Complaint regarding moderator abuse of power

Just as I was getting ready to sit down and draft a response to... ovaj postGrace Kim80 decided to lock the thread so she could tidy things up.

Evo sadržaja posta:

That’s just how it works when you’re writing from such a deeply familiar perspective. You can no longer push that old transnational agenda under the guise of "Yugoslavism"—which, let’s be honest, usually just ends up sounding like "Serbism" anyway. If they need to pivot, they’ll start preaching about "humanity" or aim for the Milky Way just to escape the baggage. We’ve already seen the whole cycle play out. That being said, this topic really belongs over in Politics; we shouldn't be cluttering up this board with it.

Happy Easter to you as well!

How much longer are we going to tolerate this kind of malicious trolling? Not a single person in this thread—not even Mravac8—has brought up Yugoslavia or Mexico at any point. It seems Brenda Cook4 is simply exploiting the fact that other moderators lack the backbone to issue actual penalties, using that loophole to troll these discussions repeatedly. This is just one instance; if you’re actually interested in having a serious discussion about it, I have plenty of other examples ready to go.

The politics section has become an absolute wasteland lately, overrun by nothing but trolls and mindless spam. I honestly think the moderators need to step up and set a standard, showing everyone here how to actually engage in a polite, constructive conversation instead of this constant chaos. Take Brenda Cook4, for example. Instead of actually doing her job, she spends all her energy leading these little crusades against anyone she deems a communist, a Yugoslav, a Mexican, or some supposed secret agent. It’s exhausting to watch.

I honestly believe someone needs to have a word with the moderators. This forum shouldn't be treated like their own private playground where they can act however they please without any accountability.

So, here’s how Grace Kim80 handles moderation. She can certainly provide a perfect illustration by issuing the only ban on this thread, and she does it for one reason and one reason only: pure, unadulterated insult.

Perhaps I’m just surrounding myself with the wrong crowd, but I wouldn’t go betting on the sheer reasoning power of practical believers.

Whatever comes out of a priest's mouth is treated as absolute truth, and people just stop questioning it. It’s pure dogma.

I want to be clear that this isn't about some sort of personal vendetta. My only intention here is to ensure this forum remains a pleasant space—one that actually feels like a community where people can gather and engage in meaningful discussion.

Warmest greetings to you all, and I wish you a very happy Easter.

Honestly, I shouldn't even have to point this out. It’s pretty hard to miss when every single post keeps dragging everything back to the political background of the issue, like...

It all comes down to their branding. They’ve convinced people they are the ultimate patriotic party. Because so many voters bought into that idea of being the true defenders of the nation, the Republican Party stormed into power back in 1990. They held onto it for sixteen years, and even now, they remain the second most powerful force in American politics. Honestly, despite all the scandals, the corruption, and the massive embezzlement cases, they’ll likely find their way back into office again. It's just how the cycle goes.

It’s the same old playbook. Politicians weaponize nationalism to stay in power, and honestly, you see the Church doing the exact same thing—they just say whatever they think people are itching to hear. It’s simple math: if you feed people exactly what they want to hear, the rewards and influence follow.

How do nationalists actually use nationalism to stay in power? It’s a bit like a magician using misdirection; they point at a perceived threat to keep everyone from looking at what’s happening behind the curtain. Think about it this way: if you want to control a room, you don't just tell people what to do. You give them an "us" and a "them." By cranking up the volume on national identity, leaders can frame any criticism of their own policies as an attack on the country itself. It becomes a shield. If you question the administration, suddenly you aren't just a political opponent—you're somehow un-American or disloyal to the flag. It's a cycle. They stir up grievances, tap into that deep-seated sense of shared heritage, and then position themselves as the only ones capable of defending it. It turns politics into a battle for survival rather than a debate over tax codes or infrastructure. It’s effective, certainly, but it’s also a pretty clever way to bypass actual accountability.

It’s pretty simple, really. Nationalists essentially set themselves up for failure. They focus all their energy on spotting enemies and threats in other nations, completely ignoring the people within their own borders who are actually exploiting them. Take a look at how some American nationalists act—they’ll spend all their time fighting against different alphabets or foreign signage, thinking that's the real danger, while they totally miss the actual culprits right in front of them.

The Church in America isn't inherently against communism just because they think the system itself is evil—I mean, slavery was terrible, feudalism was a nightmare, and capitalism certainly has its fair share of flaws too. It’s more practical than that. The Church opposes communism because it’s the one system that actively stripped them of their authority and had the audacity to claim that God doesn't exist. By denying the divine, they effectively cut off the Church's ability to build wealth and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. It really comes down to the bottom line. That's why you'll see them holding services for someone like Pavelić, but never for someone like Tito.

That’s exactly why people are still so against the Democratic Party today. You have the Church and all these other groups digging their heels in, fueled by this lingering resentment from the old KP era—even though the Democratic Party has absolutely nothing to do with communism or those old communist ways.

It’s just like how the Republican Party has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism.

I really tried to have a rational, reasoned conversation here—honestly, I even tried pretending I didn't notice what was happening just to keep the peace—but it’s just not working. It's like trying to build a house on quicksand. No matter how much logic I bring to the table, there's just no ground to stand on.
Look, let's be clear about one thing: religion shouldn't be used as some kind of proxy, and we definitely shouldn't be using "the Church" as a coded way to talk about America.

Brenda Cook4, instead of actually doing her job—you know, leading those crusade battalions against communists, Yugoslavs, Mexicans, and those secret police types—she's just... well, she's elsewhere.

I’m posting here as a fellow forum member, so this thread is really about "my job." I suppose I should ask you what exactly I'm allowed to be negative about—or should we just let you go ahead and crusade against all those self-proclaimed extremists who think they see them everywhere?

She’s been trolling these threads constantly. This is just one little example of her behavior—if you guys actually feel like having a real discussion, I can dig up plenty more.

Did you file the report? Just a heads-up though—trolling isn't just whenever someone says something that clashes with your worldview.

Just to be clear, I’m not out here looking for any kind of personal vendetta. This isn't about settling scores. It's really just about wanting this community to feel more welcoming—a place where we can actually enjoy hanging out and having decent conversations.

It’s no coincidence you brought that up. After all, I’m a moderator whose views don't exactly align with your political leanings.

And finally:

I think you ought to let the moderators know that this forum isn't their own private playground where they can just act however they please.

But wouldn't it be great if it *was* your private playground, where only people who agree with you could post? That wouldn't be "crusading and trolling," would it?

edit:

Look at how Grace Kim80 handles moderation—she might as well just hand out the only warning on the thread, and that too for nothing more than an insult:

Maybe I'm just hanging out in the wrong circles, but I wouldn't exactly bet the farm on the judgment of practical believers.

So, you don't see anything wrong with a post where someone suggests that the judgment of practical believers is questionable? In other words, is a practical believer just inherently a "bad guy" by default?

Regardless, calling it an insult is one thing, but when certain people want to disrespect believers without any consequences and then throw a tantrum when they're called out, that’s a different matter entirely—though frankly, it's none of my concern.

Furthermore, is there some kind of countdown clock hovering over us, ticking away until everything has to be flagged? You are well aware of what we discussed, our timeline, and how extensively we debated this topic, including what else will be flagged and why. Since you've decided to raise these questions, I feel compelled to tell you, with all due respect, that you are not my supervisor, and I am under no obligation to report to you regarding my timing for flagging content.

Regards.

Brenda Cook4 said:Honestly, it shouldn't be hard to notice, especially after all those posts where the political background of every issue is constantly brought up, such as:

I’ve tried to engage in an actual reasoned debate by pretending I don't see it, but frankly, it hasn't worked.
Religion shouldn't be used as a proxy, nor should the "Church" serve as a code word for "America."

First off, I suggest we stick to American English so nobody has to play detective trying to figure out what a "proxy" is.
I fail to see how "the Church" acts as a code for "America."

The points you cited don't even explain why you dragged Yugoslav identity and Srboslavija into this debate when nobody even mentioned them in the thread. That isn't a structured discussion; it's just trolling.

On this thread, I am posting as a forum member, which means this is my "job" here. I suppose I should ask you what topics I'm allowed to have a negative opinion on, or should we just let you alone "crusade" against anyone who happens to see things differently?

I disagree. If someone is, say, a police officer, they aren't expected to behave like they're passed out in a gutter after work hours.
Furthermore, you aren't writing as a standard forum member for a very simple reason: moderators can hand out warnings to regular users, but they can't do it to you.

Did you report it? You should realize that trolling isn't just when something clashes with your worldview.

I did, and I was told they couldn't issue a warning because you're a moderator. That's why I started this thread. In truth, I wouldn't have even opened this if the thread hadn't been locked right after I replied to three posts—including yours.
It has nothing to do with whether this aligns with my worldview; when someone starts accusing other participants of being Yugoslav sympathizers or brings up Srboslavija out of nowhere, that is textbook trolling.

It wasn't a coincidence that you mentioned that. It just so happens I'm a moderator whose views don't suit your political tastes.

There are plenty of other moderators whose political views don't align with mine either, yet I have no complaints about their conduct.

And finally:

But it would be nice if this were just your private little club where only like-minded people could post—wouldn't that save us from all this "crusading" and trolling?

I really don't know what to say. You're attributing things to me that I never actually said. It seems you can't help yourself, even here. Fine, if that's how it is.

edit: So, you don't see anything wrong with a post where someone suggests that relying on the judgment of practical believers is a questionable move? In other words, you're implying that being a practical believer makes one inherently "flawed" by default?

I honestly don't see any insult in that statement. The user simply expressed that they wouldn't trust the judgment of practical believers—so what? That’s his perspective. He didn't go around calling believers fools; he just stated that he doesn't have confidence in their ability to judge.
It’s no different than someone saying they wouldn't rely on the judgment of members from the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or XYZ.
The comment might be read as an elegant jab, sure, but it isn't an insult.
We shouldn't overreact when it comes to political correctness. After all, wasn't it always you who was constantly complaining about those kinds of things?

Yeah, I tried, but I just got told they can't issue a warning against you because of your moderator status. So, I decided to start this thread instead.

Trust me, I absolutely can be warned—it’s actually pretty easy to do over in the Religion section since the mod and supermod roles are handled by the same person there. You've been around this forum long enough to know how that works.

As for everything else... well, I've already said my piece.

Grace Kim80 said:It’s an insult, plain and simple. There is a certain crowd that feels entitled to mock believers whenever they please, but the moment they hit a wall and realize they can't get away with it, they start throwing tantrums and acting like the victim. Honestly, though? That's not my concern.

I shared my thoughts on that matter in my reply to Brenda Cook4.

So, does this mean we’re essentially living under a ticking clock, constantly watching the seconds slip away until something inevitably has to be processed or cleared out?

What does that even have to do with anything? I don't recall asking for your input on that matter.

You know exactly what we agreed upon and when those discussions took place. You’re well aware of just how much ground we covered during our debates, and you know precisely which items are still slated for packaging and what materials will be used to get them done.

I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. How on earth am I supposed to know that? What kind of agreements, discussions, or packaging processes are you referring to? It feels as though you might have mistaken me for someone else entirely.
Feel free to take another look at my previous post. If any part of it seems unclear or if you find yourself needing more context, please don't hesitate to ask. I’m more than happy to provide further clarification.

Look, before we even get into the meat of these questions, I have to tell you—with all due respect—that you aren’t my supervisor. You don't get to dictate my schedule or demand an accounting of exactly how many hours I spend on cardboard packaging.

That is precisely why I reached out to your superiors. To be honest, I still don't quite grasp how the specific timeframe for your cardboard packaging relates to this at all—especially since that wasn't even part of my initial inquiry.

I suggest you take another look at my previous post, but please, do so with a bit more patience and a calmer mindset.

Hello there.

Hello there.

Brenda Cook4 said:I could certainly get banned; it’s actually quite easy to do over in the Religion section since the moderator and supermod are the same person. If you've been hanging around this forum long enough, you'd know that.

That covers the rest... I've already said my piece.

We are discussing politics here, not religion. But thanks for the heads-up that one can indeed be penalized in the Religion section, assuming the moderators feel inclined to act on it.

bluecyclist64 said:We’re talking about politics here, not religion. But hey, thanks for letting me know that you can actually get banned over religious stuff too, assuming someone feels like being particularly strict about it.

What kind of politics? Uh oh, looks like we finally hit the nerve—my political views. But honestly, if you weren't able to win this battle right here in the politics thread, I doubt you'd even try to fight it there. Instead, you'd probably rather call in the heavy hitters of authority, trying to leverage the PŽK just to publicly call me out because you can't hold your own in a debate.

And sure, you could get me banned on the politics board too. The moderator there doubles as a super-mod, even if they aren't technically a super-mod for the politics section specifically; they'll see your report and pass it along to the admins (since, as far as I know, there isn't a dedicated super-mod for politics), just like any other mod would if they thought a post deserved a ban.

*edit: the super-mod on the politics board is the Schott Quote

if someone felt like being particularly strict about it

Well, people will definitely find themselves "feeling like being strict." Moderators hand out bans whenever there's cause, provided they're looking to do so—it's not about whether you personally dislike something.

Look, I'm going to stop you right there. Even though I'm not a believer, since it's Easter today, I feel like I've talked your ear off enough for one day. You could have waited until tomorrow! But, oh well, what can you do? We can pick this back up tomorrow, though I feel like I've made my point. I'm basically done with the politics section for now. Let's stick to the topic—you know, arguments and counterarguments. I'm not going to report you just because you disagree with me, though I would ask you to tone down the aggression (which is something I've already pointed out to the moderators on the politics board, by the way, since it's such a persistent habit of yours). Everything else is fair game for discussion, which is exactly why this forum exists in the first place.