Moderating at the University Bookstore

Hey there!

Like the title says, I want to get a discussion going about the moderators over at the University Bookstore.

Here’s the deal. Here is my Reason. It feels like there's some uneven moderation going on here. It seems like the Moderators have built much closer ties with certain members than others. For instance, take Joshua Garcia8—she's a Moderator on this subforum, and she was just doing her job by calling people out in the chat for breaking the rules. They were posting couples without any explanation, which is a clear violation of our guidelines. Just following the playbook!

Joshua Garcia8 said:Guys, please stop trying to bypass the subforum rules by using the chat. The chat isn't meant for dumping betting slips or parlays, and honestly, it looks like some people are doing exactly that. I’m looking specifically at socis85, GeC666, and euskala—they aren't actually contributing anything besides posting their picks. Don't make us step in and start enforcing specific rules for the chat too.

Thanks!

^^ I honestly don't get why people make such a big deal out of this. It’s like watching someone freak out because they realized their coffee was lukewarm—totally unnecessary! Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it's just how things work. You can't expect a different result if you keep following the same old playbook. It’s basic logic! Like trying to drive from New York to LA using a map from the 1950s—you're obviously going to hit some bumps in the road. Anyway, enough of that. Let's move on!

Once someone called her out for picking and choosing who gets a warning, she just went ahead and expanded the whole list of people to call out!

Joshua Garcia8 said:What do those previous analyses even have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. I’m not talking about the other threads where things are mostly fine—I'm talking about this specific one. People show up here for one reason and one reason only: to dump raw picks. I only called out you three because that's all you ever do on the chat—you just post pairs. Nothing else.

Just to clear the air and make sure there's zero confusion or any weird conspiracy theories flying around—this goes for everyone. It applies to the folks I mentioned earlier and to Zoom too! Agent...salvia, sage, and all that good stuff.

I don't get it. Why is it so hard to write just one sentence explaining why you're playing something? Just ONE sentence!

Look, I’m asking nicely here—let’s not go overboard and start imposing a bunch of new chat rules, okay?

^^

Pay extra attention to the **bolded part**.

Danas on objavljuje sljedeći post:

Agent5 said:Where are all my gamblers at? ☕

We crushed Australia in basketball, our guys dominated handball, and those Canadians got taken down in water polo... Let's go, Team USA! 👋

edit: ESPN is broadcasting the Lakers vs. Celtics game instead of USA vs. Italy (water polo), what a joke 🤦[/I]

>

^^

While the Moderator Zoe is busy replying

Quote:>

Joshua Garcia8 says: here we go, getting ready to walk around in our underwear ☕ who cares ☕>

^^

Regarding my response to Agent's post (just using him as an example here—he’s actually probably contributed way more to this subforum than I have, and after my comment, he likely went online and explained his picks according to the rules):

"Guys, please don't try to bypass the subforum rules through the off-topic thread. That thread isn't for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And yeah, regarding the "who cares" part ☕>

Can't quote that specific post because the Moderator Tominator probably deleted it for good reason:

Quote:>

Tominator says: [URL='showthread.php?p=40669218#post40669218']> Because the post is in the wrong place. Posts that break the rules shouldn't be commented on; they should be reported.

But even so, the post that broke the rule was left right where it was, unchanged.

Speaking of editing posts...

It used to say freaking Zopp.

While in this post, everything else is just fine.

No clue how many of these posts will actually stay up, since the moderators have gone on a deleting spree.

Quote:

Tominator says: [I]Because the post is in the wrong place. Posts that break the rules shouldn't be commented on; they should be reported. Joshua Garcia8 dropped a response on this. Joshua Garcia8 says: Of course it’s getting deleted. You don't comment on the moderators here—we've been through this a million times, but hey, what do I know? Besides, trying to debate moderation just gets you a warning card. Like Tominator said, if you spot a post breaking the rules, please just use the report tool like it was designed to be used. Joshua Garcia8 is a forum member first and a moderator second, so they have every right to just be a regular user sometimes. And here is my take: First off: I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you took my post as an attack on the mods, that's on you. Seriously, I wasn't criticizing the staff, I was just repeating something you wrote that I thought would actually improve the quality of this subforum. I comment on moderation in the specific subforum meant for that. It's like a cop seeing an old buddy swipe a six-pack of Budweiser from a convenience store. He just winks at him and says, "You really gonna try to drink all that by yourself?" then keeps walking his beat. Joe is a guy first and a cop second, so he's allowed to act like a regular guy once in a while. I got a warning for that last post.😉 I don't even know if anyone cares, but I'm not staying quiet.😁

Not sure where 🤔

I admitted part of this was on me since I didn't flag the post, but my reply basically triggered those deep dives from Agent into why certain pairs work—which is exactly what this sub is for anyway!

Look:

I wouldn't call them "cliques" (like some people here love to claim), but let's be real, there are definitely some favorites.

When you're pulling things out of context like that, please just pay attention to the parts I've marked.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Hey guys, Please. Don't try to bypass the subforum rules via DM. DMs aren't meant for dropping betting slips, but it looks like some people are doing exactly that. I’m looking at you, socis85, GeC666, and euskala—you guys aren't actually posting anything except your picks. Don't go forcing us to make rules for every little thing..

Thanks.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Just so we don't end up with any confusion, misunderstandings, or whatever other nonsense theories start floating around. This request applies to everyone.So, how does that look to you guys? Not just regarding Zoom and the Agent, but also Zalmonik and everyone else mentioned earlier.
Look, I’m asking nicely here—let’s not start imposing rules on the chat.

Look, this is just a request for everyone, not some official rule. If things don't stay civil, then sure, we can implement rules for the chat thread. Honestly, bringing rules into the chat feels a bit silly to me—whether we actually go that route is entirely up to you guys.

Regarding calling people out—in my First Post, I just pointed out the specific folks who were posting exactly that kind of stuff in the chat right when I was writing the warning. Just those few pairs.

My response to the Agent today was a total joke—totally informal, clearly. Like I told you in our chat, that was just me talking as a forum member, not as a Moderator.

I can't say exactly what was in that edited post since I don't remember, but based on the comments, I'm pretty sure it involved some kind of insult. Honestly, I messed up there—I should have just handed out a warning and left the post alone.

Regarding the ban, it wasn't about your last post. It was because you kept trying to jump into the Moderator's business where you didn't belong.
Here are the posts that landed them a ban (you can't see them, but the admins can):
I don't know. Maybe. Just a thought.
I guess I should have seen that coming. Just my luck.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation. It feels like we're all just spinning our wheels here.
I don't know. Maybe. Honestly, I haven't given it much thought.

If you have questions, just shoot me a DM or post them here on this subforum. Just please don't clutter up the other threads with stuff that doesn't belong there.

Like we told you, if you spot a post breaking the rules, don't bother quoting it. Just report it and let the Moderators handle the fallout.

George Barnes25 said:Hey there!

Like the title says, I want to get a discussion going about the moderators over at the University Bookstore.

Here’s the deal. Here is my Reason. It feels like there's some uneven moderation going on here. It seems like the Moderators have built much closer ties with certain members than others. For instance, take Joshua Garcia8—she's a Moderator on this subforum, and she was just doing her job by calling people out in the chat for breaking the rules. They were posting couples without any explanation, which is a clear violation of our guidelines. Just following the playbook!

^^ I honestly don't get why people make such a big deal out of this. It’s like watching someone freak out because they realized their coffee was lukewarm—totally unnecessary! Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it's just how things work. You can't expect a different result if you keep following the same old playbook. It’s basic logic! Like trying to drive from New York to LA using a map from the 1950s—you're obviously going to hit some bumps in the road. Anyway, enough of that. Let's move on!

Once someone called her out for picking and choosing who gets a warning, she just went ahead and expanded the whole list of people to call out!

^^

Pay extra attention to the **bolded part**.

Danas on objavljuje sljedeći post:

Joshua Garcia8 dropped a response on this.

Joshua Garcia8 says:
Of course it’s getting deleted. You don't comment on the moderators here—we've been through this a million times, but hey, what do I know? Besides, trying to debate moderation just gets you a warning card. Like Tominator said, if you spot a post breaking the rules, please just use the report tool like it was designed to be used.

Joshua Garcia8 is a forum member first and a moderator second, so they have every right to just be a regular user sometimes.

And here is my take:

First off:

I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you took my post as an attack on the mods, that's on you. Seriously, I wasn't criticizing the staff, I was just repeating something you wrote that I thought would actually improve the quality of this subforum.
I comment on moderation in the specific subforum meant for that.

It's like a cop seeing an old buddy swipe a six-pack of Budweiser from a convenience store. He just winks at him and says, "You really gonna try to drink all that by yourself?" then keeps walking his beat.
Joe is a guy first and a cop second, so he's allowed to act like a regular guy once in a while.

I got a warning for that last post.😉

I don't even know if anyone cares, but I'm not staying quiet.😁

Seriously? I’ve been pointing this out for over a month now—but of course, nobody wanted to back me up. Glad to see everyone else has finally opened their eyes. 😉

I wouldn't go so far as to say there are "clans" in play—despite what some members of this subforum like to claim—but let's be honest: there are certainly certain individuals who enjoy a level of favoritism.

You’ve got these "Zoom-Zoom" types—people who go around calling everyone else idiots—yet their posts just vanish without a trace because they're buddies with the Moderators. Meanwhile, someone else gets their reputation nuked and loses points just for being a little blunt. It's a joke.

George Barnes25—best of luck. 👍

It’s basically like this:

1. Look, the Agent repeated something he was already warned about. You responded just like any other user would (which isn't a crime!), but here’s the kicker: would you have answered that way if it wasn't the Agent? If it were someone the mods don't get along with, or someone who’s always causing trouble? Probably not. Not trying to be biased, but let's be real. Like when feralotter2 showed up 😬
.
2. As for that edited post—I know what happened (it used to say some vulgar crap), but honestly, that’s beside the point. The issue is that once again, the moderators didn't step in against someone they're friendly with. That's just the vibe you get from reading this subforum. Let me quote it for you.

zoom-zoom said:Screw you guys... you non-clannish types... they're getting rid of you through my back... I'm the only one who got a red card 🙂

So, there's profanity aimed at someone just because they don't share the same opinion as this user (and by chance, this user happens to agree with the moderators). That's just one example. Both he and I should've been flagged, but instead, my word was deleted and I got a warning/comment, while he got nothing.

Or maybe you read that purely as a fellow user 🤷
.
3. I'm not whining about the red card itself, but since you brought it up...
Luckily, my memory is pretty sharp, so I’d love for you to tell me which part of my following "interference" with the moderation was actually an issue.

First Post:
"Hey guys, please don't bypass the subforum rules via DMs. DMs aren't meant for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And then my comment: "who cares."

Basically, I was just repeating a request. I wasn't criticizing anyone or anything. So, if the ☕ Reason I got a red card was 🤷

Second Post: I asked why my previous post (the one mentioned above) was deleted.

