Here we go again, more deletions in Politics...

I’m calling on the admins and super mods here—please, just take a look at Gregg Popovich’s thread starting on page 19. I want all those deleted posts restored so we can actually see what was considered "controversial" about them. Give us some real, well-reasoned arguments instead of just silence.

Frankly, I don't care what the person who hit the delete button thinks—I want an unbiased perspective from someone else entirely.

And let’s be honest—I know I won't get an answer saying the deletion was wrong. The super mod will just swoop in, scramble to find some obscure rule to vindicate the moderator, and manufacture a justification for it.

But we really need to ask ourselves: is this actually good for the community? Is it healthy for the forum when incredibly engaging discussions are butchered like this? This question is directed specifically to Nice, Anderson, and the Scotman.

goldenowl73 Asks:
Stick to the topic, people. All the trolling and off-topic nonsense has been wiped clean.

You clearly have no idea what this discussion is actually about. Honestly, the only troll in the room today is your sudden outburst and your attempt to shut down the entire thread—though, I suppose that’s perfectly consistent with that "libertarian spirit" you’re always preaching. Go ahead, delete it all and pack up your things; if you believe the topic should strictly be limited to whatever happens to be crossing my mind at any given moment, then by all means, clear the deck. The subject shouldn't be some exhaustive deep dive into the various facets of people that Tompkins chooses to criticize—that’s nonsense—it should stay focused solely on the specific version of reality that Tompkins presents to us.

I am lodging a fierce protest against this absolute derailment of the discussion. I intend to file official Complaints with the admins and with Anderson personally—though, if I’m being honest, I doubt it will do any good at all. This kind of brutal, sweeping deletion is completely unacceptable according to my own principles; a forum like this should be a place where one can engage in free debate without fear. It is, frankly, shameful. So, go ahead—you might as well honor me with a ban while you're at it.

darkhawk said:Go ahead—give me another strike so you can finally be rid of me.
Look, I truly believe the moderation on this thread is beneath the caliber of people participating here, and frankly, the moderator has made a massive blunder.

It feels less like standard moderation and more like a censor’s hand scrubbing away actual discussion—it's clear the moderator doesn't grasp the fundamental purpose of these threads at all.

Best regards to my fellow interlocutors.

I'll be graying prematurely at this rate, so let me be polite and sign off now before I lose my manners entirely.

🙂

Man, let’s get off this thread and move on. If you really want to write deep, soulful essays about your undying love for livestock, there's actually a whole section over in the literature forums for that kind of stuff. Honestly, it actually makes my day when "newbies" start getting a feel for how we organize things here... though, if you're settling in, you probably already figured out that clones aren't supposed to be blue 😉

goldenowl73 said:This is completely off-topic—seriously, if you want to write flowery prose about your undying love for a cow, go find the creative writing section. I actually find it quite amusing when "new users" act like they’re so well-acquainted with how this forum is structured... though, presumably, if you're that enlightened, you should also know that clones aren't supposed to have blue badges 😉

And what if the clones happen to be blue users? 😉

Look, I’ve got four badges under my belt from my time on this board. Three of them were handed out basically as a joke back in the day when one of the moderators opened a thread just to take requests for badges. So... yeah...

Best of luck to you, and honestly? Please just ban me. I don't see any point in cluttering up this space with more typing. 🙂

Besides, I have zero interest in debating this with you. If the admins need to run a background check on why my username is still showing as blue, I am more than happy to provide whatever info they need. I have absolutely nothing to hide regarding my history here—in fact, I'm perfectly fine with it. 🙂

goldenowl73 said:Get off this thread and go somewhere else. If you want to write flowery little poems about your love for farm animals, there’s a creative writing section for that. I just love it when "new users" show they've actually read the forum structure... though clearly, you don't realize that clones shouldn't be blue.😉

A moderator shouldn't be policing a discussion where they're actively debating other members...
It’s a total conflict of interest—it just doesn't work...
We're all humans here, and that makes it way too easy to abuse the power.
goldenowl73, you proved that point perfectly back during that debate about Gregg Popovich... didn't you?

If I may say so, darkhawk was staying on topic and keeping things civil, while you just kept hitting him with ad hominem attacks before deleting posts based on whatever weird criteria you felt like using.
And now, you're bringing those same attacks right over here.

So, like I mentioned earlier when we drifted off-topic, things got a little messy. There were some pretty nasty insults flying around—stuff like telling people they’re full of crap or need to shut their mouths—and honestly, both sides, whether they're backing this move or totally against it, were handing out red cards for it. A couple of pages worth of nonsense that had absolutely nothing to do with Gregg Popovich ended up getting wiped clean. Look, just because some folks on here think it's fine to throw shade at Popovich doesn't mean they get a free pass to turn on other members of this community. This one clone guy went completely off the rails into those deep off-topic threads, rambling on about these long-winded stories that didn't have any connection to Popovich or even follow his basic logic... if he actually cares about that stuff, I'll happily copy-paste his ramblings and shoot them over to him in a private message so he can try publishing them as short stories on some literary site or a random blog instead.😉

Aha, here we go again—Friday night arrives and, like clockwork, some supermod descends upon us with that classic, condescending air. It always starts with this faux-intellectualized, "civilized" premise—something like, "Oh, heavens, it would be simply lovely if this moderator acted this way, though they certainly could have chosen differently"—as if they’re busy rewriting an entire alternate history of the forum. Then comes the lecture, delivered with that unmistakable tone of "you really should have done this," where they attempt to dictate the exact blueprint of what an "ideal" user ought to be. They conveniently ignore the glaring fact that I have zero interest in meeting their arbitrary standards! This isn't some sterile, dust-covered library; we don't all need to carry ourselves like books without "ears." We need variety, we need creativity, and frankly, we need that friction—that's what gives a community its texture and soul. I truly wonder, does a moderator actually deserve such a sermon? They are supposed to be accountable to us, yet there seems to be this unspoken rule that moderators must remain a monolithic, unified front. Of course, they won't admit it—they're treated like untouchable deities, especially over in the Politics section. A supermod’s actual job should be to act as a buffer, protecting users from the whims and unchecked ego of individual moderators, and using their specialized knowledge to help the admin manage the subforum effectively. But that’s not what the Politics supermod is doing. The subforum exists for the users, and by protecting the users, the supermod indirectly protects the integrity of the forum itself.
Furthermore, every now and then, a supermod pulls a disciplinary card in some backroom deal with a moderator—just more proof that they aren't performing their primary function, which is oversight, but are instead just acting as glorified firefighters. In essence, the supermod becomes a negotiator, occasionally stepping into a debate to engage in long-winded discussions just so the "gods" can feel virtuous enough to waive a penalty. And then, after playing peacemaker, the supermod vanishes for another week, perfectly satisfied with themselves.

The question is:
- Who is actually addressing the structural failures within the Politics subforum? Does Elizabeth Anderson63 even know what's happening there? Please, don't tell me you in administration are blind to it. Because if you're ignoring these issues by hiding behind the excuse of "ugh, who wants to deal with politics, let's just stay out of it," then you are quite literally failing at your jobs. The supermod, who is meant to constantly monitor the pulse of the subforum and sense the mood of the users, is nowhere to be found, and the rest of you are staying far away, leaving things to rot. Do you honestly think this is healthy? Do you think it’s right to see posts nuked with such mindless fury, like yesterday? Let's look at the numbers: in that one discussion, about 30 posts were wiped, 15 different participants were involved, and we were left with 56 posts total. After the moderator swooped in, there are only 17 left. You tell me—is that good for the conversation?

And then there's me, getting lectured for being "off-topic." Listen, the thread was about a guy providing a literary depiction of people in rural areas as "Krezubs, bloated, slouching, gangly, sallow, bald, big-nosed, bulging-eyed, crooked, limp, and hairy Americans, and that's precisely why they love these trashy TV shows"—basically portraying rural folks as the lazy viewers of such programs. I merely added a different dimension! I described an old woman stepping out of her warm house into a biting winter wind just to toss some extra straw to her cow so the animal wouldn't freeze. I was drawing a parallel—showing that this rural world still possesses a certain soul for things that we in the cities lost long ago. And my contribution gets deleted because it's "off-topic," followed by a patronizing suggestion that I move my commentary to the "Literary Corner." Who does this moderator think he is? Who does he think he serves? Where is the administrator who should step in and tell him he can't behave this way? Where is Elizabeth Anderson63 to come and reiterate her previous command:

For those of you who can't access the link—and I certainly won't be begging you to ask for it—I'll just paste it here:

Elizabeth Anderson63 said:Look at this post
It is strictly forbidden to exhibit condescending, arrogant, cynical, sarcastic, or "I-am-a-god/admin" behavior when handling complaints on the Appeals board. (Sanctions for such conduct will include disciplinary cards.) If you cannot manage to be cheerfully polite, at least strive to be neutrally, coldly professional. Though, I suppose it might be a fun challenge to watch people trip over themselves because the Appeals team was actually being decent for once.

Is this what we call courtesy now? Is this the new direction for the forum—interrogating me about my old username instead of actually discussing the merits of the matter at hand?
Look, if I file a Complaint, am I going to get the moderator to pull up my deleted post, paste it right here, and then explain exactly what was wrong with it—giving me a fair shot to explain my reasoning and why I believe the post was perfectly on-topic? Or will the appeal process be rigged so the moderator just throws a few phrases at me, while the admin waits around for some "super-mod" who is supposedly an expert in this field, only for him to show up on Saturday night—just as we're losing the energy to craft a response that might actually shut this whole thing down? Is that the new way we handle appeals?

Can we implement a rule stating that when a user files an appeal, the moderator is obligated to post the content here, state exactly why it was removed, and allow the user to present their vision? It’s entirely possible there was a misunderstanding—it's possible the moderator missed the point—or perhaps the post really was on-topic. Or is it asking too much of the moderation team to provide an argued response to a specific action and grant the user a chance to counter?

Are you actually considering ways to improve the appeals system, or are you just burying moderator actions to prevent any "waves" from being made? Do you plan to take any action at all, or are you just going to leave things exactly as they are?

Point 1. If the super-moderator isn't capable of providing a response within a reasonable timeframe (24, maybe 48 hours at most), then they should just be polite to the users they are supposed to be serving and step aside. Because by the time he finally digs through the threads, the discussion is already dead; the drive for justice evaporates, and people simply stop caring. An appeal that's three days old is ancient history—trying to fix it at that point is pointless. So, give us a super-moderator who will actually protect us from the moderators and look out for the interests of the users and the forum as a whole.
Point 2. Consider whether the current political climate here is actually healthy, and whether it leads to a more successful and improved forum in the long run. If you truly believe everything is fine, or if the administration's stance is that there are zero issues, just say so. I’ll be the first to stop filing appeals—after all, you run this place, and if you've decided to run it this way, who am I to ruin your fun? That would certainly clear the appeals section of any noise, because why complain if nothing ever changes? Every sincere appeal is an opportunity—not just to correct a personal slight against a user, but to revise general stances and upgrade the forum as a space for discussion. You have managed to turn the appeals process into something that only addresses personal grievances, while completely ignoring the growth of the forum as a place for discourse.
Point 3. I thought about writing so much more, but... honestly, it doesn't matter. It really pains me to waste my time trying to show you that something isn't working right. Actually, I mostly regret wasting my own time, because I realize I'm writing all of this in vain. The atmosphere over there is just a bunch of trenches filled with trolls throwing half-hearted comments at each other, and when they go too far, they get a card. Fine, have it your way...

goldenowl73 said:As I mentioned earlier—though I was drifting off-topic at the time—there were some insults flying around, things like "you're full of crap" or "you need to shut up"—the kind of garbage being thrown by both supporters and critics of this whole situation... A page or two of absolute nonsense that had nothing to do with Gregg Popovich were written and subsequently deleted. Just because certain forum users feel the need to back the idea of dumping trash on Popovich doesn't mean they get a free pass to treat other members like dirt... This particular clone drifted into deep off-topic territory, spinning these long-winded little tales that had zero connection to Popovich or even his general logic... If he actually cares about them, I'll just copy-paste the whole mess and send them via PM so he can try publishing them as short stories on some literary site or a random blog...😉

Come on, please—just stop being so rude. And so arrogant. 😉

A conversation between goldenowl73 and a certain forum member—an attempt at actual understanding, if you can even call it that:

darkhawk As stated by:
Alright, let's keep this conversation on file—we’ll circle back to it once you start handing out penalties for similar posts—and then we can actually sit down and dissect your disciplinary actions through the lens of that specific vision. 😉

Let’s take a look at you—really scrutinize the whole thing—and see just how much weight all that talk about "tolerance" actually carries. 🙂 Or should we just revisit some of those previous disciplinary actions of yours—you know, where you dealt "severely" with forum posts similar to this one—only to basically reward the offenders with all sorts of various little cooling-off periods?

Look, I see things differently than goldenowl73 and Roy—and frankly, that’s the point. For me, this principle isn't some selective tool used only when it’s convenient; it applies to my own actions just as much as it does to anyone else's. You two, however, seem to operate on this strictly democratic little bubble where you're open to anyone who echoes your exact sentiments, yet the second someone disagrees, you immediately brand them as primitives—unworthy of being heard, spoken to, or even acknowledged. There is absolutely nothing more primitive than positioning yourself on some high horse, acting as the ultimate judge of who is "civilized" and who is "uncouth." It’s a transparent defense mechanism. People only belittle others when they lack any real self-knowledge or an understanding of the world around them. They're insecure—deeply so—about their own identities, so they try to manufacture a sense of worth by distancing themselves from anyone they deem "lesser." It’s a desperate attempt to feel superior by pushing everyone else down.

Just because he hails from the region he writes about tells you absolutely nothing—nothing at all—except for one thing: it’s a very well-disguised way of saying, "I can't help but love my own kind." Honestly, Tompkins tossed his passport into the trash ages ago, long after he crossed the boundaries of his hometown and his old national identity. He’s an emigrant from the rural heartlands—much like those who fled the old Yugoslavian territories—who decided a long time ago that he’d never again claim to be from the sticks or identify with those people until both groups have finally cleared out their primitive ways. If he were still back home in a small town like Prološac, he wouldn't just be getting criticism—he'd be getting a bucket of manure thrown at his head.
Even Walt Whitman wrote critically about his neck of the woods, much like Krleža did with his own—but let’s be clear: they didn't loathe their hometowns or look down their noses at them. Instead, they lived through the flaws and embraced the virtues of where they came from; they breathed the same air as their surroundings, and that's exactly how they found acceptance. Tompkins, however, is a different story entirely. He’ll always be met with that same biting contempt—the very same disdain he directs toward everyone else who dares to despise him.

goldenowl73 As specified by:
You talk like someone who’s been lurking on this board for years—not exactly the vibe you'd expect from someone who registered less than a month ago... Are you sure you aren't some kind of clone? 🙄

Are you seriously comparing red cards on this forum to actual piles of feces? Honestly—I mean, really—where do you even get this stuff? It’s just... it's absurd. I'm sitting here trying to have a coherent conversation, and you're out here making comparisons that are frankly beneath us. It's messy, it's crude, and quite frankly, it's a bit much even for this place. 👋

Look, let’s be real—Tompkins did more for his hometown through those books and that film adaptation than any other resident of Prološac ever could. If it weren't for him, that tiny town of 4,000 people wouldn't even be on the map... honestly, nobody would even know it existed.

Look, like I’ve already gone on about—and I know I tend to ramble—if someone had just symbolically thrown brown paint at him, I would have viewed that as a legitimate, albeit extreme, form of protest. It would be a way to signal total disagreement with the kind of commentary that Tompkins, as a public figure, simply has to endure. But this? Using actual feces in a public setting—I mean, right there in the middle of a crowded coffee shop, directly at a living, breathing person—is just revolting. It’s primitive. It’s beyond unhygienic, not just toward the target, but toward the entire public space and everyone else unfortunate enough to be standing nearby. It's just plain gross.

darkhawk The user said:

goldenowl73 Asks:
You’re seriously comparing forum red cards to actual piles of feces... honestly, the logic is just—well, there aren't enough words for this level of absurdity. 👋

Not at all. I’m looking at the fundamental difference between how you treat written words versus spoken ones—honestly, your positions are polar opposites here. If you were to read some vitriolic screed targeting Americans, Canadians, or the LGBTQ+ community that utilized rhetoric similar to Tompkins' style, you’d be handing him a red card without a second thought—and frankly, you'd be justified in doing so. But instead, you treat Tompkins like some master rhetorician who uses irony to poke fun at primitives just to get a laugh. It’s a bit much... if I'm being blunt, your stance feels downright hypocritical. 🙂

Tompkins would have been slapped with a permanent ban on this damn forum ages ago—yet here you all are, treating him like some kind of literary legend. It’s absurd. The real issue isn't actually with those specific idiots, though—it's much deeper than that. The problem is that in American society, someone can spew absolute garbage against anyone they please and still find themselves standing there while an audience applauds. And get this—that very same crowd—the one cheering for the nonsense—calls itself "progressive" and "urban." Give me a break.

I will always stand by a principle—it doesn't matter what color it’s painted, even if I have to sacrifice my own side to defend it. You and people like you? You’ll always prioritize the "color" over the actual principle. For society to actually move forward, we need principles to remain intact; colors fade, but truth doesn't. Though, honestly, I’m not even worried about the progressives and the urbanites. They’re such a pendulum of contradictions. In the 70s, they were against marriage, against free speech, and against Western interventionism. Then, in the 90s, suddenly they were all about free speech. By the 2010s, they were championing marriage, free speech, and Atlanticism—only to pivot back recently to being against Western influence and freedom of expression. Progressives are progressive only in how quickly they latch onto whatever idea is trendy at the moment. Yet, despite all those years of chameleon-like shifting, the values that Gregg Popovich mocks and ridicules are exactly what have survived. These values have endured for centuries, passing from one generation to the next—the stuff that actually matters. All these various urbanites and Popovich types? They come and go, barking their noise until they're silenced. The principles will remain standing, while nobody will even remember Popovich... except, perhaps, as that guy who got hit in the face with a bucket of crap.

Think of Ita Rina—that actress who played the role of a lifetime in *The Crucible* and just stuck in everyone's mind. That’s how people will remember Tompkins—historians will look back at him when they're compiling collections of the most wildly original literary criticism ever written. Honestly, that’s the only way he’ll be remembered. I'm certain of it—because all this "progressive" nonsense we see today? It’ll eventually become exactly the kind of thing future progressives have to fight against.

I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, it’s just... it’s a mess. A total disaster from start to finish. I’ve been sitting here staring at the screen, trying to find the right words, but everything feels inadequate. It’s just pure, unadulterated chaos! As requested:
Is this whole thing about goldenowl73—or is it actually about Tompkins?

goldenowl73 said:You’re judging me—just assuming you know exactly how I’d act if certain conditions were met—and labeling me with all sorts of nonsense when you don't actually know the first thing about me. It’s all just endless "what ifs" and theoretical speculation. Though, I suppose I should be glad you’re speaking so highly of Gregg Popovich as some sort of progressive icon; because without those progressives who drift in and out, your precious "non-progressives" would probably be living in a total utopia—but hey, I guess the progressives just have to keep kicking them out of their little bubble.

And, if it's any consolation to your ego, people will remember Popovich as the screenwriter behind some of the most blockbuster films in American history.

darkhawk said:Look, I’ve seen your rulings on similar posts. I know exactly how you judge what’s written here. And I can guarantee you this: if Popovich were some patriotic writer posting stuff like this on a forum, he wouldn't even make it to next Thursday before you handed him a ban.

goldenowl73 said:And you managed to pull all that off in just three weeks of being registered? 🤣 You’ve analyzed my entire persona—and my "judgments," excuse me, my "red cards"—and somehow concluded that I’m on the exact same level as Popovich, and by extension, that Rwandan warlord convicted at The Hague? 😉

darkhawk said:Where is that other moderator now, the one who would actually ask the real question:

Is the subject here darkhawk or Popovich???

😬

I wasn't equating you to anyone; I was simply comparing your stance on Popovich to how you view any other random author on this forum. There isn't even an ad hominem attack happening here—far from it. So, your entire premise is completely missed. And what does it matter how long I've been around? I'm not a clone of anyone you recognize. The crowd that used to write here long before I did has long since abandoned this oasis of freedom for much more cramped and primitive places. I just found myself craving a little liberty, and well... here I am. 😬

Oh, so now the supermoderator is going to swoop in and lecture me on what a "proper" forum member should look like. Meanwhile—and let’s be honest here—any provocations or trolling directed at the moderators themselves (who are supposed to be setting the gold standard for us all) just get tucked away in a drawer labeled "we won't go there."

Can someone tell me—seriously—how a moderator with this specific track record of misunderstanding things can actually hold the position? He keeps insisting I’m attacking him personally, which is complete nonsense. Is it really that hard for anyone else to see that I am simply measuring his stances against a user like Pero and comparing them to how he treats Gregg Popovich? Does it bother anyone else that, based on the conclusion here, Pero would be handed a red card while the writer Tompkins gets a standing ovation from the very same person? Since when is it forbidden on this forum to point out that someone’s logic is inconsistent and totally contradictory?

And if we’re being brutally honest—which I usually am—the moderator and I had this exact same debate just a day before these posts were wiped. He basically slept on the initial argument, woke up the next day with some sort of "matured" resentment because he didn't like how it ended, and decided to start deleting stuff.

So, where does that leave us? Are we supposed to sit here and dissect deleted posts? It’s pointless. Because as long as people who lose a fair fight as forum members get their revenge by stepping into moderator roles, any discussion is essentially futile. And there is absolutely no one around to protect us from that cycle.

And expecting the admin to step in and protect me from the provocations found just a few posts up? That’s pure science fiction, isn't it? Honestly, I’m embarrassed even for thinking to ask. Who am I—someone who registered three weeks ago with barely ninety posts—to even make that request?

Seriously, people, the fundamental question underlying this whole mess is this: Why even bother debating anything here in the first place?

Once you actually answer that question for yourself, you realize that asking questions is a waste of breath. I already know exactly what kind of responses I'm going to get. So, go ahead—just lock the thread. There’s no point in continuing anyway.

goldenowl73 said:he wrote some sort of litany based on stories that don't even relate to Tompkins—or if they do, they barely fit within his logical framework... if he actually cares, I’ll just copy-paste them and send him a DM so he can try posting them as short stories in the literature section or on some blog...😉

Elizabeth Anderson63 said:Look at this post
It is strictly forbidden to exhibit condescending, arrogant, cynical, sarcastic, or "I-am-god-of-this-forum/admin" type behavior when handling complaints here. (Violations will result in warnings/penalties.) If you can't manage to be cheerful and polite, then at least be neutral and dryly professional. Though, honestly, I think it would be quite the challenge to watch people crumble under the sheer weight of the staff's overwhelming kindness during the appeals process.

What part of this rule isn't clicking for you, goldenowl73? Or was this regulation written specifically just so you could mock both the rule itself and all of us?

Elizabeth Anderson63—was this ban just a temporary fix for one specific issue happening at the time, or is this truly the guiding principle for how this forum operates? Look, folks, the questions are simple—just be honest and answer them. It’s no big deal; if the answers turn out to be exactly what we suspect, then we'll shake hands, call it even, and move on.

darkhawk said:Where on earth is Anderson—has he vanished? He needs to get back here and repeat that particular commandment of his:

For those folks on the forum who can't get the link to work—and honestly, if you can't be bothered to go looking for it—we'll just paste it here:

Just a quick side note—feel free to carry on as you were. 😍
If this link is meant to be a modding resource—and judging by how you’re quoting Anderson, I suspect it actually is—then we have our answer. 🤔 Honestly—I’d suggest actually reading the forum rules (they're right there at the top of the homepage, if anyone bothers to look)—it might save us all some trouble. .
Take note of the section regarding the removal of items from the fashion forum—it's quite telling. 😍

Elizabeth Anderson63 Asks:
Just a little side note here—but please, don't let me derail you; carry on with what you were doing. 😍
If this is actually a link to some sort of modded version—and honestly, if I'm reading this right, it looks like you're quoting Anderson—then... well, that changes things. 🤔 Honestly—and I mean this with the utmost sincerity—I would strongly suggest you take a moment to actually read the forum rules. They aren't exactly hidden; they're right there in plain sight at the very top of the homepage. It’s really not that much to ask. .
Pay close attention to the section regarding the removal of items from the fashion forum—seriously, don't overlook it. 😍

I received that link directly from Anderson—face-to-face, mind you—so if you’ve got some sort of grievance regarding rule violations, you can take it up with him.

Elizabeth Anderson63 said:just a little side note here, so feel free to keep doing your thing 😍
if this is a link meant to be meta—kind of like how you’re quoting Anderson—it really feels like 🤔 , and honestly, I’d just suggest giving the forum rules a quick read (they're right at the top of the main page) .
definitely pay attention to the section regarding bringing moderator business into public threads 😍

honestly, you're acting like some clone who somehow stumbled into moderator privileges 🙄 why don't you just come clean about who you actually are 😁

you got hit with a warning for trolling, when in reality, you were just being rude to a female user who didn't even insult you or call you primitive...

Quote:
W000 says: Check out this post
If the very first paragraph is total nonsense, then the entire rest of the post is garbage too; there's no point even finishing it.

darkhawk replies:
Why should I waste my precious time reading through all that nonsense when he clearly wasted his time typing it out?
Yeah, sure, I'm just one of those "primitive" types who bases their whole argument on a single nonsensical sentence in the opening line.
To be totally honest, I actually engaged with you because I thought there was a glimmer of hope that you might actually get what I was saying. I saw you as maybe a lost sheep who just needed a little nudge back to the flock. Now I'm torn, but I don't regret a single word of this. You simply don't have the bandwidth to grasp my perspective. Go get a massage, pick up some Kant, and maybe skim through some of Tompkins' columns. Trust me, you'll feel a lot more enlightened afterward. And if you start feeling a bit too full of yourself again, just go back to Kant and Tompkins; it always does the trick. At least that R-Complex part of the brain, which thrives on those kinds of raw emotions and stems from back when we were basically just crawling around as reptiles. R-Complex is short for the reptilian brain, after all.
Us "primitives"—the ones who developed the higher parts of the brain where things like empathy, love, tenderness, and beauty live—well, we primitives who upgraded our brains with those ugly, unrefined additions like the cerebral cortex will forever be prisoners of those upgrades. It's no wonder you look down on us. And it's no wonder we actually feel for you. It's no wonder that the aggressive, impulsive, and intense types are always the ones rushing to the front lines of society; the R-Complex has always functioned in a very straightforward way. It's Fight or Run, bite or be bitten. In such a binary emotional world, you guys aren't even capable of seeing the vibrant, colorful picture that we primitives see.

Man, I truly feel for you guys. I sincerely feel bad for every single one of you who will never realize how much Mara loves her cow.

goldenowl73 said:Like I said—and I really feel like I’ve made this point clear already—it’s a clone with moderator access. 🙄 Oh, please—as if I’m just going to lay all my cards on the table for you like that! You really think I’m going to reveal my true identity so easily? Not a chance. I've got far too much mystery left to uncover before I let anyone know exactly who they're dealing with. 😁

So, you got slapped with a warning for "trolling"—which is a joke—when the reality is you were just reacting to some lady who went out of her way to insult you. She didn't even give you an inch; she just called you primitive and left it at that. Honestly, the whole thing is just ridiculous.

Quote:
W000 says: Take a look at this post.
If I encounter total nonsense in the very first paragraph—the foundation upon which the rest of the argument supposedly stands—then frankly, there’s no point in wasting my precious time reading the rest. If the premise is garbage, the entire house of cards is bound to collapse anyway. Why bother?

darkhawk responds:
He spent far too much precious time crafting those ridiculous nonsense posts—so why on earth should I waste even a single second of my own life reading them?
Yeah, look—I’m clearly just some unrefined amateur who builds an entire manifesto around a single, nonsensical thought I usually vomit out in the very first sentence.
To be perfectly honest—and I mean truly, deeply honest here—the only reason I even bothered engaging with you in this debate was because I genuinely thought you might actually have a fighting chance at grasping the core of the issue. I saw something in you... perhaps just a lost soul who simply needs a firm nudge back toward the light. Now, I find myself in a bit of a moral dilemma—a real internal tug-of-war, if you will—but I don't regret a single word of what I wrote. Not one. You honestly don't have the capacity to grasp what I'm actually getting at here. Seriously—go get a massage, pick up some Kant, and spend an afternoon digging through Tompkins' columns. Trust me, you'll feel significantly more enlightened than I am after that. If you ever find yourself stuck in the delusion that you're somehow superior, just go back to Kant and Tompkins; it always does the trick. It all goes back to that R-Complex in the brain—you know, the part that feeds on this kind of raw emotion—which is basically just a leftover from back when we were nothing more than little crawling reptiles. "R-Complex" is really just shorthand for the reptilian brain.
We primitives—the ones who seemingly evolved by sacrificing the parts of our brains responsible for empathy, love, tenderness, and an appreciation for beauty—have instead opted to upgrade our gray matter with those ugly, crude, peasant-like additions. Because of this, we are destined to remain forever shackled to these biological enhancements. It’s honestly no wonder you look down on us. And frankly, it wouldn't be surprising if you actually felt a shred of pity for us, too. It makes perfect sense that the aggressive, the cutthroat, and the relentless always manage to bulldoze their way to the front lines of society; the R-Complex has always operated on a remarkably simple logic. It’s just Fight or Run—you either bite or you get bitten. In such a binary, black-and-white emotional world, you people aren't even capable of perceiving the vibrant, full-color picture that we primitives see.

Honestly, I feel for you all—I really do. It’s genuinely pathetic. I truly pity every single one of you who will never grasp the simple truth that Mara just loves her cow.

I’ll reveal it to the people I’ve actually given permission to—though, frankly, none of them even have the right to ask me in the first place. So, let's be clear: Nice, Scotman, and Elizabeth Anderson63 could find out my old handle whenever they feel like it. You? Not a chance. You don't have the right to put me on the spot like that.

Regarding the previous post—honestly, the red card was completely justified, and I’m certainly not going to sit here and whine about it.

goldenowl73 said:You actually got a warning for trolling here—which is a joke, really—when all you did was insult some lady on the forum who hadn't even breathed a word of disrespect toward you—let alone called you primitive or anything of the sort...

That simply isn't true. I mean, if you tack "De-" onto my handle, it makes me an anti-civilizer—and since the direct opposite of civilization is nothing but pure primitivism, wouldn't that be the logical conclusion? Right? 😉

W000 said:You forgot to put "De-" at the start of your username.

Honestly, I figured if she’s allowed to write stuff like this, then I should be able to as well—since, apparently, this style is tolerated. Or rather, it's tolerated by some and not others. Basically, if you agree with her views, she can get away with it, but since I don't, I can't. Fine, I get it—it's human nature—but if that's the case, at least don't go bragging about some random card that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually discussing here. Now, I really have to insist: either he needs to back off, or this user gets issued the same penalty for trolling.

(I truly don't want W000 to get a penalty! I'm only bringing this up because someone has to tell the truth.)

darkhawk said:I’ll reveal it to whoever I feel like telling. Not that they even have the right to ask, honestly. So yeah, Nice, Scotman, and Anderson can find out my old handle whenever they want. You? No chance. And you don't get to put me on the spot about it.

As for that top post, that warning was totally justified, and I’m definitely not complaining about it.

That just isn't how it works. If you slap a "de-" prefix on my name, I basically become an anti-civilizer, and since the opposite of civilization is just pure primitivism—right? 😉

To be totally real with you, I figured if she could pull a stunt like this, then I could too, especially since this kind of style seems to fly here. It’s funny because it clearly works for some people and not others. Like, someone who shares your specific vibe gets a pass, but since I don't, I'm stuck. Okay, look, that’s just human nature, I get it, but at least don't go bragging about a warning when it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually debating. Now I feel like I have to push back—either he needs to back off, or the lady should get the same warning for trolling.

(And hey, I really don't want W000 to get a warning! I’m only bringing this up because I care about the truth.)

You basically handed yourself a patronizing, bossy nickname and that's the energy you're bringing to the table. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using the "de-" prefix.

But I *do* see a massive problem with a former or current moderator—someone who has access to everything—coming onto a public thread to settle scores like this and then actually bragging about being buddies with the owner...

For me, it's case closed. You've earned two warnings from me: one for the trolling, which was clearly an insult, and another for bringing moderator business into a general topic, which I know you knew was against the rules given your level of access... plus all those deleted posts you're whining about, which you obviously still have access to view anyway. 😉

And honestly, if I’m picking up on this right, there was already a super similar debate going down over on the other forum where neither Cuki nor ResonatorU realized you were actually a clone—and a clone of a former or current moderator, no less!

This is definitely one of those situations where the admin team needs to step in and take a look...

goldenowl73 As specified by:
You went out of your way to pick such an imperatively patronizing username—and honestly, that’s exactly how you carry yourself, too. As for me? I don't see anything remotely objectionable about having "de" in the prefix.

I've finally settled on the username I actually wanted. Though—looking back—perhaps I should have reached out to the moderators first to see if my choice would trigger some sort of backlash or cause a stir. A bit late for that now, I suppose.
What exactly is the topic here? Are we debating my username? Or are we going to sit around and discuss your fundamental obligation to protect me from people twisting my handle just to troll me?
That, right there—that is textbook trolling. Pure and simple.

But honestly, I find it incredibly questionable—if not outright scandalous—that a former or even current moderator, someone who has had access to everything, would go around settling scores like this on the forum... and then have the nerve to brag about being personally acquainted with the owner. It’s just completely out of line.

Those are just your own conclusions—and frankly, they're wrong. Every single one of them, except for one. I've actually met Anderson before, though—given how much I ramble—I suspect he doesn't exactly remember me.

As far as I’m concerned, this case is closed—period. You’ve just earned two strikes from me. The first one is for the blatant trolling—which was clearly meant to be an insult, let's not mince words—and the second is for your comments regarding the moderation team. You knew perfectly well that discussing mod business on a public thread is strictly off-limits, especially given your status as a former—or perhaps current—moderator with backend access to the tools. It's just bad form.

No, listen—I knew exactly what I was doing back when I was an active forum user. Honestly? I was fully prepared to take a ban just for calling out the moderation team. In fact, I even dropped another comment aimed right at the mods that you *should* have banned me for—but you didn't. You let it slide. And now? Well, you're probably sitting there kicking yourself for missing it.

The posts you’re complaining about have already been wiped—yet, judging by how much you're digging around, it's painfully obvious you still have access to them. 😉

I can't access my deleted posts on the forum anymore—which is a total pain, honestly—but luckily, I've been keeping everything saved in a Notepad file on my desktop.

Are we really going to keep wasting breath on yellow cards that aren't even controversial—cards that don't even qualify as grounds for a legitimate Complaint—or are we shifting focus back to my personal identity, or perhaps my supposedly "mysterious" way of dealing with the moderation team?

We aren't going to mess with the actual Complaint, right? —I mean, let’s be reasonable here—we'll leave that part alone, won't we?

Is the actual crux of this matter whether you’re ignoring Anderson's directive—which, frankly, came straight from me—or if the real issue is just how blatantly you're flouting it? Is the grievance that Anderson's rule was posted out in the open for everyone to see, or is the sting actually that the moderator isn't even following their own damn rules?

Just so we’re all clear on what's actually happening here. 🙂

Oh, Rock, Rock... what have you done to us? Honestly, just take his word for it at this point. I really hope Rock has offered a sincere apology to the person who banned me—I’m sitting here genuinely wondering if I’m next on the chopping block. The entire theory he was spinning around me has completely imploded—it's gone totally south—along with Rock's reputation and the poor soul who actually did the banning. If that doesn't warrant an apology, then I truly don't know what does.

So, I have a question. If a moderator turns out to be a total jerk—I'm talking arrogant, cynical, dripping with sarcasm, and constantly talking down to people—basically acting like they’re some kind of all-powerful deity while handling appeals on the FBI forums... who actually handles the disciplinary action for them?

Why hasn't Rock been slapped with a warning yet? Seriously—do I actually have to hit that little flag icon and report this violation myself?

I’m not even going to go there regarding the others. I won't waste my breath discussing the blatant false accusations that landed me a ban for several hours—nor will I touch upon the trolling that occurred while this appeal was being handled—or the various subtle insults thrown my way via the insinuation that I am a former or current moderator. Look, it isn't the label itself that offends me—I don't care if someone calls me a moderator—but rather the calculated implication that I am somehow operating with some deep-seated, premeditated scheme; the suggestion that I’ve been pulling these same strings with other moderators in the past and have now decided to target this specific individual as part of some grand, orchestrated game. By making these claims, they are attempting to pivot my appeal away from its actual purpose—which is addressing the structural failures in moderation and my own personal grievance regarding the moderator's actions—and instead dragging it into the mud of petty political maneuvering and personal vendettas. It’s an attempt to frame this as a desperate struggle for survival or a smear campaign to tear someone down, which is completely irrelevant to the facts at hand—and frankly, such baseless character assassination is nothing short of insulting.

Bottom line. Once again, we’ve completely missed the mark on what I thought was the entire purpose of having a grievance subforum in the first place—which, if you ask me, should be the only reason this section exists. According to the site rules, a complaint shouldn't just be some vague, sweeping rant; it needs to target a specific incident or occurrence—a concrete event—and it ought to be backed up with as much evidence as possible to make the moderators' jobs easier. That was my exact intention here—I was trying to keep my appeal focused, structured, and substantiated.

I expect the moderators to actually answer my damn question—not just dodge it. When someone asks why a post was nuked, the easiest way to handle it would be to simply repost the content here and state clearly: "this was off-topic." It’s not like they’re worried the people who *need* to see it won't be able to find it once it's gone; those folks will make their own calls regardless. The current approach just creates this endless loop of "brotherhood" back-channeling—where everyone gets to play judge and jury under the guise of being helpful—leading to those useless, indecisive "maybe you should have done this instead" lectures. It helps absolutely nobody. All it does is drag the entire concept of a super-mod into the gutter by turning the role into a popularity contest designed to stroke the moderators' egos rather than actually enforcing the rules.

Look, I’ll be the first to admit—we forum folks follow the rules for filing appeals pretty closely enough—but what about the moderators? Seriously. Who exactly is going to sit them down and write a manual on how to actually behave?

I’m suggesting that Rock deserves at least three strikes on this thread—one for violating the very rules Anderson laid out for this forum, a second for blatant trolling, and a third for leveling false accusations and spinning outright fabrications that resulted in my own ban. (And I have to ask—is this how moderation works now? Is this how they issue strikes in the political section?) If any regular user committed these specific offenses, they’d be handed penalties left and right—so, frankly, I think it’s only fair that the moderator be held to the same standard, or at least something reasonably close to it.

I’m also putting forward some proposed amendments to the appeals process—specifically targeting moderator conduct—which should read as follows:

Look, let’s get one thing straight regarding the rules—and I say this with all due respect to the mods, though I know some will disagree—a moderator handling an appeal has a fundamental responsibility. They shouldn't just scrub a post and move on like nothing happened. No, they are obligated to relay the specific part of the post—or even the entire thing if necessary—that was deleted. Why? Because without that context, any attempt at actual argumentation on the topic becomes completely hollow. You need the full picture to make sense of the debate! Plus, there's a pedagogical element here—if you want to actually teach a lesson, you have to show the user exactly where they tripped up. It serves as a corrective measure for the individual, sure, but it also acts as a vital teaching moment for every other person reading the thread. It’s about maintaining the integrity of the discussion, plain and simple.
Look—someone else's post history, their behavior in other threads, or whatever similar nonsense they’ve been up to shouldn't be used as an argument against a specific situation—period. I mean that. Unless, of course, we are specifically trying to prove a pattern of problematic character in a user, but even then, bringing it up has to serve a purpose. It should be about educating that individual on where they tripped up, and more importantly, educating the rest of you reading along so you can actually grasp those subtle nuances and fine details of the rules that govern certain subforums. It’s about clarity, not just pointing fingers.

Look, once this rule is actually officially adopted, I’d appreciate it if my own grievance was handled by the book—without all the cheap insinuations about me being some kind of lizard, a Freemason, an ultra-Illuminati type, a moderator, Anderson, or just some random nobody else. Just give me a straight answer: why were my posts in the politics section scrubbed? I was simply trying to offer a different perspective on an author who paints a picture of a primitive, backwards America—an author who writes about people in a way that is both oblique and frankly quite ugly—and I attempted to challenge arguments that, from my vantage point and lived experience, simply don't hold water.

My thesis is straightforward: something is fundamentally flawed because of _______________. I filled in those blanks with actual arguments. They were deleted. If memory serves, the rules for the politics section clearly state that everything must be argued. If that rule is no longer in effect, please just say so plainly, because the rest of us users will have to change how we write. We'll just throw out claims without any supporting logic, and if we feel like getting fancy with our prose, we'll just retreat to the literary corner.

🙂