming it's the only shield against the "moral decay" of the modern world, specifically targeting atheism. Honestly? It's total bullshit. And this news story perfectly exposes the hypocrisy behind those claims.

Looking at this comparison makes it crystal clear that the criteria here are totally broken—not to mention this topic is absolutely crawling with moderators.

Basically, there's a chance the appeal is incomplete, so let's just quote everything to be safe:
The controversial post regarding Željka Markić looks like this:

Alexis said:Lately, a horrific story has resurfaced about a guy who spent years abusing his dogs—he’s finally been indicted, and a trial should be coming up soon.

This all kicked off back in September 2015 when, according to an article from 09.25.2015 in USA Today, the individual was arrested and an investigation was launched.

The reason I'm dropping this awful article into this thread is because of what the actual news report from 2015 says. There's this whole "conservative revolution" shaking up the country, calling for a return to tradition and a faith measured by ultra-conservatives as the only shield against the "moral decay" of the modern world—specifically atheism. Which is total bullshit, by the way. And that’s exactly what this news story exposes.
.................................................. .................................................. ........
Quote:
A story involving the brutal abuse of two greyhound dogs shocked animal lovers yesterday. Specifically, an individual identified as I. I. (39) from Washington, D.C., a member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Council for Ecumenism and Dialogue, has been taken into custody under suspicion of physical and sexual abuse of his dogs. After being reported for animal cruelty, he was processed by police and appeared before a Washington, D.C. Superior Court judge, who ordered pretrial detention due to potential witness tampering. Hardly anyone wanted to comment on the charges facing the 39-year-old yesterday. His acquaintances and a veterinarian only offered brief statements saying they were shocked by the arrest.

“None of us could have ever even suspected this was true, or that he could be abusing dogs. He isn't a breeder, just a dog owner. He was at a show with them this Sunday and it always seemed like he took great care of them. The dogs were happy, playful, and performed well at shows,” said an acquaintance of the arrested man. She described him as a computer genius and somewhat of a reserved person. According to unofficial reports, the criminal complaint alleges the animals were abused from 2009 until now. After investigators knocked on his door and searched his residence, they seized the dogs and transported them to an animal shelter in Dumovcu. Before the dogs were placed in the shelter in Dumovcu, they were examined by a veterinary inspector. Defense circles for I. I. claim the story is “overblown,” and those same circles argue there is no solid evidence for the alleged crime. Within investigative circles, it was suggested that a preliminary exam of the dogs showed nothing to support the allegations of abuse. Through witness testimony and further examinations of the animals, it will be determined whether the suspicions were justified or not.

This disgusting, sick individual is being indirectly and maliciously (to put it mildly) linked to Željka Markić’s worldview and conservative ideology, and that kind of generalization is totally unacceptable.

Clicking on the article about the sicko:
"Washingtonian, also an employee of the European Parliament, sodomized his two dogs"

...you can clearly see this little brat is an employee of the European Parliament, which brings up a very legitimate question:

The top brass and major players within the EU are widely seen as nothing more than enforcers of a strictly, uniformly liberal set of quasi-values.
In that light—and using the rhetoric of that controversial post as our guide—can we say the following without getting ourselves in trouble?
- This brand of liberal exclusivity is shaking the European Union to its core. They’re pushing to tear down every moral boundary in sight, insisting that the "liberal" perspective is the only shield against the supposed "moral decay" of the conservative world—especially religion. What absolute bullshit. And honestly, this news story exposes that perfectly.

Of course, we can't say it—because that kind of sweeping generalization and trolling goes against both common sense and the rules of this forum...
That much is obvious to all of us, isn't it...?

Just so we’re all on the same page—I’ve already flagged this post (you know, that famous little triangle icon) two or three times. Besides that, I sent a private message to the moderator, lonebadger6, regarding the matter.

If anyone is wondering why I went to moderator lonebadger6 specifically, the answer is pretty straightforward:
- This particular moderator is incredibly sensitive when it comes to generalizations. It’s common knowledge that he’s handed out warnings and banned dozens of users for that exact reason—everything from discussions on immigrants to much more—so I figured I was knocking on the right door. 🤷

At the end of the day, there should be some kind of reaction here, shouldn't there...? ☕

Yeah, honestly, I’m just sitting here waiting to see how the authorities handle this... mostly out of pure curiosity. I want to see what kind of creative excuses they'll come up with to justify why they aren't doing anything at all.

It’s honestly pathetic how you both are getting so worked up and frantic waiting for an answer, clearly too blinded by your own excitement to notice the supermoderator's reaction on that very same page, or the follow-up clarification from Forumasica right after...

By the way, crimsonjackal63, you know you have the report button, so just use it. I don't deal with private messages, especially when they're nothing more than pure provocation. Every moderator over in Politics received your report—which was basically just you spamming the same post repeatedly—and nobody saw any reason to issue a warning. The reason for that is likely because anything even remotely controversial was settled immediately right there in the thread itself.

You’re more than welcome to disagree with that, but you don't have the right to troll or spam the forum just because you're unhappy, especially when the response and clarification you're looking for happened to be posted right in front of you on the thread...

lonebadger6, of course you’re going to reply to my DMs—but only when it suits you. Fine: I’m done sending them (and for the record, they weren't provocations, just facts), but I actually deserve straight answers to specific questions here, since Pringles doesn't moderate Politics—you and the other moderators of this subforum do.

The reality is crystal clear: sickos like this guy—pedophiles, robbers, murderers, rapists, etc.—exist in every single layer of society. They're among the liberals, the leftists, the conservatives, the right-wingers, the atheists, the agnostics, believers of every faith, and the non-believers alike...
We all agree on that, don't we?

That controversial post and its "clarifications" don't start from that premise at all.
Forumasica linked a disgusting dog rapist directly to Željko Markić, the conservatives, and the Church.
It runs through all three of her posts.
That is ugly, sweeping generalization—something we all know, and something you know too.

That would be like me taking some pedophile, XY, who happens to be a local committee member for, say, the Democratic Party or the Libertarian Party, and linking him to the party's ideology or the broader liberal worldview.
That is totally unacceptable, and a post like that would earn an immediate warning and a ban.
Isn't that how it works...?

So, I’m not being provocative, nor am I accepting provocations; I’m simply insisting on the established rules of this Forum.
I’d appreciate an answer backed by actual arguments.

Sure, I respond to private messages, but I don't usually deal with post reports via PM, especially when they’ve already been flagged multiple times using the little triangle icon...

You got your answer, and honestly, your comparisons in this post are pretty weak. There is a massive difference between being a member of a major political party like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party—which have millions of members—and becoming a member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' council for ecumenism and dialogue. It’s the same logic as becoming a Cabinet Secretary or a member of a party's executive committee...
So, right from the jump, there's a clear distinction here. You can't expect Andrej Plenković or Zoran Bernardić to dig into the history and personal lives of every single person who signs up for their party, nor would any organization run special investigative commissions just for membership. However, once someone is appointed to a high-ranking office, then you absolutely can—and should—expect that kind of scrutiny. That goes for the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the USCCB, all of them...

There is also a higher level of accountability in certain sectors of society depending on the transgression. A scandal will hit much harder if a leftist has a Nazi flag and a Hitler poster on their wall than if an extremist right-winger does. A drunk cop causing a traffic accident creates a way bigger mess than a plumber or a chemistry professor doing the same thing...

Look, there are creeps and degenerates in every corner of society. But you're fundamentally wrong to ignore the varying levels of responsibility. A drunk idiot hitting two pedestrians at a crosswalk is the same person regardless of whether they're a cop, a plumber, or a professor, but with the officer, there is a question of broader professional responsibility, and that is a fair point to make. It’s the same logic: it won't be the same level of fallout if a member of the Democratic Party's executive committee is a pedophile (which would cause a massive uproar here on the forum) versus some random, nobody member of the Young Democrats from the sticks... Because obviously, the first instance wouldn't mean every Democrat is a pedophile, but they certainly bear the responsibility for letting someone like that reach the top tier...

Listen, being gay is perfectly fine. But if it came out tomorrow that Željka Markić had a girlfriend, she would face a wave of anger and insults. Not because of her orientation, but for a whole host of other reasons. You can't come here and ask why we punished people for insulting some random person, yet we're letting Željka Markić get dragged through the mud. It’s simply not the same thing. Not even close...

That covers the comparisons...

As for the bans, I think you know well enough that other people's warnings aren't anyone else's business, whether they get them or not. And you've had your explanation. Pringles was participating here as a regular user, but since she's also a supermoderator, it was mentioned just to show you that administration is clearly aware of the controversial post. Honestly, it’s asking too much to expect us to answer inquiries about every single post that *wasn't* penalized; I assume you realize that... though I think both this and your previous post provided enough for you to draw your own conclusions...

One more thing—yes, the troll who was messing around with that "Democratic" pedophile story got banned. Just like the troll who was baiting people with that story about a murderer from Washington, D.C., who happens to be a fan of Bruna Esih. So, this isn't about picking favorites or playing politics...

Regarding what's bothering you, none of the moderators or supermoderators in the Politics section feel a ban was warranted here. Take care...

lonebadger6, that controversial post is actually under the thread about Željka Markić.
As far as I can tell, she isn’t the one deciding who joins the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—she doesn't sit around reviewing candidate resumes—so we can safely say that specific post has no business being in that thread.

In your post, you bring up Plenkovica and Bernardica.
If you throw Željka Markić into that same context, then everything becomes crystal clear to everyone.
Alexis was just trolling and making sweeping generalizations, which is exactly what earns you a warning.

Along those same lines, your arguments about leftists waving Nazi flags, posters of Hitler, or some drunk cop are completely off the mark here—because Željka Markić has absolutely nothing to do with that sick dog abuser working for the European Parliament.
By defending that controversial post, you're slowly but surely sliding into that same territory of overgeneralizing.

That controversial post—and the excuses made for it—are fundamentally no different from those mindless posts about "pedophiles from the Democratic Party" or the "murderer of fan Bruno Esih."

Very few people on this forum actually get the chance to explain their intent before they get hit with a warning.
You get the warning first, and then you're left trying to explain what the writer *actually* meant.
I'm sure you'll agree that in this specific case, things were handled differently.

Go back and read all three of Alexis's posts again—you'll see I'm right.
Those posts were written with one single purpose:
- To smear Željka Markić and the entire conservative worldview.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. And just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly for myself here... why the other mods decided to hand out bans is anyone's guess, though I assume the reasoning was similar, but I can't exactly speak for them.

To me, that post wasn't even in the same league as calling someone a "Democratic pedophile" or a "murderer who loves Bruna Esih." None of us are saints, but contrary to what some people on this forum might think, the moderators over at USA Today don't all share the exact same political agenda or worldview, so it's not like there's some unified front deciding who gets a ban...

lonebadger6 said:I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. And just to be clear—that’s just my take. I have no idea why other mods didn't hand out bans; I assume the reasons were similar, but I can't speak for them.

To me, that post wasn't even in the same league as calling someone a "Democratic Party pedophile" or a "murderer who loves Bruna Esih." Look, none of us are saints, but contrary to what some people on this forum think, the moderators over at Politics don't all share one single political ideology or worldview—so no, nobody handed out a ban based on a unified consensus.

You didn't address any of my counterarguments, which—fair enough—is your right.

The truth is, your one and only argument so far regarding the "high principles the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops should use to select its members" has completely fallen apart for the reason I already mentioned (Željka Markić has nothing to do with this), plus there's this little detail:
- You tried to defend the user Alexis by claiming the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is at fault because they failed to uncover that this guy sodomizes his dogs.

The police? Zero points. Neighbors? Zero points. Friends? Zero points. Acquaintances? Zero points. Family? Zero points. Society at large? Zero points. ?????? Zero points. But apparently, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was supposed to investigate and sniff this out.

Besides, we all know how incredibly complex the hiring procedures are within European Union institutions.
So, the dog-rapist passed the screening, but let's just dump all the blame on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. And hey, why stop there? Let's generalize it—let's blame Željka Markić, the Church, conservative values, and anything else that breathes conservatism.

Trolling, insults, off-topic posts, and sweeping generalizations shouldn't be tolerated, and that's exactly what's happening here.
You, me, everyone—we all know I'm right.
I'm disappointed. 👎

I'm requesting a response from a supermoderator.

Well, I’ve done my homework. In my estimation, Alexis was clearly just trolling.
The whole decision seems to hinge on an earlier, now-deleted post where a certain forum member tried to systematically dismantle UIO's credibility over that dog rape incident. To me, that kind of logic is just as absurd as trying to pin terrorism on refugees.

crimsonjackal63 said:You didn't bother addressing my counterarguments, which is totally your prerogative...

In reality, your one and only argument so far regarding those "high principles by which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops should select its members" has completely fallen apart for the exact reason I already mentioned—since Željka Markić has absolutely nothing to do with this—and there’s also this little detail:
- You tried to defend our fellow forum member Alexis by claiming the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is at fault because they failed to figure out that this guy sodomizes his dogs.

The police get zero points, the neighbors get zero, friends get zero, acquaintances get zero, family gets zero, society gets zero, everyone else gets zero, but apparently the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was supposed to investigate and uncover it all...

Besides, we all know how incredibly complicated the hiring procedures are within European Union institutions.
The dog rapist passed the check, but sure, let's just dump all the blame onto the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; and why stop there? Let's generalize and go after Željka Markić, the Church, the conservative worldview, and anything else that breathes and walks conservatively.

Trolling, insults, off-topic tangents, and sweeping generalizations shouldn't be tolerated, and that's exactly what's happening here.
You, me, everyone knows I'm right...
I'm disappointed in you... 👎

I'm sorry, but you're taking this way too personally. Look, William Bennett53 agrees with you, but I don't agree with you or him, and clearly, neither do the rest of our colleagues. So, what now? 🙂
And please, don't make this about us personally; I simply decided to reach out and reply, and besides, it wasn't me who got the post flagged by nine moderators, not you.

Just to answer your direct question—yes, the USCCB is in the spotlight because it's an institution. It would be the same if the Democratic Party had a dog rapist on their executive board; people would be talking about them, not about the guy's family or friends... 😉 Just like the person who made that comment about the "murderer of Bruna Esih" got a warning because it was nonsense, though if it were someone third on her ballot, I probably wouldn't have handed out a warning...

We don't always have to see eye to eye; that's precisely why we have this hierarchical structure on Reddit. The mods handle the heavy lifting, making countless calls amidst a constant deluge of information. This allows the sub-mods to step back and review controversial decisions in peace—though, in reality, there are incredibly few such disputes when you consider the sheer volume of moderator actions compared to the daily post count and the tension found in various threads. The admin enjoys that same luxury of reviewing the decisions made by mods and sub-mods alike. Beyond her, only God and Anderson hold that authority. As for me, I’ve managed to mess things up twice in just a few days on the FBI, forcing my colleagues to step in and moderate on my behalf.

I understand and respect the points Kelley is making, yet I still find it a significant issue to accuse the USCCB of someone's sexual misconduct without any actual evidence. It feels even more far-fetched to hold an association accountable for the same thing when we know it's supported by the Church, despite not being part of the direct Catholic hierarchy.

Exactly.