sukKi is my favorite leftist on this forum—and I’ll tell you exactly why. Usually, people with political leanings on either side of the aisle behave like they've lost all capacity for nuance; if it involves their own "side," they’re ready to defend it to the death, acting with a sort of blind fanaticism that completely ignores any shred of critical thought. But not sukKi. Every once in a while, she writes something so devastatingly sharp toward her own crowd that it leaves them reeling—and then you realize she holds a view that is perfectly balanced, precisely because she isn't just parroting whatever some "leader" tells her is the truth.
Now, sukKi—let’s look at that post of yours where I gave you props. I actually need to tear you down a bit first, just so you can feel better about yourself later.
Jerry Rogers6 said:Honestly, this is just pure nonsense—if someone isn't capable of maintaining a coherent line of communication with the administration, they should just go find themselves a different subreddit to hang out in.
Furthermore, I can't help but feel like this is just another predictable thread in an endless cycle of repetitive topics. Déjà vu. Again. Who exactly is trying to step in and meddle with policy regulation? That’s really the core question here—who is primarily pushing for that kind of interference?
Look, I’m not going to dive into all the granular details right now—that’s a conversation for another time. I'll just say this: if we want this PDF to actually turn into something meaningful, it comes down to individual effort. If everyone who actually gives a damn about this takes the initiative to contribute, we can significantly boost the quality of the final document. It’s really about personal accountability here—improving the caliber of our own input while showing a bit more respect for perspectives that don't align with our own.
Look, it wouldn’t hurt to take a step back and look at how people approach this whole thing—honestly. We really need to address the general mindset here. If the individuals who are so desperate to carve their names into the margins of historical fact would just realize that certain eras are already settled, documented, and universally accepted, we might actually get somewhere. Instead, we have people constantly trying to rewrite the past—essentially forcing modern biases onto history like they're trying to reshape reality itself—all while aggressively fabricating some imaginary version of the future. If everyone stopped trying to "re-interpret" what’s already been decided and stuck to the actual record, this entire PDF would finally be able to breathe. It would be a much healthier discussion if we weren't constantly fighting against people's attempts to bend the truth to fit their current agendas.
When you approach political engagement through aggressive interventions—essentially trying to force everyone into a single, "correct" way of thinking—you basically guarantee your own isolation. It’s a self-defeating cycle: anyone who falls for that style of dogmatic shouting is ultimately just left stumbling around in the dark, unable to see the reality of the situation. Meanwhile, any actual, thoughtful conversationalist worth their salt is going to walk away, looking for an opponent who actually values a real debate over a forced monologue.
The mods and the admin team aren't actually to blame for why we can't have a decent, high-quality conversation here—it’s not their job to fix the culture. At the end of the day, real dialogue starts with the individual. If you want better discussions, you have to start by being a better participant yourself.
slywolf45 said:comment section ftw. 👍
God, the arrogance. Do you ladies honestly think what you just said was clever? Aren't you essentially just blowing your own horns, trying to sound smart by being condescending? It’s the easiest way to stroke your own ego—just point out someone else's flaws to make yourself look superior.
But let’s get down to the actual human element here. Someone might struggle to deal with administration for a dozen different reasons. Maybe they can't stand authority figures, maybe they don't know how to swallow their pride and ask for understanding, or maybe they just don't want to appear different from the persona they present online.
On top of that (shoutout to jevgenija for this thought—you hit the nail on the head), they might not know the rules, they might not understand the social dynamics of the forum, or they simply don't realize they're approaching an appeal from the entirely wrong angle. And what happens then? Are their legitimate grievances suddenly worth less? Are the mistakes made against them suddenly justified just because they failed to follow the "proper procedure" when filing a complaint?
Give me a break, ladies. Get a grip.
Anyway, sukKi, looking at the person signing off on your sentiment, I couldn't expect anything better—she’s a walking ego trip—but you actually surprise me. You fell right into the trap of picking a side based on things you later contradict in the same post. But I have to ask you, as a leftist: where did that fight for the disenfranchised go? Where is the advocacy for those who can't navigate society? This forum is a microcosm of society, isn't it? And aren't the people who need help most actually the ones you *should* be fighting for? The people who *do* know how to talk to administration don't need you or any other activist; it's the others who truly need support. Think about it—honestly, you were one of the few people I actually considered as a potential candidate for an advocate. You have a brain that functions independently, and you don't just bow to dogma; you'll even take the opposing side if the facts demand it. Administration, hands off—she is definitely not going to be a moderator! Honestly, it's your own fault for not seeing that yourselves.
Furthermore, it strikes me that this is merely yet another thread in a long sequence of (:deja vu: ) attempts to meddle in the governance of policy—primarily
. Now, I won't descend into the granular details just yet; I will simply state that this PDF would be best managed if everyone possessing both the desire and the willpower to contribute actually worked on improving their own quality of posting, as well as their capacity for respecting opposing viewpoints.
Of course, this is tied to politics—that is the specific sub-forum I follow most closely. Let’s use some examples, and then we can tie everything back to that concept where a moderator takes action based on the principle of "anything goes as long as it justifies the A/SM confirmation."
Regarding the politics section, the atmosphere there has been stagnant for years. I haven't posted there in several years, but that certainly doesn't mean I haven't been watching. What has become glaringly obvious lately is that a certain group has taken hold—people who don't always harbor the most honorable intentions and who essentially engage in a form of debate-smothering. I touched upon this in my own appeal, but I have no desire to turn this entire thread into a personal vendetta regarding how the moderators have treated me, because that isn't what this is about. However, I must address them—specifically, how they serve the purpose of this topic, which is an attempt to resolve a concrete issue through vague, sweeping corrections to the forum's logic. The fundamental problem with the politics section is that no one in administration actually manages it. They view it as a terrain that is far too difficult to moderate, so they stay out of it—except for the super-moderator tasked with that sector, and in my estimation, he lacks the necessary qualities for such a role. He functions exclusively by doing exactly what darkhawk described so eloquently: finding excuses for moderator decisions simply because they are "of a different political persuasion"—and thus, any move he makes regarding moderation policy will be perceived as hostile by the other moderators. Consequently, he resorts to making excuses just to maintain some semblance of coexistence within the hidden spaces of the forum's administrative work. He suffers from a sort of self-censorship that prevents him from being objective; he cannot look at a post purely through a moderator's lens—asking himself: "Would I delete or sanction this if I stumbled upon it myself?"
That is the only question he *should* be asking, but that is where the train of thought veers off track. Instead, he wonders why a certain moderator deleted his post, tries to psychoanalyze their motives, and since almost all the moderators hold opposing political views to his own, he filters everything through the lens of not wanting to harm them with his own political stances. He injects that whole "coexistence" background noise into the mix, resulting in a convoluted mess of thoughts that bears no relation to the original question: "Would I have deleted/sanctioned this if I were the one who found it?"
As for the rest of the moderator team handling politics, they are quite simply not the best this forum has to offer right now. In my view, they are relics of the past, and times have moved on. And if they are indeed relics, I suppose I must look back into the past.
So, let us look at history. Some time ago, an excerpt from the blog of a man who is today extremely powerful and influential—though he didn't exactly write pleasant things—would frequently appear in the politics section. One user took an excerpt and posted it in a thread about Barack Obama. The moderators deleted it several times. The user posted it again, and the reason given for the deletion was that it had nothing to do with Obama and was merely an attempt to smear him as some sort of... well, you get the idea. Later on (as has happened many times before), a major news magazine picked up those very blog excerpts and wrote an extensive feature on the man. When that user finally pulled that news article and posted it on the forum, it was deleted once again. The admin at the time eventually reinstated it after an appeal.
Today, that very individual whom the user was so persistent about—and his writings on his blog—are top-tier media topics. Today, the mainstream media has "discovered" him, and people are discussing it everywhere. Yet, on this forum, we were talking about it—get this—four years ago!
That user was persistent, and thank goodness he was. How many others, after facing a few such actions, simply give up and stop insisting? How many lack that impulse for defiance and aren't quite as driven, instead succumbing to self-censorship and causing the forum to lose valuable material?
The issue is that the moderators who were deleting those posts back then are still in the exact same positions today. The problem is that they are still deleting.
sukKi, where has this user gone?
Why hasn't anyone said anything about the deletion of that user's post in this thread?
The female user in question—honestly—goes way beyond your little suggestions regarding "approach." She’s always measured, she stands her ground, and frankly, I have yet to see a single one of her posts stray from what this site generally expects. If anything, she’s operating at a level far above the standard here.
also, working on your general approach wouldn't hurt, for instance...
There are plenty of other users out there—I won't go dragging them all into this or cluttering the thread with specific names—but their approach isn't "wrong," they just happen to hold different views. As for the user I mentioned earlier, he doesn't post anymore. I actually know why—he simply can't be bothered to fight with the moderation team. The lady whose post was nuked explained it perfectly in a later discussion:
If I were more stubborn, I would have insisted on a legitimate reason for the deletion and a precise citation of which rule I supposedly broke—or, failing that, demanded the post be restored.
But since I’m not, I find myself visiting this forum with less and less enthusiasm. This whole incident has certainly contributed to my growing skepticism about whether participating here is even worth the effort...
And that is precisely why I believe having a "defender" within the community is vital. Most people aren't looking for a fight; they don't want to waste their energy battling moderators, so they just walk away. I've said it before: run a poll among the users in the politics section. Ask them how many feel that certain moderator actions against them are unfair, yet they haven't bothered to complain because they feel powerless to change anything. I remember a few years back, complaints were flying everywhere on this site, and now? Look at it—there are virtually no complaints left. After I filed my recent appeal, I received ten private messages from people saying they support me, but telling me not to bother because nothing will ever change.
And why don't they protest? Because they are painfully aware that nothing moves. They realize they can only risk getting banned if they point out that a moderator is acting out of bias rather than serving the actual interests of the community or the platform itself.
Now, for something truly essential. I come to this forum to learn, to refine my own thinking, to hear all sides of an argument, and to read perspectives that differ from my own. Just look at this thread:
*These* are the kinds of threads people actually show up for. These are the discussions you'd send to a close friend; these are the posts and posters we should protect like gems. (By the way, today it was in the main Politics sub-forum, now it's been moved to Near-Politics. In my opinion, this topic absolutely belongs in the main section; despite being a bit niche, it contains ten top-tier political discussions. Moving it is, quite frankly, a bad move.) And what's the issue? Well, I disagree with a lot of what’s said in there, but it forces me to think, to re-evaluate, and to observe things critically. That is exactly why I use this forum. There is no sense in injecting ideology into this and using it as a tool for moderation, because the whole point of a forum is for regular people to express their views and act as the creators of public opinion within their own community. It infuriates me when someone tries to stifle that.
