CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Request to remove partial content from the Religion PDF

Request to remove partial content from the Religion PDF

Started by Susan Price30 · · 👁 4 views · 10 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Susan Price30Terry Bishop83steelskipper5rustydrifter10Daniel Ward87
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 RegularOP
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#1 ·
I’ve touched on this before, but since that thread was locked—and honestly, I might have been posting in the wrong section anyway 🙂—I’ll just pick up the conversation here...

Is there any chance the previous administration's mistakes could be rectified in my case? Personally, I feel like my partial ban from the religion sub-forum was a rushed decision that never made much sense to me, back then or now.

Regarding the reason given for the restriction, I mentioned it in my previous post, but I'll restate it here:

For instance, I received some bizarre PM at the time claiming I had "clones" active, which was supposedly why I was partially banned. It turns out later that wasn't even the real reason; it was something else entirely, perhaps more subjective or personal.

Could someone please provide an explanation?

To clarify further: since that decision, I haven't posted in the religion sub-forum, nor have I ever attempted to create clones or expressed any desire to do so. The identity of the supposed "clone" responsible for the ban was explained to a former admin, who acknowledged the possibility of an error but didn't want to overrule the mods' original call. That "clone" was actually just someone posting in the PGA sub-forum, not the religion section, so the whole thing remains baffling to me. I am simply asking if my partial ban can be lifted.
Terry Bishop83 Terry Bishop83 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Jan 2012
#2 ·
Even before I officially signed up, I spent an incredible amount of time lurking and reading through the Religion section—and honestly, I just find myself hoping that specific sub-forum is never taken down. There’s this one user there who is just... incredibly unpleasant to deal with—you can practically feel the negative energy radiating off her posts—so I truly hope you guys don't cave to the pressure. That section of the site has such a wide variety of topics, after all... please, don't let the same old issues ruin it again...
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 RegularOP
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#3 ·
To continue... lol

It happened almost simultaneously, or shortly after, the previous moderator stepped down—largely due to pressure from the long-suffering forum veteran there—and right after I received a brief DM informing me that I had been partially banned for being a "clone." No specific handle was provided, no name for this supposed clone, and zero further explanation. Even after I reached out to a former admin to complain, I couldn't even get a clarification on what was going on or who they thought was a clone.

By the way, the controversial thread is located here.

The strangest part of the whole thing is that this alleged "clone" wasn't even posting in the religion subforum (except for a few posts) at that time; they were posting in the general discussion area on one or two topics. So, I have no idea how it is technically possible to issue a partial ban in the religion section because of something happening on a completely different tenth subforum, even if the allegations were true.

And all of this is happening while the religion subforum has a moderator who constantly refers to Catholics on the board as "people i n f e c t e d w i t h the virus of dogma" (who need to be "enlightened"), people who are mistaken (so they must be "enlightened" and led back to the "right path"), etc., etc.

As for what this individual thinks about violence against women, for example, here is a bit more here
.
quote
1. According to the esteemed Islamic AUTHORITY Morteza Motahari (in the work I linked above), lightly spitting in a woman's face is a response to her requesting such a situation. THIS IS NOT BEATING WOMEN OR TRAINING ANIMALS, as you and ego described it (I linked your and his posts!) BECAUSE A WOMAN SIMPLY ASKS FOR IT, SHE ENJOYS IT... The Quran leaves SUCH A POSSIBILITY open, based on a woman's request. That is how our authorities interpret it!!!!

'Lightly spitting in their face if they ask for it??' 🤦...and then there are the other extreme sexist outbursts or even the blatant justification of violence against women —well, that's a story in itself. And this is someone who (back then or years before) moderates a subforum on the main site??

Is this how positions of power are abused, by handing out partial bans however they please?

After that moderator was replaced, his friend—who is also a former moderator—is now working to get rid of everyone who was "responsible" for him being removed from moderation immediately, right now, or what?

Could that have been the reason for my partial ban? Because, sorry, but the reason given is clearly false and absurd at the same time.

One more question: since we've had three new moderators in the religion subforum since then, who actually decides on or reviews a request like this? Is it the new moderators on the subforum, or the administration? What is the "procedure" if one even exists? Since Blue Bird came onto the moderation team right around that time, and neither i-s-l-a-m-i-c nor Uncle Sam were moderators back then, the only person who might have anything to say is ego—and even then, I'm not sure how much ego knows about the details or the motives of those former moderators to speak on anyone's behalf.

Can the administration please provide an explanation? Who decides on the potential removal of a partial ban given the circumstances and everything else?

Terry Bishop83 said:Even before I officially signed up, I spent an incredible amount of time lurking and reading through the Religion section—and honestly, I just find myself hoping that specific sub-forum is never taken down. There’s this one user there who is just... incredibly unpleasant to deal with—you can practically feel the negative energy radiating off her posts—so I truly hope you guys don't cave to the pressure. That section of the site has such a wide variety of topics, after all... please, don't let the same old issues ruin it again...

I am sorry you feel that way, though it is quite likely you have mistaken me for someone else. 😁 I haven't posted in the religion section since 2010, so it feels rather strange that anyone would still remember the "energy" behind posts written years ago.

Furthermore, when I used to post there, I was only active for a few months and it wasn't even my primary subforum.😉
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#4 ·
Susan Price30 said:To continue... lol

It happened almost simultaneously, or shortly after, the previous moderator stepped down—largely due to pressure from the long-suffering forum veteran there—and right after I received a brief DM informing me that I had been partially banned for being a "clone." No specific handle was provided, no name for this supposed clone, and zero further explanation. Even after I reached out to a former admin to complain, I couldn't even get a clarification on what was going on or who they thought was a clone.

By the way, the controversial thread is located here.

The strangest part of the whole thing is that this alleged "clone" wasn't even posting in the religion subforum (except for a few posts) at that time; they were posting in the general discussion area on one or two topics. So, I have no idea how it is technically possible to issue a partial ban in the religion section because of something happening on a completely different tenth subforum, even if the allegations were true.

And all of this is happening while the religion subforum has a moderator who constantly refers to Catholics on the board as "people i n f e c t e d w i t h the virus of dogma" (who need to be "enlightened"), people who are mistaken (so they must be "enlightened" and led back to the "right path"), etc., etc.

As for what this individual thinks about violence against women, for example, here is a bit more here
.
quote
1. According to the esteemed Islamic AUTHORITY Morteza Motahari (in the work I linked above), lightly spitting in a woman's face is a response to her requesting such a situation. THIS IS NOT BEATING WOMEN OR TRAINING ANIMALS, as you and ego described it (I linked your and his posts!) BECAUSE A WOMAN SIMPLY ASKS FOR IT, SHE ENJOYS IT... The Quran leaves SUCH A POSSIBILITY open, based on a woman's request. That is how our authorities interpret it!!!!

'Lightly spitting in their face if they ask for it??' 🤦...and then there are the other extreme sexist outbursts or even the blatant justification of violence against women —well, that's a story in itself. And this is someone who (back then or years before) moderates a subforum on the main site??

Is this how positions of power are abused, by handing out partial bans however they please?

After that moderator was replaced, his friend—who is also a former moderator—is now working to get rid of everyone who was "responsible" for him being removed from moderation immediately, right now, or what?

Could that have been the reason for my partial ban? Because, sorry, but the reason given is clearly false and absurd at the same time.

One more question: since we've had three new moderators in the religion subforum since then, who actually decides on or reviews a request like this? Is it the new moderators on the subforum, or the administration? What is the "procedure" if one even exists? Since Blue Bird came onto the moderation team right around that time, and neither i-s-l-a-m-i-c nor Uncle Sam were moderators back then, the only person who might have anything to say is ego—and even then, I'm not sure how much ego knows about the details or the motives of those former moderators to speak on anyone's behalf.

Can the administration please provide an explanation? Who decides on the potential removal of a partial ban given the circumstances and everything else?

I am sorry you feel that way, though it is quite likely you have mistaken me for someone else. 😁 I haven't posted in the religion section since 2010, so it feels rather strange that anyone would still remember the "energy" behind posts written years ago.

Furthermore, when I used to post there, I was only active for a few months and it wasn't even my primary subforum.😉

The current moderator team has to weigh in on removing a partial ban. As far as I know, they have to vote unanimously to pull it—so if even one person is against it, the partial ban stays put.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and honestly, you probably just confused me with someone else 😁 because I haven't posted in the Religion section since 2010. It feels pretty weird that anyone would still remember the 'vibe' or energy behind posts someone wrote years ago.

Well, I definitely remember your posts and your tone. And for the record, I haven't been posting much in the Religion section for a long time either.
I'm just using it as an example.
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#5 ·
steelskipper5 said:The current moderator team has to weigh in on removing a partial ban. As far as I know, they have to vote unanimously to pull it—so if even one person is against it, the partial ban stays put.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and honestly, you probably just confused me with someone else 😁 because I haven't posted in the Religion section since 2010. It feels pretty weird that anyone would still remember the 'vibe' or energy behind posts someone wrote years ago.

Well, I definitely remember your posts and your tone. And for the record, I haven't been posting much in the Religion section for a long time either.
I'm just using it as an example.

You hit the nail on the head right there. When it comes to deciding whether to pull a subforum, that call rests entirely with the current moderators overseeing that specific section. Since any user posting there is essentially operating under their jurisdiction, the responsibility for keeping that corner of the forum running smoothly falls squarely on their shoulders. If they can't reach a consensus, then the subforum stays exactly as it is. Now, it is technically possible for a moderator to recuse themselves from a vote, but honestly, that’s incredibly rare—it only happens if they make a very deliberate, personal choice to step back. But generally speaking, these decisions are made unanimously; every single moderator involved needs to be on the same page before anything changes.

Susan Price30, look, I totally get where you're coming from—back when you first joined and got your partial access, the whole moderator lineup was completely different. I’m just laying this out for you in general terms so you can get a better handle on how the gears actually turn around here!

The moderators over at Religion have already gone through this thread of yours, and they’ll be reaching out to you directly soon.

steelskipper5 said:The current moderator team has to weigh in on removing a partial ban. As far as I know, they have to vote unanimously to pull it—so if even one person is against it, the partial ban stays put.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and honestly, you probably just confused me with someone else 😁 because I haven't posted in the Religion section since 2010. It feels pretty weird that anyone would still remember the 'vibe' or energy behind posts someone wrote years ago.

Well, I definitely remember your posts and your tone. And for the record, I haven't been posting much in the Religion section for a long time either.
I'm just using it as an example.

Honestly, this is just pure, unadulterated spam, and I’m going to have to ask that we put a stop to it right now. Please, let's not let this drag on any further.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#6 ·
The mods actually sat down to talk about this, and the answer is a no. It’s not even really about whether clones exist or not; it’s more about how people are handling discussions within the Religion section, which is why the moderators landed on a negative decision.
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 RegularOP
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#7 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:The mods actually sat down to talk about this, and the answer is a no. It’s not even really about whether clones exist or not; it’s more about how people are handling discussions within the Religion section, which is why the moderators landed on a negative decision.

I assume they could have just sent that over in a private message as an explanation for the partial payment. Using some non-existent clone as an excuse... don't you think?

I have never once received any indication that my writing style was considered problematic, nor have I ever been issued a warning regarding a potential ban or anything of that nature. Had I received such feedback, I might have actually realized there was an issue to address, but as it stands, I am quite unaware of any trouble.

Ultimately, if it is... Vague. If they actually moderated based on someone's "writing style," half those people would probably be banned instantly. I mean, there are users over there who have posted things ten times worse than anything I’ve ever even considered typing, yet they’re still around. As far as I can remember, I’ve never resorted to insults or made an argument without backing it up. Then you have these accounts that have been active on the subforum for five or six years, consistently posting the exact same garbage—flaming, being totally unconstructive, and making offensive generalizations. So, what gives?

To be specific, here are two examples of usernames. Unknown He’s been twisting Bible verses and stirring up trouble on this subforum for as long as I can remember. He actually managed to get a partial ban, and they even stripped his posts despite him following the rules... for example: John Achilles Who ended up getting the partial? So, when exactly was that account removed after three months? It’s constantly being emphasized here that a user's partial access isn't even considered for termination until the six-month mark, yet it looks like this person's access was revoked well before the rules allow. (I wasn't actually aware of this myself, but someone just slid into my DMs to bring up this specific case and username.)

What kind of "writing style" did the former Religion moderator have? I posted an example above, so if this looks like anything resembling normal to anyone else, then cool:

I should mention that I actually ended up protecting many of those who were hoping to see me replaced more than anyone else. In that small bit of my own bias, I operated under my own assumption that working with dogmatic individuals is inherently more taxing. It requires a greater degree of patience, which is precisely why I felt they deserved a few more perks than everyone else.So, they finally have their "relief," and now Shady won't be hounding them anymore. 🙂

"Infected by the virus of dogma"—that was the popular catchphrase back then, and honestly, I find it pretty insulting. Then there's this whole bit about "working with dogmatic people," which he supposedly "protected" and wanted to "educate" (meaning me). Is it just me, or does this all feel incredibly weird? It seems like a fundamentally flawed idea to have someone acting as a moderator in the first place. I mean, really?

Look, I'm sorry, Daniel Ward87, but neither that excuse nor the story about the supposed clone being used to justify my partial ban feels like the truth to me.

On the other hand, if your general policy is to purge any constructive Catholics from this subforum, then just be upfront about it before people even bother signing up. Tell them exactly what it is: "If this isn't your style, feel free to pass." That’s the only way to actually be fair, rather than doing things like this.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#8 ·
I get where you're coming from, but at the end of the day, that's just how the Religion mods run things.
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 RegularOP
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#9 ·
How do you interpret that? Are you saying a moderator's stance can actually contradict what the administration wants?

Because looking at those two instances I mentioned earlier (the Anonymous user and that other guy, I forget his name), it seems like certain posts from the Religion section were pulled despite the rules. Does that mean things can be removed even if they don't technically violate the forum guidelines? At least, that's how it looks to me...

I honestly don't see why moderators are given such free rein over these matters. If there were all sorts of different types of users—especially in the Religion section, which has been true for a long time now.
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#10 ·
Just an off-topic side note here regarding the whole "removing a partial ban against the rules" thing—specifically when people talk about it happening before the six-month mark. Look, that six-month window isn't some hard-and-fast rule, and it’s definitely not set in stone. In principle, a partial ban is issued indefinitely without a fixed expiration date. Moderators can decide to lift one whenever they feel it's appropriate, especially if they see a user has actually turned things around and it makes sense to give them another shot.

That six-month timeframe is really just a general guideline for when someone might reach out to ask for a review. Users have every right to make that request (though, mind you, that doesn't guarantee the ban will actually be lifted), but they can't just keep doing it constantly because, honestly, that would be pointless. Every single decision regarding partial bans and whether they get rescinded is handled on a case-by-case basis.

So, let's please stop using the non-existent argument that a partial ban was "removed unfairly." As long as the moderators make a call and the admin team backs it up, that decision is perfectly valid, regardless of how much time has passed since the ban was originally handed down.

I'm not looking to start a huge debate over this post, so let's try to keep further comments off this specific topic for now.
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 RegularOP
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#11 ·
Look, regarding the post by rustydrifter10 (#18 in the 'Questions for Administration' thread), if I’ve caused any 'negativity,' it was only because I called out the disastrous moderation—and the general way people were arguing back then. This individual used terms like 'dogma virus' and 'dogmatic people'; claiming others were 'delusional.' They also gave these wildly inaccurate descriptions of what the Quran actually says about women, much like many other users on this subforum complained before me.

If I was right, I sincerely hope you all (looking at you, admins) realize this time round.😉

It’s quite telling that I’ve laid everything out clearly here, while those former mods continue to sneak around in the shadows, lacking the guts to show up and give their side of the story. At least it's been confirmed that the whole clone story was a total lie. LOL.

Cheers, and thanks for the effort.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads