CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Who's going to screw whom over?

Who's going to screw whom over?

Started by Steven Clark2 · · 👁 5 views · 21 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Steven Clark2shadowseal12steelskipper5Matthew Anderson4Richard Nelson2hiddensailor14Jacob Foster11feraltrucker5cosmicskipper39Morgan Rodriguez57redheron12
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active MemberOP
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#1 ·
This thread is primarily focused on the Religion PDF, though I have a nagging feeling that similar issues might be cropping up in other sections of this forum.

To be specific, I’ve noticed lately that a rather petty game has been gaining momentum among users: "who can get who banned first." I would sincerely appreciate it if the moderators over at Religion could exercise a bit more discretion regarding how penalties are handed out. The entire point of moderation shouldn't be to issue a strike simply because you know the reporter belongs to the "other" ideological camp. It shouldn't matter which side they represent or which user is involved; such behavior is fundamentally senseless.

Furthermore, I believe there needs to be much more scrutiny applied to the justifications provided for certain bans. Honestly, some of these explanations are borderline laughable—they feel almost juvenile. I have encountered a few instances recently that were quite frankly absurd. Moderation shouldn't be about issuing a penalty just because someone pressured a moderator, knows them personally, or maintains a friendly rapport online. The objective should be to facilitate productive discussion, not to engage in a tactical game of "who can trigger a ban first." Currently, when someone from an opposing viewpoint receives a strike (or gets banned after accumulating just three), they essentially just tally up their "points" and claim an away victory. It is utterly pointless.

As users, we really ought to reflect on why we participate in this unnecessary power struggle. What is the purpose of manufacturing grievances or lobbying for a moderator to "punish" someone? I truly urge everyone to relax and move past this constant maneuvering and lobbying. This community—specifically the Religion section—loses its very purpose if moderation is handled this way, or if posts are reported solely out of spite. I don't believe there is any need for this kind of conduct, both from the users and from the moderators, who might want to reconsider their approach to oversight (moderation involves much more than just handing out strikes).
shadowseal12 shadowseal12 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Aug 2010
#2 ·
I honestly don't get how anyone could pull off a setup like that 🤷
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#3 ·
shadowseal12 said:I honestly don't get how anyone can actually get framed with a disciplinary record—it just doesn't make sense to me. 🤷

If I go out of my way to provoke you just to get you to snap and insult me—then yeah, I basically set you up for that penalty.
Look, if you manage to play the victim over some totally harmless comment just to get the moderators to jump down my throat—then you’ve basically handed me a free pass to shut you down.

Religion is such a nasty little minefield when it comes to this stuff. Honestly—back before we even had a formal system for reporting posts or handing out warnings—the book of complaints would’ve been flooded daily with dozens of reports from every single side of the argument. You'd see endless requests to delete threads and constant accusations of bias... and just knowing how people on this forum act, I’m pretty sure now that since anyone can flag a post, the reports are coming in like a damn flood. I bet some users are out there reporting absolutely every single thing their opponent says just because they don't agree with them. I mean, sooner or later, someone is bound to say something that looks like an insult or some other rule violation to a moderator, right?
Once you realize that’s how they play—once you see they're actually going for it—you just have to jump in. You play their game, because honestly? You've got to take them down before they finish tearing you apart.

Religion is a hellhole. It’s just like any other place where heretics open their filthy mouths to insult the zealots—people who, I guess, should probably just pick up whatever weapons are necessary to shut them up for good.
Matthew Anderson4 Matthew Anderson4 Regular
598 messages
joined Jun 2013
#4 ·
steelskipper5 said: If I bait you into insulting me, I’ve basically set you up for a ban.
If you manage to act offended by blowing a harmless comment out of proportion and the mod bites, then you're the one who set me up.

Religion is a total minefield on this topic. Back before we had post reports and bans, the book of complaints would get flooded daily with reports from every side—deletion requests, bias accusations... knowing how people act here, I bet now that since they can report posts, the reports are coming in floods. Some users probably report every single thing anyone they disagree with says. Because sooner or later, someone will find something that looks like an insult or some other violation to a moderator.
And once you realize that's their game, you just play along because you have to take them down before they take you down...

Think you're overthinking it. You aren't at fault if someone loses their cool and starts insulting you, provided your own post doesn't break any rules.

steelskipper5 said: Just like anywhere else where heretics open their filthy mouths to zealots, who have no choice but to use every weapon available to shut them up.

See? Talking about provocations and then boom, you write something like that. 🤣
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active MemberOP
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#5 ·
shadowseal12 said:I honestly cannot wrap my head around how someone could possibly be framed like that. It seems fundamentally impossible to plant such evidence on an individual without some serious level of corruption or systemic failure. 🤷

steelskipper5 essentially laid out the dirty tactics being used over at Religion, and I find myself in complete agreement with his assessment. Honestly, I’m struggling to see the point in posting on Religion under these current conditions. It doesn't feel like a proper discussion board anymore—it's not even a forum in the traditional sense. Instead, it has devolved into a series of lobbying efforts where everyone is just trying to tip the scales, manipulate who gets banned, or figure out how to be subtle enough to dodge a suspension. High-quality contributions are becoming an increasingly rare sight. Perhaps if that entire thread were locked down for a week or two, it might actually cool things off and give some of these users a much-needed reality check.
Richard Nelson2 Richard Nelson2 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Mar 2013
#6 ·
Matthew Anderson4 said:I think you're overreacting a bit. It's not your fault if someone loses their cool and starts throwing insults—as long as your own post isn't breaking any rules, you're fine.

See, you talk all this big game about provocations and then—boom—you go and write this 🤣

I didn't overreact. Since I spend so much time in the Religion sub, I see how things work—it’s obvious people intentionally stir the pot. In Politics, they do it in a way that's pretty blatant, so you just ignore those types. But in Religion, it's more subtle... you can easily slip into off-topic chatter, spamming, or even end up insulting people by accident.
The whole battlefield of ideologies that exist just for the sake of themselves is most intense in Religion—you won't really notice it unless you've been hanging around that board for a while.
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#7 ·
Matthew Anderson4 said:I think you’re overthinking this one—you aren't responsible if someone else loses their cool and starts throwing insults, provided your own post isn't breaking any site rules.

Look, an older brother isn't to blame if he teases his little sibling until they start sobbing and throwing a tantrum—even if the kid ends up getting grounded by their parents. ☕

Trust me, I know how to dance right on the edge of what's allowed just to bait an opponent into crossing the line. I'm speaking from experience here.
See, you talk about provocations and then—boom—you write this 🤣

And that's a provocation?
That's interesting. Because that description could pretty much apply to absolutely everyone involved in this argument.

Yeah, maybe it is a provocation. 😁
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active MemberOP
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#8 ·
Richard Nelson2 said:He didn't miss the point. Since I spend quite a bit of time in the Religion subforum, I can see clearly how things work there. In Politics, they tend to be much more blatant about their tactics, which makes it easy to spot them and just avoid getting into a fight with those types. However, on the Religion board, it’s far more subtle; it’s incredibly easy to accidentally veer into off-topic discussions, spamming, or even end up being insulting when you aren't careful.
The battlefield of ideologies that exist solely for their own sake is most prominent in the Religion section, and you really can't grasp the full scope of it unless you've been lurking there for a while.

And let's not forget the latest announcement from the Religion moderators. They collectively decided that any kind of personal analysis will now result in a 100-point penalty and a three-day ban. Just imagine how incredibly delicate you have to be now when you try to call someone out on something. 😂

I am joking, of course (in that last sentence). Honestly, I think shutting down the Religion board for an entire week might actually help the users realize they've crossed a line. In my experience, increasing the dictatorship of the moderation team is never going to solve the underlying issues. We need something much more radical than a 100-point deduction for saying something to a fellow user that isn't even particularly egregious or offensive.
hiddensailor14 hiddensailor14 Active Member
150 messages
joined Apr 2024
#9 ·
I honestly think we might be reaching the point where it's time to consider moving toward a theocracy😁
Jacob Foster11 Jacob Foster11 Active Member
132 messages
joined Nov 2007
#10 ·
Matthew Anderson4 said:I think you're overthinking this. You aren't at fault just because someone else loses their cool and starts hurling insults, provided your own post doesn't break any rules.

Trolling is defined as posting specifically to provoke an emotional outburst from others or to disrupt a productive, on-topic discussion. This is textbook trolling, it's unwelcome, and it's subject to penalties.
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active MemberOP
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#11 ·
hiddensailor14 said:I honestly believe we are entering an era where a theocracy might be introduced.😁

...which is something I personally dread. In my humble opinion, perhaps now would be an appropriate time to take this entire site offline for a week; truly, no one will suffer if we all just take a brief hiatus. A collective realization regarding our own excesses would likely benefit everyone on these forums.

Jacob Foster11 said:The definition of trolling is engaging in writing specifically designed to provoke intense emotional reactions from others (or to otherwise disrupt productive, on-topic discussion). Therefore, this is textbook trolling, and as such, it is unwelcome and should be subject to sanctions.

Actually, I don't think that is quite the most accurate definition of trolling. Trolling usually aims to divert attention away from the main topic by focusing on trivialities or side issues.
Jacob Foster11 Jacob Foster11 Active Member
132 messages
joined Nov 2007
#12 ·
Steven Clark2 said:Cosmic, that isn't really the most accurate way to define trolling. Trolling usually aims to derail the topic by focusing on side issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

So, what I wrote is the exact definition of trolling.
feraltrucker5 feraltrucker5 Active Member
117 messages
joined Oct 2012
#13 ·
steelskipper5 said:knowing how people act on these internet forums, I’m pretty sure that now that there's a report button, we're going to see a total deluge of reports flooding in, mostly from folks who just can't handle hearing an opinion they don't like. It’s basically a guarantee that someone will take a single sentence, twist it until it looks like a personal insult or some other rule violation, and then hit that report button just to be petty.

It sounds like you’ve had plenty of practice with that little tactic yourself. 🥳
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active MemberOP
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#14 ·
Jacob Foster11 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

So, what I wrote there is the exact definition of trolling.

It is accurate, certainly, but perhaps not exhaustive. We don't need to get overly pedantic about it, but we might as well try to gain some clarity. 🙂 Trolling is primarily about derailing a conversation, disrupting the flow of discussion, or intentionally sabotaging a thread. While I agree with the method you mentioned, I would add that it isn't always strictly "writing specifically to provoke an intense emotional outburst from an interlocutor," even though that is often implied. A troll is also someone who spreads misinformation (usually off-topic) and someone who thrives on the "audience's" reaction to their posts (though they will never admit this publicly). What most moderators fail to realize—as do many regular users—is that simple ignorance or being uninformed is NOT trolling. You see this all the time in classic arenas for mocking people with different worldviews (take a subreddit dedicated to Religion, for example), where if you aren't aware of a certain fact, you find yourself under a barrage of ridicule from those who fancy themselves more enlightened than you, all while being branded a troll. If you are simply uninformed, you are not a troll. You are a troll only if you are deliberately steering the discussion in a completely different direction to undermine the subject at hand.

Similarly, merely disagreeing with another user is NOT trolling, even though my disagreement with you, for instance, might be labeled as trolling from my perspective, which is fundamentally incorrect. It is entirely possible to hold differing views without being trolls.

Taking a sharper tone regarding a topic is also NOT trolling. One can defend their positions with forceful language or firm stances without being classified as a troll.

I have frequently witnessed disciplinary actions justified by claims of "trolling" and similar labels. When one actually examines a post cited for such reasons, it is often laughable (or tragic, depending on how you look at it). Regardless, even though the golden rule states that "the best response to trolling is NOT to respond," we rarely follow that unwritten rule. However, in my experience serving as a user, moderator, and administrator, I know that staying silent is the most effective solution. When you refuse to engage with a troll, they sometimes walk away thinking they’ve backed you into a corner or left you speechless, but sooner or later, you eventually win them over through composure. It is a tried and true method that has never failed me once.

Furthermore, to ensure we stay on track, I believe some form of education or a "Decalogue of Internet Communication" would benefit both users and moderators alike. It would help establish clear distinctions between insults, spamming, trolling, and off-topic remarks, rather than having people rely on mere assumptions or having moderators cave to pressure from a user who has over-analyzed someone else's words. No one loses by gaining more knowledge on this matter; while trolls will always exist and erroneous penalties will occur, we could at least reduce those numbers to a more reasonable level.
shadowseal12 shadowseal12 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Aug 2010
#15 ·
steelskipper5 said:If I bait you into insulting me, I’ve basically set you up for a ban.
But if you manage to play the victim by blowing a harmless comment out of proportion just to trigger a mod, then you’re the one who set me up.

Religion is such a toxic minefield on this board. Back before we had the report button and formal warnings, the book of complaints would get flooded daily with reports from every side—deletion requests, accusations of bias... knowing how people act here, I bet since they can report posts now, the reports are coming in waves. I'm sure some users are just reporting every single post made by anyone they disagree with. Eventually, someone will find something that looks like an insult or a rule violation to a moderator.
And once you realize your opponent is playing that game, you end up playing along just to take them down before they take you out.

The Religion section is a mess. It’s like any other place where non-believers open their mouths against hardliners, leaving the zealots with no choice but to use every dirty trick in the book just to shut them up.

I’d swap out every instance of setting someone up with "planted." If Person A breaks a rule—they get a warning. If Person B uses trolling to plant that violation—Person B gets the warning.

In both scenarios, Person A is responsible for themselves, and Person B is responsible for themselves.
That’s why I don't get how someone can be "set up" for a warning (unless there's some massive site-wide conspiracy to ban specific people, which seems unlikely).
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#16 ·
Jacob Foster11 said:Trolling is basically just posting stuff specifically to bait an emotional reaction out of someone—or just to derail a normal, on-topic conversation. So yeah, that’s classic trolling, it’s unwanted, and it should definitely be subject to sanctions.

The real issue, obviously, is actually proving that kind of intent. I mean, you can't just label every single post that gets a heated response as "trolling," because then you get those clone armies moving in—people reacting bit by bit, splitting up their insults, and eventually you're the one getting banned for supposedly being a troll.

Man, kids, where were you guys back when Lukić was running wild with Religion... this group today is just amateur hour. 😁

And don't even get me started on how everything is considered trolling these days—except for actual trolling. I guess that concept is just harder for the average moderator to grasp than using a ban as a substitute for having a real argument. (Look, I'm not attacking every moderator, but certain subforums really drag the whole average down.)
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#17 ·
Steven Clark2 said:Look, cosmicskipper39, I don't think that's really the best way to define trolling. Usually, trolling is about derailing the conversation—focusing on side issues just to be annoying.

Nah. Trolling can actually start right at the very beginning when someone opens a thread. As long as the post is designed to drag as many people as possible into some pointless argument just to waste their time and drain their emotions, it's trolling.
Starting a thread like "believers stink" over on Religion or "Mexicans belong in the trees" over on Politics is classic trolling, even if it doesn't technically derail the main topic. 😉
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active MemberOP
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#18 ·
I don't see where we're contradicting one another; if anything, it seems our perspectives are quite aligned. But, fair enough.

Look, just browse through the topics in that PDF and you'll realize how many of them really ought to be locked. They either don't fit the scope of the document, they aren't properly structured, or they are just plain nonsensical. A certain amount of order needs to be brought to this chaos.
cosmicskipper39 cosmicskipper39 Active Member
71 messages
joined Jan 2012
#19 ·
I honestly have so much respect for the people on this forum who actually enjoy playing detective to sniff out trolls, clones, and all the other online plagues. You guys act like you want to bring military discipline to a place where literally anyone with a laptop and an internet connection can join. Are you kidding me? Is this forum really supposed to be taken as seriously as everyone is acting in this thread?
Morgan Rodriguez57 Morgan Rodriguez57 Active Member
216 messages
joined Oct 2011
#20 ·
I’m totally on board with what Nick was saying... honestly, the whole situation over in the religion sub is just bizarre and makes zero sense... I couldn't believe my eyes when I read (hi shady 👋) that the mods over there only go after posts that actually get reported... personally, I’ve always felt—and I’ve even mentioned this to a moderator before—that the staff should be proactively policing threads based on the rulebook, using reports just as a helpful heads-up rather than the only trigger... I mean, after getting hit with warnings myself while my debaters walked free because of that exact policy, I finally decided to start playing the game and filing reports too... 🙂 which, honestly, works like a charm—I’ll flag something and within an hour or a day, a red card pops up... 🙏 🤣 😎

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads