Something I've never seen before...

Well, I just finished posting this over on the Alternative board, so instead of writing some lengthy introduction, I suppose it’ll be simple enough to just copy the whole thing over here; hopefully, everything will be clear from looking at it...

Here you go:

Ryan Gomez4 said:This is the Alternative board, and you're only allowed to mention these kinds of gods here.

For anything else, go to the Religion board.

This is hands down the most bizarre thing I have EVER read anywhere!!!

I honestly cannot wrap my head around how someone could write something SO ABSURD!!!

If there really is an exception among the gods—one that isn't allowed to be mentioned on the Alternative board—then maybe the only logical criterion, if one were to stretch common sense to its absolute breaking point, would be something like this:
"It is permissible to mention gods that don't exist, but it is forbidden to mention gods that actually exist." Now, if that isn't the rule, then what kind of criterion could possibly exist that has any connection to basic sanity? Some arbitrary standard based on which religious traditions happen to be currently popular?

In the first scenario (using existence vs. non-existence as the metric), such a rule would be a complete perversion of logic, because it's patently obvious that for those who would actually want to enforce such a twisted regulation (and I still find myself hoping this is just some tasteless joke), no god exists at all. So, from that particular perspective, establishing such a rule is an ABSOLUTE NON-SENSE bordering on total PSYCHOPATHY.

In the second case (using current vs. outdated religions, cults, beliefs, etc., as the metric), who exactly is going to act as the authority to meritously decide which religion, cult, or belief system is currently "active" and which one isn't?

If there happens to be a third possibility—some other criterion that is even more deranged than the two hypothetical ones I just laid out—then I’ll take my hat off to you!!!

You call this "Alternative"? Well, give me a break and just let people communicate normally. Up until now, on all the more "serious" alternative boards, it was always a sanctuary where people with various exotic perspectives (read: crazy theories) were regularly welcomed. But now you're suggesting that the Alternative board is no longer that place where outcasts of all stripes can breathe? Are we supposed to organize some special sub-board just for them or something?

Wasn't it enough for you when you tried to dictate the specific number of letters I'm allowed to type in a single post?

And now you're going to decide which god someone is permitted to mention in this sacred space called Alternative, and which ones aren't?

You've practically pushed me to the point where I might have to open a thread about this on the FBI website... seriously, bravo... I've seen and experienced plenty on this forum, but this truly warrants an FBI investigation... it feels like you aren't leaving me any other choice...

And finally, even if such a twisted rule did exist, how on earth would you know which god I am mentioning, or rather, which god I am thinking of?

QUESTION:

Is a moderator allowed to harass a forum member by counting their letters and words in every post, and then, on top of all that, dictating which type of deity they are allowed or not allowed to mention in a highly esteemed and illustrious place like the Alternative board???

Thanks!

Ryan Gomez4 said:You forgot you actually joined this thread because of the Nibiru discussion. If the connection between those gods I linked you to and Nibiru isn't clicking, then you clearly don't know much about it.

And nobody wants massive walls of text on any PDF, especially when we're dealing with entire series.

I suppose if the link between everything in existence and the Creator isn't apparent to you, then it follows that you truly don't understand anything, and everything you think you know is just some skewed dystopia where dissenting views are subjected to Orwellian-style forced moderation—to the point where they brutally censor the right to have an opinion. It feels like a system where verbal offenses or labels like "hate speech" are weaponized as terrorist tools to persecute witches—that is to say, anyone who dares to think differently than Big Brother and his robots or cyborgs, those half-humans whose consciousness is nothing more than code written in some computer programming language.

Definition(s)

A dystopia (from the Greek *dys-* and *topos*; alternatively, a cacotopia, [1] or anti-utopia) is a fictional society that serves as the antithesis of a utopia. It is typically characterized by oppressive social control, much like under authoritarian or totalitarian governments. Some academic circles distinguish between anti-utopia and dystopia. Much like Orwell's eighty-fourth or Huxleyan Brave New World, a dystopia does not pretend to be good, whereas an anti-utopia presents itself as a utopia, or is planned as such, but for some reason, the utopian world is destroyed or corrupted.[2] Own research - by Herman Melville

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what your opinion is on anything; you've already demonstrated and proven that your sole purpose here is to terrorize anyone who disagrees with you, and you won't hesitate to use any method—legal or otherwise—to achieve that.

The questions that follow, therefore, are not directed at you, because after seeing who you really are, no one with a shred of common sense would attempt any kind of dialogue with you, given that the very concept of "dialogue" seems to be a complete mystery to you.

I am posing these questions to a higher authority instead:

1. Is a moderator permitted to dictate the length of a user's posts, specifically by setting a maximum character limit per post?

-For instance, when I asked the aforementioned moderator to cite the specific rule regarding maximum character limits per post, she responded to me along the lines of: "If you're writing something off-topic, even a single sentence is too much!" 😲😲😲

-In fact, while participating in the Nibiru thread (as a bit of retaliation for what happened here), I was threatened with a ban if I wrote one more "too long" post. So, according to this logic, I won't be banned if I write something totally irrelevant, but I will be banned if my post happens to be too lengthy. BRAVO!!! I feel like my brain is just melting away, bye bye!!!

2. Is a moderator allowed to forbid someone on this platform from mentioning certain gods or a specific deity, and if so, I kindly request that the specific rule mandating such a prohibition be provided to me???

Joshua Alvarez79 said:I suppose if the link between everything in existence and the Creator isn't apparent to you, then it follows that you truly don't understand anything, and everything you think you know is just some skewed dystopia where dissenting views are subjected to Orwellian-style forced moderation—to the point where they brutally censor the right to have an opinion. It feels like a system where verbal offenses or labels like "hate speech" are weaponized as terrorist tools to persecute witches—that is to say, anyone who dares to think differently than Big Brother and his robots or cyborgs, those half-humans whose consciousness is nothing more than code written in some computer programming language.

Definition(s)

A dystopia (from the Greek *dys-* and *topos*; alternatively, a cacotopia, [1] or anti-utopia) is a fictional society that serves as the antithesis of a utopia. It is typically characterized by oppressive social control, much like under authoritarian or totalitarian governments. Some academic circles distinguish between anti-utopia and dystopia. Much like Orwell's eighty-fourth or Huxleyan Brave New World, a dystopia does not pretend to be good, whereas an anti-utopia presents itself as a utopia, or is planned as such, but for some reason, the utopian world is destroyed or corrupted.[2] Own research - by Herman Melville

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what your opinion is on anything; you've already demonstrated and proven that your sole purpose here is to terrorize anyone who disagrees with you, and you won't hesitate to use any method—legal or otherwise—to achieve that.

The questions that follow, therefore, are not directed at you, because after seeing who you really are, no one with a shred of common sense would attempt any kind of dialogue with you, given that the very concept of "dialogue" seems to be a complete mystery to you.

I am posing these questions to a higher authority instead:

1. Is a moderator permitted to dictate the length of a user's posts, specifically by setting a maximum character limit per post?

-For instance, when I asked the aforementioned moderator to cite the specific rule regarding maximum character limits per post, she responded to me along the lines of: "If you're writing something off-topic, even a single sentence is too much!" 😲😲😲

-In fact, while participating in the Nibiru thread (as a bit of retaliation for what happened here), I was threatened with a ban if I wrote one more "too long" post. So, according to this logic, I won't be banned if I write something totally irrelevant, but I will be banned if my post happens to be too lengthy. BRAVO!!! I feel like my brain is just melting away, bye bye!!!

2. Is a moderator allowed to forbid someone on this platform from mentioning certain gods or a specific deity, and if so, I kindly request that the specific rule mandating such a prohibition be provided to me???

Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

Joshua Alvarez79 said:I suppose if the link between everything in existence and the Creator isn't apparent to you, then it follows that you truly don't understand anything, and everything you think you know is just some skewed dystopia where dissenting views are subjected to Orwellian-style forced moderation—to the point where they brutally censor the right to have an opinion. It feels like a system where verbal offenses or labels like "hate speech" are weaponized as terrorist tools to persecute witches—that is to say, anyone who dares to think differently than Big Brother and his robots or cyborgs, those half-humans whose consciousness is nothing more than code written in some computer programming language.

Definition(s)

A dystopia (from the Greek *dys-* and *topos*; alternatively, a cacotopia, [1] or anti-utopia) is a fictional society that serves as the antithesis of a utopia. It is typically characterized by oppressive social control, much like under authoritarian or totalitarian governments. Some academic circles distinguish between anti-utopia and dystopia. Much like Orwell's eighty-fourth or Huxleyan Brave New World, a dystopia does not pretend to be good, whereas an anti-utopia presents itself as a utopia, or is planned as such, but for some reason, the utopian world is destroyed or corrupted.[2] Own research - by Herman Melville

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what your opinion is on anything; you've already demonstrated and proven that your sole purpose here is to terrorize anyone who disagrees with you, and you won't hesitate to use any method—legal or otherwise—to achieve that.

The questions that follow, therefore, are not directed at you, because after seeing who you really are, no one with a shred of common sense would attempt any kind of dialogue with you, given that the very concept of "dialogue" seems to be a complete mystery to you.

I am posing these questions to a higher authority instead:

1. Is a moderator permitted to dictate the length of a user's posts, specifically by setting a maximum character limit per post?

-For instance, when I asked the aforementioned moderator to cite the specific rule regarding maximum character limits per post, she responded to me along the lines of: "If you're writing something off-topic, even a single sentence is too much!" 😲😲😲

-In fact, while participating in the Nibiru thread (as a bit of retaliation for what happened here), I was threatened with a ban if I wrote one more "too long" post. So, according to this logic, I won't be banned if I write something totally irrelevant, but I will be banned if my post happens to be too lengthy. BRAVO!!! I feel like my brain is just melting away, bye bye!!!

2. Is a moderator allowed to forbid someone on this platform from mentioning certain gods or a specific deity, and if so, I kindly request that the specific rule mandating such a prohibition be provided to me???

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

Wonderful! Would you be so kind as to, in light of what you've just stated, go back and review the posts I've written over the last ten pages or so in the "Nibiru" thread—on the alternative board, naturally—and perhaps offer your esteemed opinion on whether the accusations made by moderator Ryan Gomez4 regarding my "excessively long posts" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are actually justified, especially considering her threats that if I were to follow up with another long post (again, whatever that signifies to her), I would face a severe ban, which she so vividly described as "the deadly spell"???

rustydrifter10 said:Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

The same question applies here; would you be so kind as to find the time and patience to read post #9219 and judge whether it is appropriate to mention God within the context of something as mysterious as the "Nibiru" phenomenon? I mean, shouldn't we allow for interpretations involving the intertwining of higher dimensions or supernatural influences? In that sense, wouldn't it be legitimate to draw connections between the Nibiru phenomenon and the well-documented "Miracle of the Sun," an event witnessed by many—including several confirmed atheists—that occurred exactly as predicted in Fatima back in 1917, an event that has inspired countless books, newspaper articles, and films?

To make things easier for you, I'll leave a link to post #9219 right here:
http://www.example-us-forum.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=9219

Moderation isn't just about playing hall monitor and deleting posts; it’s about steering the conversation in the right direction. I don't enjoy handing out sanctions, but you just won't listen to warnings. You're insulting other users and trying to bully your views onto everyone else through sheer word count instead of actual arguments. To top it off, you're commenting on the moderation itself, which is totally off-topic.

If someone starts a new thread with a massive wall of text exceeding 10,000 characters, we won't make a scene—we'll just send a DM letting them know it's not ideal. But flooding an existing thread with multiple posts per page using your usual repetitive style? That's a hard no. It's just too much repetition.

And then you have the nerve to claim you aren't disrupting the discussion.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

🤣

Fine. Why don't we just go ahead and kick every single atheist out of religious discussions since they aren't "in the spirit" of the PDF?

Amanda Diaz, nobody is forcing believers off the alternative PDF sites. But like one of the guys here pointed out, there’s a clear attempt to pivot the conversation from Nibiru to the Messiah.

Ryan Gomez4 said:Amanda Diaz, nobody is forcing believers off the alternative PDF sites. But like one of the guys here pointed out, there’s a clear attempt to pivot the conversation from Nibiru to the Messiah.

I didn't even say that.🤷 What's happening on those other sites doesn't matter for my point; I was just following up on the fact that a moderator can kick someone if they aren't sticking to the spirit of the forum.

Makes for a pretty ridiculous situation, doesn't it?

It’s not a joke. It happened to me as just another regular user on an old forum—I eventually stopped posting there because the mods were constantly breathing down my neck. Not for breaking rules, mind you, but just for going against the "spirit" of the sub. They never gave me a formal strike, they just kept deleting my posts. That was a long time ago, but I still stay far away from that place.

There's an old American saying: don't walk into someone else's house and try to tell them how to run their kitchen.

I'm glad we're on the same page about this: piling on more and more rules just leads to even more stupidity on this forum.👍

Ryan Gomez4 said:You forgot you actually joined this thread because of the Nibiru discussion. If the connection between those gods I linked you to and Nibiru isn't clicking, then you clearly don't know much about it.

And nobody wants massive walls of text on any PDF, especially when we're dealing with entire series.

Look, I’ve gotta say it—and I’m saying this as someone who's been lurking on one of the biggest conspiracy sites on the web for years—way too many people argue that Nibiru is just a metaphor for the second coming of Jesus aka Wormwood. You really only have to Google it to see that theory everywhere.

It's a huge theme within Abrahamic religions (YHWH, prophets, messiahs, etc.), which makes them such massive targets for alternative theories and conspiracy forums.

Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it right. But honestly, that's not even the point here. The real issue is that despite everyone else complaining and the moderator stepping in, this user is still turning the thread into their own personal blog.

Ryan Gomez4 said:Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it right. But honestly, that's not even the point here. The real issue is that despite everyone else complaining and the moderator stepping in, this user is still turning the thread into their own personal blog.

What exactly do you mean by a "correct" theory regarding Nibiru?🤣

Anyway, I thought the user was actually complaining about this:

This is a PDF alternative site; you're only allowed to mention gods like these here.

For everything else, go check out the PDF religion sites.

I mean, come on, what kind of "rule" is that? If it isn't about the rules and it's just people whining on a blog, then whatever.

It’s hilarious when people cherry-pick quotes without actually reading the thread. Everyone else here totally gets my point—they even tried to back me up to the moderator—but this guy just keeps playing dumb and whining.

Besides, every subforum has its own specific rules and moderation style. We’ve been over this a thousand times: you can't apply the standards from one section to another.

If I start arguing against the whole Nibiru and second coming nonsense, I'll get flagged for being way off-topic. This isn't the place for that kind of debate. If someone really wants to go down that rabbit hole, they should just start a new thread in a forum where those topics actually belong.

I’ve just been slapped with another 30 penalty points for commenting on the moderation regarding the Nibiru thread—which is technically outside the designated area for such things—and I suppose that would be perfectly fine if other forum members had also been penalized on the same grounds. After all, plenty of other users were busy critiquing the moderation choices made by Ryan Gomez4 long before I ever stepped in, essentially calling for moderator intervention because they couldn't manage to muster even a single coherent counterargument regarding the actual merits of the topic, much like my own comments.

However, the idea of penalizing those other users—given that calling for a moderator to provoke me by imposing non-existent rules wouldn't just drive me away and free up space for this endless "discussion" at the level of "we are right because we claim something is true simply because we say it is"—was never even considered by the powers that be. In fact, the people who demanded another user be removed simply because they lack the basic capacity to read what is written, vet the links provided, or even contemplate the meaning of an argument (let alone engage in actual counter-argumentation), were actually accommodated. It seems their irrational, almost terrorist-like demands were met with a form of psychological terror that lacks any basis in existing rules, especially since there aren't even any such rules written down anywhere.

And while we are on the subject of terrorization:

The question was whether a moderator has the right to dictate the character count of a user's individual post, and if so, based on which specific rule?

We didn't receive an answer from rustydrifter10, to whom the question was directed. Consequently, the answer is quite obvious, and it is this: NO, THEY CANNOT, BECAUSE NO SUCH RULE EXISTS! When the administrator remains silent, it effectively means the answer is "no" from the moderator's perspective; that is simply how things work on this forum, and honestly, how things tend to work within the FBI or similar institutions in general. If a colleague acting in a partisan manner commits a transgression, we might eventually deign to shout, "LET THE AUTHORITIES DO THEIR JOBS," but when we ourselves are meant to be that very institution tasked with doing its job, we end up playing dumb. Because if a moderator engages in terror by imposing imaginary rules, they are still the moderator, and the one being terrorized—the common forum user—is deemed unworthy of any just redress, even at a purely formal or declaratory level....

What Ryan Gomez4 had to say in response to that same question back then was this: "If you write something that isn't relevant to the topic, then even a single sentence is too many!!!" BRAVO, COLUMBUS!!! The only thing Columbus failed to address—and it was the very thing he was asked—is what the maximum character limit per post should be if I am writing IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOPIC???

Furthermore, rustydrifter10 was most graciously requested to review my posts from the moment this thread opened and looking back two weeks (since I began participating in the Nibiru thread) to see if my lengthy posts were actually on-topic or not! The REVIEW has perhaps already taken place, which would explain the total lack of reaction, GIVEN that it was likely found that my posts ALONE were HEAVILY relevant to the topic, WHEREAS THE POSTS OF OTHER USERS WERE RELATED TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE TOPIC. Therefore, the posts of those users, which consisted MOSTLY OF INSULTS AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS, really ought to have been sanctioned according to Columbus's (Ryan Gomez4's) rule, which states: if you write about something unrelated to the topic, then even one word is too many, wouldn't you agree?

The question regarding the selection of gods that may or may not be mentioned in that massive PDF of alternatives is so bizarre that the reasoning behind problematizing SOMETHING SO UNPRECEDENTED should probably require the assistance of specialists from the appropriate government agencies...

What is clear even without the help of specialists from federal agencies is that it is ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE to draw connections between the Nibiru phenomenon and interpretations of that phenomenon where supernatural cosmogonical beings appear as main characters. Even Columbus himself (Ryan Gomez4) claims this! But alas, according to Columbus, only the Christian God is not a legitimate supernatural cosmogonical being BECAUSE (according to him) the Christian God is a MAINSTREAM GOD, and the mere fact that He is a MAINSTREAM GOD disqualifies Him from being comparable to the other cosmogonical beings that, according to the profound and scholarly conclusions of Columbus, are indeed permitted to be mentioned in a thread of such exceptional socio-political, socio-economic, historical, cultural, and philosophical significance as Nibiru.

Where is that universal-sized facepalm I was promised?

P.S. I suppose if I had actually penned a post like this within the Nibiru thread—even though it would have been perfectly, surgically relevant to the topic—I probably would’ve just been banned under some arbitrary, made-up rule claiming that excessively long posts won't be tolerated. It's funny because, if you look back at that Nibiru discussion, those lengthy posts were the ONLY ones actually addressing the actual merits of the argument, while every other single post that went unsanctioned was composed EXCLUSIVELY of insults and petty ad hominem attacks!!! 🙂

It’s clearly been tested and confirmed as the absolute truth, which is exactly why we see this constant, agonizing outcry from the administrators!!!

Joshua Alvarez79 said:I’ve just been slapped with another 30 penalty points for commenting on the moderation regarding the Nibiru thread—which is technically outside the designated area for such things—and I suppose that would be perfectly fine if other forum members had also been penalized on the same grounds. After all, plenty of other users were busy critiquing the moderation choices made by Ryan Gomez4 long before I ever stepped in, essentially calling for moderator intervention because they couldn't manage to muster even a single coherent counterargument regarding the actual merits of the topic, much like my own comments.

However, the idea of penalizing those other users—given that calling for a moderator to provoke me by imposing non-existent rules wouldn't just drive me away and free up space for this endless "discussion" at the level of "we are right because we claim something is true simply because we say it is"—was never even considered by the powers that be. In fact, the people who demanded another user be removed simply because they lack the basic capacity to read what is written, vet the links provided, or even contemplate the meaning of an argument (let alone engage in actual counter-argumentation), were actually accommodated. It seems their irrational, almost terrorist-like demands were met with a form of psychological terror that lacks any basis in existing rules, especially since there aren't even any such rules written down anywhere.

And while we are on the subject of terrorization:

The question was whether a moderator has the right to dictate the character count of a user's individual post, and if so, based on which specific rule?

We didn't receive an answer from rustydrifter10, to whom the question was directed. Consequently, the answer is quite obvious, and it is this: NO, THEY CANNOT, BECAUSE NO SUCH RULE EXISTS! When the administrator remains silent, it effectively means the answer is "no" from the moderator's perspective; that is simply how things work on this forum, and honestly, how things tend to work within the FBI or similar institutions in general. If a colleague acting in a partisan manner commits a transgression, we might eventually deign to shout, "LET THE AUTHORITIES DO THEIR JOBS," but when we ourselves are meant to be that very institution tasked with doing its job, we end up playing dumb. Because if a moderator engages in terror by imposing imaginary rules, they are still the moderator, and the one being terrorized—the common forum user—is deemed unworthy of any just redress, even at a purely formal or declaratory level....

What Ryan Gomez4 had to say in response to that same question back then was this: "If you write something that isn't relevant to the topic, then even a single sentence is too many!!!" BRAVO, COLUMBUS!!! The only thing Columbus failed to address—and it was the very thing he was asked—is what the maximum character limit per post should be if I am writing IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOPIC???

Furthermore, rustydrifter10 was most graciously requested to review my posts from the moment this thread opened and looking back two weeks (since I began participating in the Nibiru thread) to see if my lengthy posts were actually on-topic or not! The REVIEW has perhaps already taken place, which would explain the total lack of reaction, GIVEN that it was likely found that my posts ALONE were HEAVILY relevant to the topic, WHEREAS THE POSTS OF OTHER USERS WERE RELATED TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE TOPIC. Therefore, the posts of those users, which consisted MOSTLY OF INSULTS AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS, really ought to have been sanctioned according to Columbus's (Ryan Gomez4's) rule, which states: if you write about something unrelated to the topic, then even one word is too many, wouldn't you agree?

The question regarding the selection of gods that may or may not be mentioned in that massive PDF of alternatives is so bizarre that the reasoning behind problematizing SOMETHING SO UNPRECEDENTED should probably require the assistance of specialists from the appropriate government agencies...

What is clear even without the help of specialists from federal agencies is that it is ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE to draw connections between the Nibiru phenomenon and interpretations of that phenomenon where supernatural cosmogonical beings appear as main characters. Even Columbus himself (Ryan Gomez4) claims this! But alas, according to Columbus, only the Christian God is not a legitimate supernatural cosmogonical being BECAUSE (according to him) the Christian God is a MAINSTREAM GOD, and the mere fact that He is a MAINSTREAM GOD disqualifies Him from being comparable to the other cosmogonical beings that, according to the profound and scholarly conclusions of Columbus, are indeed permitted to be mentioned in a thread of such exceptional socio-political, socio-economic, historical, cultural, and philosophical significance as Nibiru.

Where is that universal-sized facepalm I was promised?

P.S. I suppose if I had actually penned a post like this within the Nibiru thread—even though it would have been perfectly, surgically relevant to the topic—I probably would’ve just been banned under some arbitrary, made-up rule claiming that excessively long posts won't be tolerated. It's funny because, if you look back at that Nibiru discussion, those lengthy posts were the ONLY ones actually addressing the actual merits of the argument, while every other single post that went unsanctioned was composed EXCLUSIVELY of insults and petty ad hominem attacks!!! 🙂

It’s clearly been tested and confirmed as the absolute truth, which is exactly why we see this constant, agonizing outcry from the administrators!!!

Well, you've already been given an answer:

rustydrifter10 said:Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

As for all those other questions you had, the supermod will be stepping in to address those. I’m only going to jump back into the conversation as an admin if I actually have something extra to contribute or if I find myself disagreeing with the assessment provided by Luna.

Goodness, where do I even begin?

First off—regarding the admins in the chat—that sentence you used to kick off this complaint was actually pretty simple: stick to the topic.
The topic is Nibiru over on the Alternative subforum.
Even though I realized immediately that it was just a warning about going off-topic, I still spent the last two hours—thanks to HRK who is earning 🙄—digging through that thread and everything you guys wrote there.
So, let me clarify one more time: the issue isn't really about you mentioning a "wrong" god. The actual problem is that you wrote extensively about something that the thread isn't even aiming toward. A moderator's job is to steer the discussion, and that’s exactly what she did.

Now, while I understood that the warning was about being off-topic, I see how it could have been misinterpreted.
I’ll use this chance to suggest to the mods that they should probably be a bit clearer and more concise when issuing warnings or redirecting threads. It would probably help us avoid these kinds of complaints caused by misunderstandings in the future.

No, it isn't forbidden to mention God on the Alternative forum; we have several threads of a religious nature that fall under "alternative," so it’s basically inseparable from the subject matter.
But this particular thread isn't one of those.

And then there's the character count.
Look, other users on the forum complain about your writing style too. Your posts often feel like blog entries. To put it bluntly: your long-winded posts disrupt the flow of the conversation. It doesn't really matter if you hit 6,000 characters or 9,999; what matters is the context of those posts within a specific thread.
In this case, he’s jumping out and bothering everyone, not just some "evil moderator" who is supposedly nitpicking your every move.
If that happens, a moderator can give you a warning, or maybe even a penalty if you ignore the warning.

Just realize that other participants in the thread feel the same way. Is it really pleasant for you to participate in a discussion where your interlocutor tells you they didn't even read your post because it's an unreadable wall of text? It makes no sense—this is a forum, a place for discussion, not a series of monologues!!