Evil Mother's moderation on the FBI forum

Edward Fisher86 said:Ar is just the chemical symbol for argon.

If you had just taken two seconds to look it up, you wouldn't be sending people to a psychiatric ward or calling them stubborn idiots.
That’s really all there was to it. It had nothing to do with Nikolin Pišek or Andre Agassi. You clearly weren't paying attention.

What?

Amanda Hughes37 said:Wait... you have to be joking... me trolling?... I posted official documents and explained what every single number meant while others were arguing without a shred of evidence, just repeating lies from some reporter in Split. There was even that ridiculous claim made by the guy who opened this thread after twenty questions—he actually suggested that a number is what it is not because someone measured it and recorded it in books, but because people supposedly "agreed" on it.
As if people just "agree" on how many square feet a building has... imagine that.🤣

Have you been following any of this?... I even asked you privately back then to just get into the spirit of the debate, but nothing.

By what logic did you decide those people were right, especially when you claim your job isn't to judge the merits of the situation?... Where did you get the idea that those thirty people were correct?... Simply because there were more of them?

And then you claim your job is to maintain decent communication.
Clearly, in this instance, besides that job, you've formed your own judgment on the merits, repeated it, and now you're accusing me of trolling... this is becoming unbearable.

Folks... three days ago, all the documents were out and everything was crystal clear.

Now we have at least three denials that the media was finally forced to publish because they've hit a wall and have nothing left to say... they were lying and making things up, one after another.

Trolling is when you just keep dragging out the same drama over and over again on one single topic, basically spamming old posts. And you're doing it in the wrong thread, too. By the way, you actually got a warning for that, not even just a strike.

Have you been following this at all? I actually reached out to you privately back then and asked if you could just dive into it a bit, but nothing.

Honestly, I feel terrible that I didn't dive into the discussion about Thompson's squares sooner. My deepest apologies.

How exactly did you decide those people were right if you’re claiming it isn't even your job to judge the merits of the situation? Where did you get the idea that those thirty people were correct just because there were more of them?

And then you have the nerve to tell me your job is keeping communication polite.
It’s pretty obvious that you’re doing more than just talking about the job here—you've clearly formed your own personal opinion on the whole matter and you're throwing it back at me, accusing me of trolling. Honestly, this is getting to be too much.

Folks... all the documents were out there for three days straight, and everything was crystal clear.

Now you’ve got at least three denials on the record. The media was finally forced to print them because they're backed into a corner with nothing left to say. They spent all this time lying and making things up, one after another.

Alright, let's do this.
Words can't even describe how much I don't care about Thompson's terrace, the property records, the deed, the neighbors, or the journalists. Because of that, I have zero interest in a court battle over who’s right or wrong.

I let the debate run, even though it was completely off-topic, just to clear out the trash that needed clearing. Meanwhile, you got banned on a totally different subject because you wouldn't stop harping on about Thompson and his terrace. And that’s exactly where I warned you to quit it.

And here we go again. Is this seriously the third or fourth thread where you're bringing up this same question?

Justin Foster45... this is pathetic. Honestly, I think both you and I couldn't care less whose patio looks better or whether Andre Agassi had the right pick-list. And yet, somehow, everyone finds a way to harp on it every once in a while.

Now you’re following the crowd and accusing me of being tedious because I won't let the terrace drama die down.

I didn't drop that story on Trac—someone else did. People were obsessing over it for days without my involvement. My only concern was that I was the first one to point out that the group consensus was wrong—later, someone else agreed. I wasn't "harping" on it; I was reacting to people spreading misinformation and attacking the messenger just because, for once, the guy everyone hates actually turned out to be right.

As for the thread about where to discuss moderation on the FBI forums, I only brought it up because you failed as a moderator. You publicly stated that I’d been told to back off, essentially joining the mob—all while acting like you couldn't care less and have no clue what's going on.
And now you have the nerve to tell me I was suffocating the conversation.

Rude and completely uncalled for.

Alright, just one quick question.
What exactly are you complaining about?

And by the way, there isn't even a thread on the Chicken Coop where you can comment on the moderation.

Justin Foster45 said:What?

Trolling is when you just keep dragging out the same drama over and over again on one single topic, basically spamming old posts. And you're doing it in the wrong thread, too. By the way, you actually got a warning for that, not even just a strike.

Have you been following this at all? I actually reached out to you privately back then and asked if you could just dive into it a bit, but nothing.

Honestly, I feel terrible that I didn't dive into the discussion about Thompson's squares sooner. My deepest apologies.

How exactly did you decide those people were right if you’re claiming it isn't even your job to judge the merits of the situation? Where did you get the idea that those thirty people were correct just because there were more of them?

And then you have the nerve to tell me your job is keeping communication polite.
It’s pretty obvious that you’re doing more than just talking about the job here—you've clearly formed your own personal opinion on the whole matter and you're throwing it back at me, accusing me of trolling. Honestly, this is getting to be too much.

Folks... all the documents were out there for three days straight, and everything was crystal clear.

Now you’ve got at least three denials on the record. The media was finally forced to print them because they're backed into a corner with nothing left to say. They spent all this time lying and making things up, one after another.

Alright, let's do this.
Words can't even describe how much I don't care about Thompson's terrace, the property records, the deed, the neighbors, or the journalists. Because of that, I have zero interest in a court battle over who’s right or wrong.

I let the debate run, even though it was completely off-topic, just to clear out the trash that needed clearing. Meanwhile, you got banned on a totally different subject because you wouldn't stop harping on about Thompson and his terrace. And that’s exactly where I warned you to quit it.

And here we go again. Is this seriously the third or fourth thread where you're bringing up this same question?

Good grief, I am trying to make it clear that this isn't about personal values, it’s about cold, hard facts..

Amanda Hughes37 is over-explaining things so much that you just can't follow her logic.

Essentially, the woman was pointing out a misinterpretation because... well, "a certain figure" refers to square footage.

Forget about what number we're talking about or whose property it actually is for a second; that is completely and utterly irrelevant right now.

Instead, everyone jumped down her throat claiming those weren't squares because blah blah blah.

So she tried explaining once more that "this specific number" represents the square footage, only for them to tell her she needs psychiatric help.

Honestly, Amanda Hughes37 wasn't trolling; it's a miracle they didn't convince her otherwise, given all the talk about lack of education, hacked profiles, psychiatrists, and general idiots.

(And there is still a very real possibility that her assessment of who owns what was actually spot on LOL)

Look, I'm staying out of this from now on, but I can't sit here and watch this nonsense, especially since some people have already seen....

Edward Fisher86 said:Good grief, I am trying to make it clear that this isn't about personal values, it’s about cold, hard facts..

Amanda Hughes37 is over-explaining things so much that you just can't follow her logic.

Essentially, the woman was pointing out a misinterpretation because... well, "a certain figure" refers to square footage.

Forget about what number we're talking about or whose property it actually is for a second; that is completely and utterly irrelevant right now.

Instead, everyone jumped down her throat claiming those weren't squares because blah blah blah.

So she tried explaining once more that "this specific number" represents the square footage, only for them to tell her she needs psychiatric help.

Honestly, Amanda Hughes37 wasn't trolling; it's a miracle they didn't convince her otherwise, given all the talk about lack of education, hacked profiles, psychiatrists, and general idiots.

(And there is still a very real possibility that her assessment of who owns what was actually spot on LOL)

Look, I'm staying out of this from now on, but I can't sit here and watch this nonsense, especially since some people have already seen....

Oh, for goodness' sake...

Look, I’ll explain it to you, because if I have to go one more round trying to make sense to Katherine, I might actually end up on drugs.

I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.

Imagine you have a sister. Both of you share the same mother. Your mother owns a single-story house that covers 100 square feet—basically, the ground floor and the upper level are 50 square feet each. She holds the title outright, 1/1 or 100/100, whatever terminology you prefer. According to the property deed: "The specific deposit belongs to Malčica's mother, owner." 1/1 "The house at this specific address, identified by plot number X, consisting of a ground floor and a second story with a total area of 1,100 square feet." At some point, Malčica's mother passes away because... biology. After the probate process is settled, you and Malčica's sister end up as co-owners, each holding a 1/2 interest in the entire property. It’s not that you each own a separate 550-square-foot chunk; rather, you both hold a half-share of the whole 1,100 square feet. So, on the deed, it now reads: "Edward Fisher86, owner..." 1/2 There are houses around 1,000 square feet at that address; owned by Malčica's sister. 1/2 "Houses at 100 square feet on that specific address." You could write it as 50/100 or 25/50; I suppose it doesn't really matter. The point is, neither of you owns a specific 50-square-foot chunk of the house. Instead, you both hold a fifty-percent stake in the entire 100 square feet.

Look, you two sisters might be on the same page right now, but if you’re thinking about future generations, you really ought to formalize the ownership of that house. Biology eventually catches up with everyone, I guess. The process is pretty straightforward: you hire an engineer to draft a condo map. You pay them a decent amount, and they produce a document stating that the family home at this specific address consists of two units. For example, Floor A-1 is a 50-square-foot ground floor unit with a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom, and Floor B-1 is a 50-square-foot second floor unit with the same layout. Once you have that map and the private agreement you've made between yourselves regarding ownership, you take everything down to the county recorder's office. After about 60 days, the official records will reflect the update, listing Edward Fisher86 as the owner. 1/1 Level A-1, consisting of a 540 sq. ft. ground-floor apartment located at [Address], comprising a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom; per FBI filing [Number], owned by Edward Fisher86. 1/1 "Basement level B-1, consisting of a 50-square-meter unit on the first floor of a single-family home at this specific address, comprising one bedroom, a kitchen, and a bathroom." So, there you have it—both of them are exclusive owners of their own respective fifty square meters.

Katherine doesn't seem to grasp that the whole situation regarding point two in Thompson's case didn't actually happen. Just because the property deed shows he owns three hundred and some change—I'm not going to go digging through the records again—doesn't mean he owns specific square footage. That number just represents his ownership share. Unless the deed explicitly states: "Marko Perković, owner of floor G-8, totaling three hundred-plus square feet, specifically defined as the rooftop terrace at this address, consisting of grass, lawns, small rabbits, and turtles," then Marko Perković isn't the owner of those three hundred square feet of that damn terrace. It’s not going to happen until the residents reach an agreement or until a court issues a final ruling based on a lawsuit that gets recorded in the official registry. Since they're still arguing and fighting over it, Marko Perković simply does not own that rooftop terrace.

It’s worth noting that even if, or perhaps when, Thompson becomes the sole 1/1 owner of the terrace, he still wouldn't be allowed to block emergency access to it.

Justin Foster45 said:I agree with you. USA Today is open specifically for these kinds of topics—things that stir up the public for a few days before fading away. The idea was to "lighten the load" on Gossip. Of course, people still rush to post everywhere, and I can't be on the forum 24/7. So unfortunately, the same topic develops in two places, and if I merge them, the posts get all tangled because they were being written simultaneously, creating a total mess.
Regarding the clinic, I figured the discussion on Gossip would just die out on its own, so I decided to let it be.

I have to correct you there, but the point of a moderator in the Chicken Coop isn't to weigh evidence or decide who's telling the truth. My job is to keep the tone civil and handle technical issues.

Do you honestly think I should be the one deciding if someone is on team Andre Agassi or team Milan, whether Šuputič's husband has a kid, or if the woman from ENI had Milanović's child? And then only allow "the right people" to post based on that?

This is a forum. The name literally tells you—it's for discussion.

As for Jacko—I didn't message you as a moderator, nor did I insult you. I simply repeated what you had already said.

Fair enough. You can't be online 24 hours a day. No one expects that from you. I suppose what would be ideal is for you moderators—and I notice there are about four of you on ZK and Chicken Coop right now—to coordinate how you handle moderation.

The strategy of allowing absolutely everything (unless someone happens to report it) is exactly why discussions are happening everywhere without any real criteria.

Right now, for instance, I’m reading a mountain of posts from self-proclaimed champions of children's rights, while at the same time, the platform allows—and even encourages—people to drag and mock kids whose photos their parents posted online. It's fascinating, in a way.

Justin Foster45 said:I agree with you. USA Today is open specifically for these kinds of topics—things that stir up the public for a few days before fading away. The idea was to "lighten the load" on Gossip. Of course, people still rush to post everywhere, and I can't be on the forum 24/7. So unfortunately, the same topic develops in two places, and if I merge them, the posts get all tangled because they were being written simultaneously, creating a total mess.
Regarding the clinic, I figured the discussion on Gossip would just die out on its own, so I decided to let it be.

I have to correct you there, but the point of a moderator in the Chicken Coop isn't to weigh evidence or decide who's telling the truth. My job is to keep the tone civil and handle technical issues.

Do you honestly think I should be the one deciding if someone is on team Andre Agassi or team Milan, whether Šuputič's husband has a kid, or if the woman from ENI had Milanović's child? And then only allow "the right people" to post based on that?

This is a forum. The name literally tells you—it's for discussion.

As for Jacko—I didn't message you as a moderator, nor did I insult you. I simply repeated what you had already said.

Actually, you did insult me. By repeating those comments, you were building on a string of equally offensive remarks from other users that imply I'm such a lowlife that I could actually take that girl's flirtatious behavior seriously.

Even though it was pretty clear I didn't mean it literally, but was just being sarcastic in response to that absurd comment left by Sandy.

That counts as an insult.

Alex Harris2 said:Oh, for goodness' sake...

Look, I’ll explain it to you, because if I have to go one more round trying to make sense to Katherine, I might actually end up on drugs.

I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.

Imagine you have a sister. Both of you share the same mother. Your mother owns a single-story house that covers 100 square feet—basically, the ground floor and the upper level are 50 square feet each. She holds the title outright, 1/1 or 100/100, whatever terminology you prefer. According to the property deed: "The specific deposit belongs to Malčica's mother, owner." 1/1 "The house at this specific address, identified by plot number X, consisting of a ground floor and a second story with a total area of 1,100 square feet." At some point, Malčica's mother passes away because... biology. After the probate process is settled, you and Malčica's sister end up as co-owners, each holding a 1/2 interest in the entire property. It’s not that you each own a separate 550-square-foot chunk; rather, you both hold a half-share of the whole 1,100 square feet. So, on the deed, it now reads: "Edward Fisher86, owner..." 1/2 There are houses around 1,000 square feet at that address; owned by Malčica's sister. 1/2 "Houses at 100 square feet on that specific address." You could write it as 50/100 or 25/50; I suppose it doesn't really matter. The point is, neither of you owns a specific 50-square-foot chunk of the house. Instead, you both hold a fifty-percent stake in the entire 100 square feet.

Look, you two sisters might be on the same page right now, but if you’re thinking about future generations, you really ought to formalize the ownership of that house. Biology eventually catches up with everyone, I guess. The process is pretty straightforward: you hire an engineer to draft a condo map. You pay them a decent amount, and they produce a document stating that the family home at this specific address consists of two units. For example, Floor A-1 is a 50-square-foot ground floor unit with a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom, and Floor B-1 is a 50-square-foot second floor unit with the same layout. Once you have that map and the private agreement you've made between yourselves regarding ownership, you take everything down to the county recorder's office. After about 60 days, the official records will reflect the update, listing Edward Fisher86 as the owner. 1/1 Level A-1, consisting of a 540 sq. ft. ground-floor apartment located at [Address], comprising a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom; per FBI filing [Number], owned by Edward Fisher86. 1/1 "Basement level B-1, consisting of a 50-square-meter unit on the first floor of a single-family home at this specific address, comprising one bedroom, a kitchen, and a bathroom." So, there you have it—both of them are exclusive owners of their own respective fifty square meters.

Katherine doesn't seem to grasp that the whole situation regarding point two in Thompson's case didn't actually happen. Just because the property deed shows he owns three hundred and some change—I'm not going to go digging through the records again—doesn't mean he owns specific square footage. That number just represents his ownership share. Unless the deed explicitly states: "Marko Perković, owner of floor G-8, totaling three hundred-plus square feet, specifically defined as the rooftop terrace at this address, consisting of grass, lawns, small rabbits, and turtles," then Marko Perković isn't the owner of those three hundred square feet of that damn terrace. It’s not going to happen until the residents reach an agreement or until a court issues a final ruling based on a lawsuit that gets recorded in the official registry. Since they're still arguing and fighting over it, Marko Perković simply does not own that rooftop terrace.

It’s worth noting that even if, or perhaps when, Thompson becomes the sole 1/1 owner of the terrace, he still wouldn't be allowed to block emergency access to it.

As if this has ever happened before—I’m just making things up and recycling documents because I’m clearly losing my mind. And apparently, I'm dealing with the type who thinks the courts just magically register people out of thin air... or that they're rigging numbers... and that those figures aren't set in stone, but some kind of floating squares. Sure, keep driving that narrative.
https://america-danas.com/wp-conten...021/08/t2.jpeg

https://america-danas.com/wp-conten...021/08/t1.jpeg

And then there's ExxonMobil—just as a complete coincidence, right? Following the purchase, they're registered just like the previous owner.

Oh boy, are we really going to start bickering about Thompson's terrace here too?🤦

Look, regarding your complaint: either post the actual thread where Mother's evil insulted you, or just stop making accusations without any proof.
And honestly, her calling you a flirt—just like she’s done with plenty of others—doesn't count as an insult, so it's not grounds for a ban.

Now, what *does* get people sanctioned (though sometimes we just let it slide over at ZK) is when you all start getting into those petty back-and-forth fights where you insult them and they insult you right back.
In those cases, everyone involved usually walks away without a single strike.

As for commenting on kids, people are reacting to photos that were posted publicly—images put out there specifically to bait clicks and comments. When things go too far, though, Mother's evil hands out a card.
You mentioned you don't approve of that approach, but if more users start agreeing with you, I can certainly look into it.

The same logic applies to the moderation over at ZK. It’s always been a bit more laid back than the rest of this forum, allowing for more off-topic chatter and friendly sparring.
From what I gather, that's actually how most of the users over there prefer it.