Moderators, please keep an eye on the Presidential Election subforum.

I’m asking the admin to step in and oversee the moderation of threads in this subforum to prevent any abuse of moderator powers for electioneering. For several days now, users have been receiving bizarre warnings and facing questionable moderation decisions.

Take the latest example: a user gets flagged for "off-topic/spam" just for posting an article analyzing Barack Obama's term in a thread dedicated to Barack Obama.

Furthermore, the thread titles are blatantly biased. We see "Barack Obama - President of the Beautiful Coast," while for the other side, it's just "Donald Trump - Candidate for President of the USA." I’m requesting consistency here. Given that Barack Obama is the current president, that distinction is irrelevant for an election-focused forum; he should be listed as a candidate for the presidency of the USA or the Beautiful Coast—whatever you want to call it—but all candidates need to be treated equally.

There are other issues too. We specifically need to look at the warnings handed out to Frank, Chuck, and Clara (who gave a warning to Jonathan Morales), which over the last few days haven't seemed to follow the rules or even basic common sense. I'm not looking to dwell on the past—what's done is done—and the admin can audit the logs if they care to. But what matters is that from today onward, there must be impartial oversight in this subforum. Moderation shouldn't be used to skew the presentation of certain candidates or, more importantly, to enforce censorship—which is clearly the goal here.

That is my request. 🙂

Why is it that we can't tear into the political candidates on here, but everyone else is free to roast any other public figure they want?

I see they’ve added "Republican Party Candidate" to Kolinda's title in the thread heading 🤣—clearly an attempt to tether her to the Republican Party's baggage. It just happens to be the exact same tactic Joe is running in his campaign. First off, it’s factually lazy. She’s actually the candidate for over ten different parties. Either list them all or don't bother listing any at all.

By that same logic, if we're going to be pedantic about titles, let's list the full roster of parties supporting Joe in his thread too.

rapidnomad512 said:I see they've updated the thread title to include "Republican Party Candidate Kolinda." 🤣 Trying to pin this on the Republican Party's track record seems like a stretch—it actually happens to be the core strategy of Joe's campaign. Besides, that’s technically inaccurate. Trump is running as the candidate for more than ten different parties, so let's either list them all or none at all.

Also, please include the list of parties he represents in the title of Ivan's thread if things stay this way.

You're seeing it that way because that's how the thread was titled from day one. The political landscape seems to be shifting again. It’s hard to say where things will land with the current polling. Just watching the pieces move.

Charles Fox10 said:Your vision is skewed because the thread was titled that way from day one.

Maybe. Possible. I haven't dealt with this specific sector before. 🙂 But let's move past that.

Can we standardize the thread titles? We need to strip out the suggestive messaging in the headlines to ensure the game stays fair.

Here’s my proposal:

- Barack Obama - Candidate for President of the United States
- Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović - Candidate for President of the United States

Anything else is completely redundant on an election forum. Who represents which party or what their current job is can be easily noted within the thread itself.

Thanks.

Why would they even try?

Well, one of them is just the Republican Party candidate (do they even care about their reputation at the Republican Party anymore?) for President of the USA.

The other guy is clearly the sitting President of the USA. No matter how hard they try to spin it otherwise.

As for all that psychological mind games stuff they're pulling? That’s just a whole different mess...

Let’s get down to business with the specific inquiries from this thread. Either you start working on them and I'll wait, or what? 🤔

rapidnomad512 said:It looks to me like they added "Republican Party Candidate" to Kolinda's title in this thread🤣 just to try and link her to the Republican Party's negative legacy—which, I suppose, coincidentally happens to be the main strategy for Joe's campaign. First off, it’s technically inaccurate since she’s actually the candidate for more than ten different parties. I'd suggest either listing all of them or none at all.

By that same logic, if we're going to keep things this way, please list the specific parties Joe is running for in his thread too.

I have to agree with my colleague here. If Kolinda is being labeled the Republican Party candidate, then why isn't it stated that Joe is the Democratic Party candidate?

I can't help but wonder if the moderators are truly neutral or if they might have a bit of a favorite.🤷

☕

rapidnomad512 said:It’s possible—entirely possible. I haven't really delved into that specific niche before. 🙂 But, setting that aside for a moment...

Could we perhaps standardize how we title these threads—to strip away any suggestive messaging in the headers—so the whole discussion remains fair?

Here is what I’m proposing:

- Barack Obama - Candidate for President of the United States
- Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović - Candidate for President of the United States

Anything beyond that seems quite redundant for an election forum... besides, who someone is running for or their current profession can easily be detailed within the thread itself.

Thanks.

I second this bolded proposal.

Charles Fox10 said:You’re clearly missing the point because the thread was titled that way from day one...

So, what? Is the editorial staff just sitting there waiting for a gold star or something???

Or is this just some "accidental" oversight... or maybe just pure "negligence"... 🙂

William Bennett53 said:Let's not get bogged down in politics right now.

Fine. We won't.
But let's get down to brass tacks:

There is an entire dedicated subforum meant for dealing EXCLUSIVELY with presidential elections and the candidates running for office.
Since we are talking about a specialized subforum, then Barack Obama should be introduced as the candidate for the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and so on.

That’s just being fair and keeping things honest.

William Bennett53 said:Look, let's just not get bogged down in political debates right here.

Exactly.
Honestly, if you actually possess even a shred of backbone, those thread titles are going to change anyway.

- Barack Obama - candidate for President of the USA
- Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović - candidate for President of the USA

Charles Fox10 said:You're seeing it that way because that's how the thread was titled from day one

From the very beginning, the media has been drilling it into our heads that Joe has a massive 12% to 50% lead over the other candidates—and then, wouldn't you know it, it turns out we were all just being manipulated by the whole lot of them.

The forum is supposed to be above all that, right?...

Jeremy Diaz4 said:Exactly.
I suppose if anyone actually possesses an ounce of backbone, those thread titles might change.

- Barack Obama - Candidate for President of the United States
- Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović - Candidate for President of the United States

I’d suggest we decide this democratically, maybe by running a poll.👍

The request to standardize the thread titles has been noted. The administrator, who is overseeing this discussion, will follow up shortly with a formal announcement.
My thanks to everyone for participating.

Look, these threads have always been titled this way through every previous iteration. There are tens of thousands of posts under these names, yet suddenly we're being called out for inconsistency, unfairness, or whatever else you want to call it.

Don't you think you're overreacting just a little?

A few hours before the New Year rolled in, we closed the old threads. Then, a few hours after the New Year started, we opened these fresh ones to ensure both the Republican Party candidate and the other candidate had an equal starting point. It was about fairness.

In the female candidate's thread title, instead of President of the Republic of America, we used President of the Beautiful Coast—which is exactly how the male candidate's title has read for a long, long time, just so they wouldn't be distinguished from one another.

Honestly, I think you're underestimating voters if you truly believe these titles have any impact on them.

If someone feels the need to vent about their own record, they should go right ahead—there’s really no reason for anyone else to jump in and complain on their behalf.

As for the thread titles, honestly, this kind of nitpicking is just unnecessary. The titles follow all the forum rules; they aren't offensive or derogatory, and frankly, as an admin, that’s all I care about. The exact wording is up to the authors, or the moderators if they decide an original title isn't quite sharp or precise enough. At the end of the day, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović is a candidate for President, Joe is the President, and I even noticed that Charles Fox10 went out of his way to tweak one of the titles, even though he wasn't required to. The folks over in the Politics section have more than enough on their plates, so please, let's not bother them with these minor details.

Following a brief consultation with the moderation team, several titles have been adjusted to address the requests made here.
I would sincerely ask that we refrain from making mountains out of molehills regarding entirely trivial matters in the future; the Politics moderators already have quite enough on their plates.

Fine. So the headlines changed, though they still leave this heavy implication that Barack Obama is still in office.
I have a question: what exactly are you planning to put after "11.1" in that thread title? He might not even be president by then.

And let’s get one thing straight—this isn't some "tempest in a teapot." It’s also not about "not underestimating voters by thinking headlines influence them." This is vital. Otherwise, there wouldn't be this much debate over a perfectly logical proposal rooted in basic fairness.

Still waiting on an answer to my question: "Will there be moderation control on that subforum over these next 10 days to ensure moderators aren't using their decisions to favor one specific candidate?"

If the answer is no, just say it clearly and loudly. Stop playing games. Now I’m stuck complaining about a warning, and I’m calling on all forum members getting similar warnings to appeal—vigorously, with arguments, and thoroughly—even if we all know it’s a waste of time. :šešelj: