Closing the "marriage referendum" thread.

I’m posting this because I want to know why the marriage referendum thread was shut down spontaneously, without any actual arguments being presented.

The topic itself is incredibly relevant and very much alive right now.

When the thread was closed, the moderator, The Edge, basically insulted everyone on the forum who believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman by labeling us all "homophobes."

To me, there’s a hint of religious intolerance in that behavior, since he indirectly branded anyone who practices Christianity or Islam—including those who identify as Catholic or Muslim—as homophobic.

He also violated Article 4 of the Politics subforum’s General Rules of Conduct by insulting people based on their religious beliefs. He failed the principles of tolerance and fairness, essentially deciding on his own to ban discussion while simultaneously labeling dissenters as "homophobes."

I suspect this move might have been driven by his frustration over the historic success of the "Defend Family Values" initiative, but his personal dissatisfaction and disagreement shouldn't give anyone the right to stifle public debate or resort to insults.

So, here is what I’m proposing:
- That the aforementioned topic be reopened,
- And that this specific moderator, given his inability to moderate impartially and with a "cool head," be reassigned to a different topic.

I’m hoping for a positive resolution to this complaint.
If this goes unaddressed, I reserve the right to take further necessary steps and escalate this to the appropriate authorities.

Respectfully,

ruggedpanther13.

I’m backing the request to open this thread. There’s way too much interest here, and people are bleeding into other topics where their posts are getting deleted because they don't belong there.

As for the mods, I’ll stay neutral. I respect The Edge as a moderator; he handles some pretty heated threads, and that isn't easy work. Still, shutting down a topic while it's still relevant isn't the right move, even if everyone is just talking in circles. 🤷

Finally closing this thread. It was getting pretty old anyway. 🙄

I would like to request the opening of a new thread, as there is significant interest regarding this matter that cannot be adequately addressed within the confines of the PDF. Currently, discussions are spilling over into off-topic threads that are only tangentially related to the marriage referendum, which ultimately serves to diminish the quality of those specific discussions.

I honestly think we should just leave this thread locked, because frankly, it’s becoming nothing more than a platform for people to tear down and belittle the entire LGBTQ+ community.
It seems perfectly obvious to anyone actually using their brain that the whole point of this marriage referendum is simply to strip away the fundamental human rights of gay people to marry, purely based on who they love—it really shouldn't be that complicated to understand! ☕

Tapatalk 2 using mobile - Apple Watch

Nicholas Long78 said:We should probably just leave this topic alone, considering how much it serves only to insult and belittle the entire LGBTQ+ community.
If we use any semblance of common sense, isn't it obvious that this marriage referendum is nothing more than an attempt to strip away basic human rights from people simply because of their sexual orientation? It seems quite clear to anyone paying attention! ☕

Tapatalk 2 using mobile - Apple Watch

That is simply not true. The whole point of a forum like this is to allow for the expression and exchange of different perspectives—in short, to have a discussion. Of course, individuals on either side who resort to insults ought to be sanctioned; after all, that is precisely why we have moderators. However, it is quite unacceptable that on a platform where the policy of not discussing the marriage referendum exists, we are left without a dedicated space for such a pressing issue, especially as the deadline for submitting signatures to Congress approaches and the matter becomes increasingly relevant.

Where else are we supposed to discuss this, on some mainstream news site? 🤦

Benjamin Palmer3 said:That’s just flat-out wrong. The whole point of this thread—and every other thread here—is to hash things out and swap perspectives. It’s called a discussion. Sure, if people start getting nasty and hurling insults, they should be dealt with; that’s what the moderators are for. But it’s ridiculous that on the Politics board, we don't even have a dedicated thread for the marriage referendum. This thing is huge right now, especially with the deadline for submitting signatures to Congress looming closer every day. It’s becoming impossible to ignore.

Where am I supposed to talk about it then? On some niche religious blog? 🤦

There’s a similar thread over on the Religion board, and honestly, that one's even more relevant right now. 😁

Look, just shutting down a thread isn't the answer if you leave all those nasty, insulting posts sitting there untouched! Honestly, doing that just fuels the fire and keeps the whole argument going. Personally, I found the topic pretty interesting—even though I wasn't jumping in myself, I was definitely lurking and reading everything. And get this: I didn't see any posts attacking Christians, but man, I saw a massive amount of people bashing gay people and those who actually support their rights. I mean, calling someone homophobic isn't an insult, right? Just like I don't think it's an insult to call someone a clerical right-winger (which, by the way, one user got banned for, probably because of The Edge himself). But telling someone they're a Catholic Taliban, or using slurs, or calling them an idiot or stupid? That’s a straight-up insult, yet it happens all the time, especially when the moderators clearly have favorites. It's so obvious! That’s why I rarely comment, because I’ve got a short fuse and I tend to snap back immediately if someone comes at me, but the mods just let everyone fight it out first and then start handing out bans once people finally lose their cool. It's not how it should work, and I'm trying not to say anything even harsher because, let's be real, the moderators are just itching to use their power, especially on this subforum where we call out their (lack of) work. Power goes to your head, and clearly, none of these mods are immune to that kind of ego.

shadowpanther26 said:Simply closing a thread isn't a solution if offensive posts are left standing. Doesn't such an approach merely fuel further debate and pour gasoline on the fire? Personally, I found the topic quite engaging; although I didn't participate directly, I followed the discussion closely. In my view, I didn't see any posts that were truly offensive toward Christians, yet I observed a significant number of comments targeting homosexuals and those who support their rights. Is it really an insult to call someone homophobic? I would argue it isn't, just as I don't believe it is an insult to label someone a clerical right-winger (an accusation one user received, likely from Ryan Vaughn7 himself). However, I do believe calling someone a Catholic Taliban, a pervert, an idiot, or a fool constitutes an insult—yet these terms are frequently permitted, especially when directed at individuals whom a certain moderator favors. This bias is quite apparent, which is why I rarely comment; I am the type of person who loses my temper easily and reacts immediately when insulted, whereas the moderators seem to allow people to bicker first, only to hand out bans rudely once someone finally snaps. Is this not a flawed way to manage things? I refrain from using harsher language because, of course, the moderators are practically waiting to exercise their authority, particularly in this subforum where their (lack of) work is being criticized. Power is intoxicating, after all, and it seems even the moderators aren't immune to egoism.

How wonderful, a new hierarchy of insults according to Arcanum: everything said by the pro-marriage referendum side is categorized as a top-tier, worst-case offense, while the terms used so sweetly and innocently by the anti-referendum side—such as fascists, clerofascists, or backwards hillbillies 😍—are viewed as something lovely that everyone looks upon with affection.

Your logic is reminiscent of a preschooler; it is very kind of you to refrain from joining the fray, and I thank you for that. 😉

On another note, is there anyone here willing to speak up regarding the opening of the marriage referendum thread in the Politics section?

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Anyway, is anyone here actually going to weigh in on opening up a thread about the marriage referendum under the marriage referendum policy?

Yeah. It stays closed.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It does. It stays closed.

Let’s not be quite so blunt, shall we? Surely there is a way to approach this with more democratic spirit and better arguments.
Why exactly is it staying closed? For how long? What is the actual core of the issue here?

Maybe it’s worth giving our dear (so-called) supermoderator a little refresher on the very rules he supposedly swore to uphold when he stepped into this role:

"Anderlon says:
1. Acting condescending, arrogant, cynical, sarcastic, or pulling a 'god complex' admin move while handling appeals on the PŽK is strictly prohibited. (Violators will face card sanctions.)"

👍

Arthur Fowler83 said:Perhaps it would be prudent to remind our esteemed (super)moderator of the very guidelines that led to his appointment in the first place:

"Anderlon says:
1. Condescending, arrogant, cynical, sarcastic, or "I-am-god-mod/admin" behavior is strictly prohibited when handling appeals on the PŽK. (Violations will result in warnings or bans.)"

👍

While those words sound wonderful in principle, one has to wonder how they translate to actual practice. Is that really what is happening here?
Ryan Vaughn7? The PŽK moderators?

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Let's not go there. We could handle this much more democratically and with actual arguments.
Why is it staying closed? For how long? What's the real issue here?

We've already covered this ground over at

Ryan Vaughn7 said:We have already touched upon this subject here

We certainly have, but in the interim, leading constitutional experts have come forward to make their public statements. If I recall correctly, the UIO initiative is set to submit their signatures to Congress this Friday. Isn't it somewhat absurd that debates regarding this particular political discourse are occurring everywhere except within the Politics section of this forum? The interest is immense, the topic remains incredibly timely and significant, and new developments continue to unfold, yet we find ourselves unable to discuss any of it here. How much longer do you intend to keep this thread locked? Is there someone else besides yourself exerting influence over the decision to reopen this discussion?

Furthermore, Arthur Fowler83 was quoting the forum owner, who pointed out that the exact stance you adopted tonight at 10:03 PM is considered unacceptable; I truly hope you understand that such an arrogant and haughty attitude is neither appropriate nor necessary.

Question for Ryan Vaughn7

Yesterday, during that discussion about the constitutionality of the marriage referendum, you handed me a penalty—or points, whatever we're calling them now—but I don't believe it was earned. The subject matter is sensitive, sure, and it’s easy to cross lines, but today my focus remained strictly on the European Central Bank court ruling, given its direct relevance to the topic at hand.

My suggestion? Put some clear ground rules on the first page of that thread regarding how the debate should be conducted. Shutting down discussions like this feels pointless to me.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:We are, but in the meantime, top constitutional experts have already spoken out publicly on this. If I recall correctly, the UIO initiative is submitting signatures to Congress this Friday. People are debating this topic everywhere except here in Politics... isn't that absurd? There's huge interest, the issue is timely and vital, and new developments are happening constantly, yet we can't talk about it in Politics. How long do you plan on keeping this thread locked? Is there someone else besides you pulling the strings to keep this topic closed?

There's a dedicated thread regarding the constitutionality of the marriage referendum. As for the referendum itself, there's nothing new to report other than endless bickering, so the topic will remain locked indefinitely.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Also, Arthur Fowler83 was quoting the forum owner, who cited the exact same stance you took tonight at 10:03 PM as being unacceptable. I hope you realize that such an arrogant and condescending attitude isn't welcome here, nor is it necessary.

I don't get it.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:There is a dedicated thread regarding the constitutionality of the marriage referendum. As for the referendum itself, there hasn't been any significant news to report yet—just endless bickering and noise—so I am going to lock this topic until further notice.

I find myself at a complete loss. I simply cannot wrap my head around it.

Is anyone else besides you involved in the decision to open this thread?

I am truly sorry that you fail to grasp how an arrogant and condescending attitude is neither appropriate nor acceptable in this space. Honestly, you should probably just take a penalty; you’ve certainly earned it.

neoncobra said:A quick question for Ryan Vaughn7
Yesterday, during that discussion about the legality of the referendum on same-sex marriage, you flagged me (or gave me points, whatever we're calling it these days). Honestly, I don't think I earned it. It’s a sensitive topic, sure, and lines can get blurred, but today I stayed strictly focused on the European Court ruling because it actually relates to the core issue.

To be fair, you and Roy got a little carried away with some ad hominem attacks against that other guy. I don't have an issue with the ruling itself, but things drifted pretty far from the point.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Is there anyone besides you who's interfering with how this thread was opened?

Yes.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:I am truly sorry you don't realize that being arrogant and condescending isn't appropriate, acceptable, or welcome here. Just give yourself a flag; you earned it.

I still don't quite understand why you're calling me stuck-up.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:To be perfectly honest, you and Roy have both strayed into making personal attacks against that other individual. While I don't hold any particular grievance against the ruling itself, you both seem to have wandered quite far afield from the actual legal point.

There is.

I still find myself wondering why you insist on labeling me as arrogant.

Who exactly holds that authority? I am calling upon those who do to coordinate with you and perhaps the other moderators over in the Politics section to reopen this contentious thread, given all the reasons I previously outlined.

Arrogant. And please, let's not engage in trolling.

You are essentially creating extra work for the moderators, who, in my humble opinion, ought to be issuing sanctions for your posts on this topic tonight.