Third Post: I told Eric Fox7: I don't think you needed to delete the post because of that, but you're the boss.

Fourth Post: This is where I compared you to a cop. Plus, I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you interpreted my comment on my own post as attacking the moderation, that’s on you. Again, I wasn't critiquing the mods; I was just repeating something you wrote that helps improve the quality of this forum.
I am commenting on the moderation right here, in the section meant for it. So, regarding that first post, the only thing that could possibly be problematic would be ☕ at ☕
.
If I accidentally missed something and that's why I got the red card, I truly apologize (please just point out what it was so I can see), but as far as my memory serves, that's all there was.
If I got flagged for any of the stuff I listed above, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

4. If repeating something you guys said—without directly or indirectly attacking the moderation—helps make the forum better, I don't see the problem. Since I was just echoing your request, the Agent explained things, and it's likely more people followed the picks because of it than if we had just left it alone. If I had just reported the post, would he have even explained the picks? We agreed the goal is to make the forum work better.

feralotter2 said:Seriously? I’ve been pointing this out for over a month now—but of course, nobody wanted to back me up. Glad to see everyone else has finally opened their eyes. 😉

I wouldn't go so far as to say there are "clans" in play—despite what some members of this subforum like to claim—but let's be honest: there are certainly certain individuals who enjoy a level of favoritism.

You’ve got these "Zoom-Zoom" types—people who go around calling everyone else idiots—yet their posts just vanish without a trace because they're buddies with the Moderators. Meanwhile, someone else gets their reputation nuked and loses points just for being a little blunt. It's a joke.

George Barnes25—best of luck. 👍

👍

Look, I saw it coming ages ago. I just kept my mouth shut and stuck to other threads—mostly tennis stuff—trying to stay out of the fray. But today? That whole thing with the Agent really rubbed me the wrong way. (And again, no shade to the Agent, Zoom-Zoom, or anyone else—it's the people letting this happen that bother me.)

George Barnes25 said:It’s basically like this:

1. Look, the Agent repeated something he was already warned about. You responded just like any other user would (which isn't a crime!), but here’s the kicker: would you have answered that way if it wasn't the Agent? If it were someone the mods don't get along with, or someone who’s always causing trouble? Probably not. Not trying to be biased, but let's be real. Like when feralotter2 showed up 😬
.
2. As for that edited post—I know what happened (it used to say some vulgar crap), but honestly, that’s beside the point. The issue is that once again, the moderators didn't step in against someone they're friendly with. That's just the vibe you get from reading this subforum. Let me quote it for you.

So, there's profanity aimed at someone just because they don't share the same opinion as this user (and by chance, this user happens to agree with the moderators). That's just one example. Both he and I should've been flagged, but instead, my word was deleted and I got a warning/comment, while he got nothing.

Or maybe you read that purely as a fellow user 🤷
.
3. I'm not whining about the red card itself, but since you brought it up...
Luckily, my memory is pretty sharp, so I’d love for you to tell me which part of my following "interference" with the moderation was actually an issue.

First Post:
"Hey guys, please don't bypass the subforum rules via DMs. DMs aren't meant for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And then my comment: "who cares."

Basically, I was just repeating a request. I wasn't criticizing anyone or anything. So, if the ☕ Reason I got a red card was 🤷

Second Post: I asked why my previous post (the one mentioned above) was deleted.

Third Post: I told Eric Fox7: I don't think you needed to delete the post because of that, but you're the boss.

Fourth Post: This is where I compared you to a cop. Plus, I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you interpreted my comment on my own post as attacking the moderation, that’s on you. Again, I wasn't critiquing the mods; I was just repeating something you wrote that helps improve the quality of this forum.
I am commenting on the moderation right here, in the section meant for it. So, regarding that first post, the only thing that could possibly be problematic would be ☕ at ☕
.
If I accidentally missed something and that's why I got the red card, I truly apologize (please just point out what it was so I can see), but as far as my memory serves, that's all there was.
If I got flagged for any of the stuff I listed above, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

4. If repeating something you guys said—without directly or indirectly attacking the moderation—helps make the forum better, I don't see the problem. Since I was just echoing your request, the Agent explained things, and it's likely more people followed the picks because of it than if we had just left it alone. If I had just reported the post, would he have even explained the picks? We agreed the goal is to make the forum work better.

Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

George Barnes25 said:It’s basically like this:

1. Look, the Agent repeated something he was already warned about. You responded just like any other user would (which isn't a crime!), but here’s the kicker: would you have answered that way if it wasn't the Agent? If it were someone the mods don't get along with, or someone who’s always causing trouble? Probably not. Not trying to be biased, but let's be real. Like when feralotter2 showed up 😬
.
2. As for that edited post—I know what happened (it used to say some vulgar crap), but honestly, that’s beside the point. The issue is that once again, the moderators didn't step in against someone they're friendly with. That's just the vibe you get from reading this subforum. Let me quote it for you.

So, there's profanity aimed at someone just because they don't share the same opinion as this user (and by chance, this user happens to agree with the moderators). That's just one example. Both he and I should've been flagged, but instead, my word was deleted and I got a warning/comment, while he got nothing.

Or maybe you read that purely as a fellow user 🤷
.
3. I'm not whining about the red card itself, but since you brought it up...
Luckily, my memory is pretty sharp, so I’d love for you to tell me which part of my following "interference" with the moderation was actually an issue.

First Post:
"Hey guys, please don't bypass the subforum rules via DMs. DMs aren't meant for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And then my comment: "who cares."

Basically, I was just repeating a request. I wasn't criticizing anyone or anything. So, if the ☕ Reason I got a red card was 🤷

Second Post: I asked why my previous post (the one mentioned above) was deleted.

Third Post: I told Eric Fox7: I don't think you needed to delete the post because of that, but you're the boss.

Fourth Post: This is where I compared you to a cop. Plus, I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you interpreted my comment on my own post as attacking the moderation, that’s on you. Again, I wasn't critiquing the mods; I was just repeating something you wrote that helps improve the quality of this forum.
I am commenting on the moderation right here, in the section meant for it. So, regarding that first post, the only thing that could possibly be problematic would be ☕ at ☕
.
If I accidentally missed something and that's why I got the red card, I truly apologize (please just point out what it was so I can see), but as far as my memory serves, that's all there was.
If I got flagged for any of the stuff I listed above, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

4. If repeating something you guys said—without directly or indirectly attacking the moderation—helps make the forum better, I don't see the problem. Since I was just echoing your request, the Agent explained things, and it's likely more people followed the picks because of it than if we had just left it alone. If I had just reported the post, would he have even explained the picks? We agreed the goal is to make the forum work better.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

George Barnes25 said:It’s basically like this:

1. Look, the Agent repeated something he was already warned about. You responded just like any other user would (which isn't a crime!), but here’s the kicker: would you have answered that way if it wasn't the Agent? If it were someone the mods don't get along with, or someone who’s always causing trouble? Probably not. Not trying to be biased, but let's be real. Like when feralotter2 showed up 😬
.
2. As for that edited post—I know what happened (it used to say some vulgar crap), but honestly, that’s beside the point. The issue is that once again, the moderators didn't step in against someone they're friendly with. That's just the vibe you get from reading this subforum. Let me quote it for you.

So, there's profanity aimed at someone just because they don't share the same opinion as this user (and by chance, this user happens to agree with the moderators). That's just one example. Both he and I should've been flagged, but instead, my word was deleted and I got a warning/comment, while he got nothing.

Or maybe you read that purely as a fellow user 🤷
.
3. I'm not whining about the red card itself, but since you brought it up...
Luckily, my memory is pretty sharp, so I’d love for you to tell me which part of my following "interference" with the moderation was actually an issue.

First Post:
"Hey guys, please don't bypass the subforum rules via DMs. DMs aren't meant for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And then my comment: "who cares."

Basically, I was just repeating a request. I wasn't criticizing anyone or anything. So, if the ☕ Reason I got a red card was 🤷

Second Post: I asked why my previous post (the one mentioned above) was deleted.

Third Post: I told Eric Fox7: I don't think you needed to delete the post because of that, but you're the boss.

Fourth Post: This is where I compared you to a cop. Plus, I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you interpreted my comment on my own post as attacking the moderation, that’s on you. Again, I wasn't critiquing the mods; I was just repeating something you wrote that helps improve the quality of this forum.
I am commenting on the moderation right here, in the section meant for it. So, regarding that first post, the only thing that could possibly be problematic would be ☕ at ☕
.
If I accidentally missed something and that's why I got the red card, I truly apologize (please just point out what it was so I can see), but as far as my memory serves, that's all there was.
If I got flagged for any of the stuff I listed above, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

4. If repeating something you guys said—without directly or indirectly attacking the moderation—helps make the forum better, I don't see the problem. Since I was just echoing your request, the Agent explained things, and it's likely more people followed the picks because of it than if we had just left it alone. If I had just reported the post, would he have even explained the picks? We agreed the goal is to make the forum work better.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

George Barnes25 said:It’s basically like this:

1. Look, the Agent repeated something he was already warned about. You responded just like any other user would (which isn't a crime!), but here’s the kicker: would you have answered that way if it wasn't the Agent? If it were someone the mods don't get along with, or someone who’s always causing trouble? Probably not. Not trying to be biased, but let's be real. Like when feralotter2 showed up 😬
.
2. As for that edited post—I know what happened (it used to say some vulgar crap), but honestly, that’s beside the point. The issue is that once again, the moderators didn't step in against someone they're friendly with. That's just the vibe you get from reading this subforum. Let me quote it for you.

So, there's profanity aimed at someone just because they don't share the same opinion as this user (and by chance, this user happens to agree with the moderators). That's just one example. Both he and I should've been flagged, but instead, my word was deleted and I got a warning/comment, while he got nothing.

Or maybe you read that purely as a fellow user 🤷
.
3. I'm not whining about the red card itself, but since you brought it up...
Luckily, my memory is pretty sharp, so I’d love for you to tell me which part of my following "interference" with the moderation was actually an issue.

First Post:
"Hey guys, please don't bypass the subforum rules via DMs. DMs aren't meant for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And then my comment: "who cares."

Basically, I was just repeating a request. I wasn't criticizing anyone or anything. So, if the ☕ Reason I got a red card was 🤷

Second Post: I asked why my previous post (the one mentioned above) was deleted.

Third Post: I told Eric Fox7: I don't think you needed to delete the post because of that, but you're the boss.

Fourth Post: This is where I compared you to a cop. Plus, I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you interpreted my comment on my own post as attacking the moderation, that’s on you. Again, I wasn't critiquing the mods; I was just repeating something you wrote that helps improve the quality of this forum.
I am commenting on the moderation right here, in the section meant for it. So, regarding that first post, the only thing that could possibly be problematic would be ☕ at ☕
.
If I accidentally missed something and that's why I got the red card, I truly apologize (please just point out what it was so I can see), but as far as my memory serves, that's all there was.
If I got flagged for any of the stuff I listed above, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

4. If repeating something you guys said—without directly or indirectly attacking the moderation—helps make the forum better, I don't see the problem. Since I was just echoing your request, the Agent explained things, and it's likely more people followed the picks because of it than if we had just left it alone. If I had just reported the post, would he have even explained the picks? We agreed the goal is to make the forum work better.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

George Barnes25 said:It’s basically like this:

1. Look, the Agent repeated something he was already warned about. You responded just like any other user would (which isn't a crime!), but here’s the kicker: would you have answered that way if it wasn't the Agent? If it were someone the mods don't get along with, or someone who’s always causing trouble? Probably not. Not trying to be biased, but let's be real. Like when feralotter2 showed up 😬
.
2. As for that edited post—I know what happened (it used to say some vulgar crap), but honestly, that’s beside the point. The issue is that once again, the moderators didn't step in against someone they're friendly with. That's just the vibe you get from reading this subforum. Let me quote it for you.

So, there's profanity aimed at someone just because they don't share the same opinion as this user (and by chance, this user happens to agree with the moderators). That's just one example. Both he and I should've been flagged, but instead, my word was deleted and I got a warning/comment, while he got nothing.

Or maybe you read that purely as a fellow user 🤷
.
3. I'm not whining about the red card itself, but since you brought it up...
Luckily, my memory is pretty sharp, so I’d love for you to tell me which part of my following "interference" with the moderation was actually an issue.

First Post:
"Hey guys, please don't bypass the subforum rules via DMs. DMs aren't meant for posting picks/tickets, and it looks like some people are doing exactly that."
And then my comment: "who cares."

Basically, I was just repeating a request. I wasn't criticizing anyone or anything. So, if the ☕ Reason I got a red card was 🤷

Second Post: I asked why my previous post (the one mentioned above) was deleted.

Third Post: I told Eric Fox7: I don't think you needed to delete the post because of that, but you're the boss.

Fourth Post: This is where I compared you to a cop. Plus, I wasn't commenting on the moderation; I was quoting a "warning." If you interpreted my comment on my own post as attacking the moderation, that’s on you. Again, I wasn't critiquing the mods; I was just repeating something you wrote that helps improve the quality of this forum.
I am commenting on the moderation right here, in the section meant for it. So, regarding that first post, the only thing that could possibly be problematic would be ☕ at ☕
.
If I accidentally missed something and that's why I got the red card, I truly apologize (please just point out what it was so I can see), but as far as my memory serves, that's all there was.
If I got flagged for any of the stuff I listed above, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

4. If repeating something you guys said—without directly or indirectly attacking the moderation—helps make the forum better, I don't see the problem. Since I was just echoing your request, the Agent explained things, and it's likely more people followed the picks because of it than if we had just left it alone. If I had just reported the post, would he have even explained the picks? We agreed the goal is to make the forum work better.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

🤦

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

You're practically baiting me to make a clone just so I can drop some picks in the chat! I'm dying to see if you’re just going to act like a regular forum user or if you're actually stepping up as a Moderator. 🙂
Don't worry, I won't! 😉

I honestly don't even know if there's any point in trying to argue with you...
Come on, let's go!

Look, you’re a Moderator now, not just some regular user who occasionally steps up. You can't just flip a switch between being a casual poster and being in charge whenever it suits you. It’s like a referee in an NBA game—you don't just blow the whistle when you feel like it and then go back to watching the game like everyone else. If you have the title, own it. Keep this sub clean and maintain order consistently, not just when the mood strikes. Do the job right, all the time.

Look, what I told you about that cop still stands. Whether you like it or not, that’s just the hand you've been dealt.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

Look, you know damn well who Zoom was aiming at. It wasn't some ghost or someone who doesn't exist. He was taking a shot at everyone claiming there were cliques involved—basically anyone siding with the crowd that’s unhappy with the Moderator. He got handed a red card regardless of what that specific post said. And get this: my post got edited (I was actually talking about the comment written right underneath it when I mentioned a "warning"), but his? His stayed exactly the same. That's just one example of how things are working around here.
Anyway, this is what shows up under my post after I've made the edits:
George Barnes25, please watch your language from here on out.
Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea: June 26, 2012, at 8:16 PM. Reason: Deleting an annoying comment.
(And now I'm paying close attention to the vocabulary:)

George Barnes25 said:🤦

You're practically baiting me to make a clone just so I can drop some picks in the chat! I'm dying to see if you’re just going to act like a regular forum user or if you're actually stepping up as a Moderator. 🙂
Don't worry, I won't! 😉

I honestly don't even know if there's any point in trying to argue with you...
Come on, let's go!

Look, you’re a Moderator now, not just some regular user who occasionally steps up. You can't just flip a switch between being a casual poster and being in charge whenever it suits you. It’s like a referee in an NBA game—you don't just blow the whistle when you feel like it and then go back to watching the game like everyone else. If you have the title, own it. Keep this sub clean and maintain order consistently, not just when the mood strikes. Do the job right, all the time.

Look, what I told you about that cop still stands. Whether you like it or not, that’s just the hand you've been dealt.

Look, you know damn well who Zoom was aiming at. It wasn't some ghost or someone who doesn't exist. He was taking a shot at everyone claiming there were cliques involved—basically anyone siding with the crowd that’s unhappy with the Moderator. He got handed a red card regardless of what that specific post said. And get this: my post got edited (I was actually talking about the comment written right underneath it when I mentioned a "warning"), but his? His stayed exactly the same. That's just one example of how things are working around here.
Anyway, this is what shows up under my post after I've made the edits:
George Barnes25, please watch your language from here on out.
Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea: June 26, 2012, at 8:16 PM. Reason: Deleting an annoying comment.
(And now I'm paying close attention to the vocabulary:)

😉 )

I honestly think Zoom should’ve been way more careful with their wording here. Especially since he’s basically taking a subtle swipe at the Moderator after getting hit with that warning.
I didn't get a strike, and neither did Zoom. My post is just being edited and commented on while his stays live. Honestly, it’d be better if we both got flagged—keep things fair for everyone, regardless of which side they're on. 😬 )

You weren't even around between the First Post and the fourth one!
The conversation went like this.

First Post
Second Post
Eric Fox7 here: It’s because the thread is in the wrong section. We don't jump in to comment on posts that break the rules—we just report them. (It’s all laid out right at the bottom of the post.)
Third Post!
So then you just jump in like, "Oh, I'm practically part of the moderation team and the inner circle," blah, blah, blah!
Fourth Post
My posts keep getting deleted and I’m picking up warnings just because I’m commenting on the Moderator!

So, I either got flagged because of that coffee comment or because I compared you to Joe the cop. Look, if that’s why I got a warning, fine by me! But honestly, he basically baited me with that skinny little argument of yours: "I'm a forum regular first."
So if "contacting the Moderator" just means me asking where my thread went—since that was the only one they nuked—or me saying I don't agree with Eric Fox7, even though he had the last word, then what? 🤷 Look, basically, I don't see eye to eye with him on this one, but hey, I respect his call. So, I just dropped it. Period.

Here we go again:

Make up your mind! First I didn't get it because of the fourth point, then suddenly I did. And looking at the thread above, there’s zero moderator interference in posts two and three—unless you’ve suddenly developed a unique opinion on that. (So, what is it? Are you saying my post is missing, that I'm interfering with the Moderator, or are we going back over why I disagree with Eric Fox7 while still respecting his take?)

Here we go again: Look, I didn't start this thread just to whine about getting a penalty, and I'm definitely not looking for sympathy or asking for it to be wiped from my record. But when you start pushing my buttons like that, I've gotta say something back!

So, the header for this subforum says: "Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. How can we make this Forum better and more polite?"
I started this thread because I want to help make this forum—specifically the betting subforum—actually better. This isn't the first time people have complained about how you and Eric Fox7 handle moderation. Look, I get it. It’s not exactly easy dealing with all the trolls who just show up to stir the pot, but it’s also not right when it feels like certain people get treated with kid gloves while others don't.

Can someone else weigh in here? And please, let's not have Tominator chime in, since this hits a bit close to home for him too.

Edit:
After digging through this a bit deeper, just one more thing:

Quote:
Tominator says:
Since the post was in the wrong spot. You don't comment on posts that break the rules; you just report them.

(I can't quote him directly because the post was deleted, so I'm just typing what it said)

Then Joshua Garcia8 says:

So, my post got nuked because apparently I commented on a post that "breaks the rules"—except there isn't even a rule to break, it's just a request! The bottom line is: it was deleted because it was a repeated request (your words), not because I was arguing with the Moderator or quoting rules or whatever.

The whole mess really started because they deleted that one post. That’s what triggered the second, third, and fourth posts.

🤷

😉 )

I honestly think Zoom should’ve been way more careful with their wording here. Especially since he’s basically taking a subtle swipe at the Moderator after getting hit with that warning.
I didn't get a strike, and neither did Zoom. My post is just being edited and commented on while his stays live. Honestly, it’d be better if we both got flagged—keep things fair for everyone, regardless of which side they're on. 😬 )

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

You weren't even around between the First Post and the fourth one!
The conversation went like this.

First Post
Second Post
Eric Fox7 here: It’s because the thread is in the wrong section. We don't jump in to comment on posts that break the rules—we just report them. (It’s all laid out right at the bottom of the post.)
Third Post!
So then you just jump in like, "Oh, I'm practically part of the moderation team and the inner circle," blah, blah, blah!
Fourth Post
My posts keep getting deleted and I’m picking up warnings just because I’m commenting on the Moderator!

So, I either got flagged because of that coffee comment or because I compared you to Joe the cop. Look, if that’s why I got a warning, fine by me! But honestly, he basically baited me with that skinny little argument of yours: "I'm a forum regular first."
So if "contacting the Moderator" just means me asking where my thread went—since that was the only one they nuked—or me saying I don't agree with Eric Fox7, even though he had the last word, then what? 🤷 Look, basically, I don't see eye to eye with him on this one, but hey, I respect his call. So, I just dropped it. Period.

Here we go again:

Joshua Garcia8 said:When you're pulling things out of context like that, please just pay attention to the parts I've marked.

Look, this is just a request for everyone, not some official rule. If things don't stay civil, then sure, we can implement rules for the chat thread. Honestly, bringing rules into the chat feels a bit silly to me—whether we actually go that route is entirely up to you guys.

Regarding calling people out—in my First Post, I just pointed out the specific folks who were posting exactly that kind of stuff in the chat right when I was writing the warning. Just those few pairs.

My response to the Agent today was a total joke—totally informal, clearly. Like I told you in our chat, that was just me talking as a forum member, not as a Moderator.

I can't say exactly what was in that edited post since I don't remember, but based on the comments, I'm pretty sure it involved some kind of insult. Honestly, I messed up there—I should have just handed out a warning and left the post alone.

Regarding the ban, it wasn't about your last post. It was because you kept trying to jump into the Moderator's business where you didn't belong.
Here are the posts that landed them a ban (you can't see them, but the admins can):
I don't know. Maybe. Just a thought.
I guess I should have seen that coming. Just my luck.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation. It feels like we're all just spinning our wheels here.
I don't know. Maybe. Honestly, I haven't given it much thought.

If you have questions, just shoot me a DM or post them here on this subforum. Just please don't clutter up the other threads with stuff that doesn't belong there.

Like we told you, if you spot a post breaking the rules, don't bother quoting it. Just report it and let the Moderators handle the fallout.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Discussion about that. What if? It doesn't make sense. Please just stick to specific cases.

I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Who exactly was Zoom insulting in that post? Someone who doesn't even exist? Besides, that same moderator's pet was the only one in the whole debate to get a strike.
From what I can see, you didn't even get a warning for that post.

The second, third, and fourth posts are why you got a strike. After the second and third posts, you repeated that we don't discuss the Moderator here, and then you did it again.

I already answered that part in the first post—no point in repeating myself.

Make up your mind! First I didn't get it because of the fourth point, then suddenly I did. And looking at the thread above, there’s zero moderator interference in posts two and three—unless you’ve suddenly developed a unique opinion on that. (So, what is it? Are you saying my post is missing, that I'm interfering with the Moderator, or are we going back over why I disagree with Eric Fox7 while still respecting his take?)

Here we go again: Look, I didn't start this thread just to whine about getting a penalty, and I'm definitely not looking for sympathy or asking for it to be wiped from my record. But when you start pushing my buttons like that, I've gotta say something back!

So, the header for this subforum says: "Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. How can we make this Forum better and more polite?"
I started this thread because I want to help make this forum—specifically the betting subforum—actually better. This isn't the first time people have complained about how you and Eric Fox7 handle moderation. Look, I get it. It’s not exactly easy dealing with all the trolls who just show up to stir the pot, but it’s also not right when it feels like certain people get treated with kid gloves while others don't.

Can someone else weigh in here? And please, let's not have Tominator chime in, since this hits a bit close to home for him too.

Edit:
After digging through this a bit deeper, just one more thing:

Quote:
Tominator says:
Since the post was in the wrong spot. You don't comment on posts that break the rules; you just report them.

(I can't quote him directly because the post was deleted, so I'm just typing what it said)

Then Joshua Garcia8 says:

Joshua Garcia8 said:When you're pulling things out of context like that, please just pay attention to the parts I've marked.

Look, this is just a request for everyone, not some official rule. If things don't stay civil, then sure, we can implement rules for the chat thread. Honestly, bringing rules into the chat feels a bit silly to me—whether we actually go that route is entirely up to you guys.

Regarding calling people out—in my First Post, I just pointed out the specific folks who were posting exactly that kind of stuff in the chat right when I was writing the warning. Just those few pairs.

My response to the Agent today was a total joke—totally informal, clearly. Like I told you in our chat, that was just me talking as a forum member, not as a Moderator.

I can't say exactly what was in that edited post since I don't remember, but based on the comments, I'm pretty sure it involved some kind of insult. Honestly, I messed up there—I should have just handed out a warning and left the post alone.

Regarding the ban, it wasn't about your last post. It was because you kept trying to jump into the Moderator's business where you didn't belong.
Here are the posts that landed them a ban (you can't see them, but the admins can):
I don't know. Maybe. Just a thought.
I guess I should have seen that coming. Just my luck.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation. It feels like we're all just spinning our wheels here.
I don't know. Maybe. Honestly, I haven't given it much thought.

If you have questions, just shoot me a DM or post them here on this subforum. Just please don't clutter up the other threads with stuff that doesn't belong there.

Like we told you, if you spot a post breaking the rules, don't bother quoting it. Just report it and let the Moderators handle the fallout.

So, my post got nuked because apparently I commented on a post that "breaks the rules"—except there isn't even a rule to break, it's just a request! The bottom line is: it was deleted because it was a repeated request (your words), not because I was arguing with the Moderator or quoting rules or whatever.

The whole mess really started because they deleted that one post. That’s what triggered the second, third, and fourth posts.

🤷

George Barnes25 said:🤦

You're practically baiting me to make a clone just so I can drop some picks in the chat! I'm dying to see if you’re just going to act like a regular forum user or if you're actually stepping up as a Moderator. 🙂
Don't worry, I won't! 😉

I honestly don't even know if there's any point in trying to argue with you...
Come on, let's go!

Look, you’re a Moderator now, not just some regular user who occasionally steps up. You can't just flip a switch between being a casual poster and being in charge whenever it suits you. It’s like a referee in an NBA game—you don't just blow the whistle when you feel like it and then go back to watching the game like everyone else. If you have the title, own it. Keep this sub clean and maintain order consistently, not just when the mood strikes. Do the job right, all the time.

Look, what I told you about that cop still stands. Whether you like it or not, that’s just the hand you've been dealt.

Look, you know damn well who Zoom was aiming at. It wasn't some ghost or someone who doesn't exist. He was taking a shot at everyone claiming there were cliques involved—basically anyone siding with the crowd that’s unhappy with the Moderator. He got handed a red card regardless of what that specific post said. And get this: my post got edited (I was actually talking about the comment written right underneath it when I mentioned a "warning"), but his? His stayed exactly the same. That's just one example of how things are working around here.
Anyway, this is what shows up under my post after I've made the edits:
George Barnes25, please watch your language from here on out.
Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea: June 26, 2012, at 8:16 PM. Reason: Deleting an annoying comment.
(And now I'm paying close attention to the vocabulary:)

😉 )

I honestly think Zoom should’ve been way more careful with their wording here. Especially since he’s basically taking a subtle swipe at the Moderator after getting hit with that warning.
I didn't get a strike, and neither did Zoom. My post is just being edited and commented on while his stays live. Honestly, it’d be better if we both got flagged—keep things fair for everyone, regardless of which side they're on. 😬 )

You weren't even around between the First Post and the fourth one!
The conversation went like this.

First Post
Second Post
Eric Fox7 here: It’s because the thread is in the wrong section. We don't jump in to comment on posts that break the rules—we just report them. (It’s all laid out right at the bottom of the post.)
Third Post!
So then you just jump in like, "Oh, I'm practically part of the moderation team and the inner circle," blah, blah, blah!
Fourth Post
My posts keep getting deleted and I’m picking up warnings just because I’m commenting on the Moderator!

So, I either got flagged because of that coffee comment or because I compared you to Joe the cop. Look, if that’s why I got a warning, fine by me! But honestly, he basically baited me with that skinny little argument of yours: "I'm a forum regular first."
So if "contacting the Moderator" just means me asking where my thread went—since that was the only one they nuked—or me saying I don't agree with Eric Fox7, even though he had the last word, then what? 🤷 Look, basically, I don't see eye to eye with him on this one, but hey, I respect his call. So, I just dropped it. Period.

Here we go again:

Make up your mind! First I didn't get it because of the fourth point, then suddenly I did. And looking at the thread above, there’s zero moderator interference in posts two and three—unless you’ve suddenly developed a unique opinion on that. (So, what is it? Are you saying my post is missing, that I'm interfering with the Moderator, or are we going back over why I disagree with Eric Fox7 while still respecting his take?)

Here we go again: Look, I didn't start this thread just to whine about getting a penalty, and I'm definitely not looking for sympathy or asking for it to be wiped from my record. But when you start pushing my buttons like that, I've gotta say something back!

So, the header for this subforum says: "Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. How can we make this Forum better and more polite?"
I started this thread because I want to help make this forum—specifically the betting subforum—actually better. This isn't the first time people have complained about how you and Eric Fox7 handle moderation. Look, I get it. It’s not exactly easy dealing with all the trolls who just show up to stir the pot, but it’s also not right when it feels like certain people get treated with kid gloves while others don't.

Can someone else weigh in here? And please, let's not have Tominator chime in, since this hits a bit close to home for him too.

Edit:
After digging through this a bit deeper, just one more thing:

Quote:
Tominator says:
Since the post was in the wrong spot. You don't comment on posts that break the rules; you just report them.

(I can't quote him directly because the post was deleted, so I'm just typing what it said)

Then Joshua Garcia8 says:

So, my post got nuked because apparently I commented on a post that "breaks the rules"—except there isn't even a rule to break, it's just a request! The bottom line is: it was deleted because it was a repeated request (your words), not because I was arguing with the Moderator or quoting rules or whatever.

The whole mess really started because they deleted that one post. That’s what triggered the second, third, and fourth posts.

🤷

Since you sent a DM to me and Tominator (via me) where you said

and go ahead and chime in on this one too

well, I've already spoken my piece.

I'll take the suggestion, though honestly, I've got nothing left to add to this. The Admins can see everything we've deleted and how we've handled things, so they'll probably show up soon enough.

George Barnes25 said:🤦

You're practically baiting me to make a clone just so I can drop some picks in the chat! I'm dying to see if you’re just going to act like a regular forum user or if you're actually stepping up as a Moderator. 🙂
Don't worry, I won't! 😉

I honestly don't even know if there's any point in trying to argue with you...
Come on, let's go!

Look, you’re a Moderator now, not just some regular user who occasionally steps up. You can't just flip a switch between being a casual poster and being in charge whenever it suits you. It’s like a referee in an NBA game—you don't just blow the whistle when you feel like it and then go back to watching the game like everyone else. If you have the title, own it. Keep this sub clean and maintain order consistently, not just when the mood strikes. Do the job right, all the time.

Look, what I told you about that cop still stands. Whether you like it or not, that’s just the hand you've been dealt.

Look, you know damn well who Zoom was aiming at. It wasn't some ghost or someone who doesn't exist. He was taking a shot at everyone claiming there were cliques involved—basically anyone siding with the crowd that’s unhappy with the Moderator. He got handed a red card regardless of what that specific post said. And get this: my post got edited (I was actually talking about the comment written right underneath it when I mentioned a "warning"), but his? His stayed exactly the same. That's just one example of how things are working around here.
Anyway, this is what shows up under my post after I've made the edits:
George Barnes25, please watch your language from here on out.
Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea: June 26, 2012, at 8:16 PM. Reason: Deleting an annoying comment.
(And now I'm paying close attention to the vocabulary:)

😉 )

I honestly think Zoom should’ve been way more careful with their wording here. Especially since he’s basically taking a subtle swipe at the Moderator after getting hit with that warning.
I didn't get a strike, and neither did Zoom. My post is just being edited and commented on while his stays live. Honestly, it’d be better if we both got flagged—keep things fair for everyone, regardless of which side they're on. 😬 )

You weren't even around between the First Post and the fourth one!
The conversation went like this.

First Post
Second Post
Eric Fox7 here: It’s because the thread is in the wrong section. We don't jump in to comment on posts that break the rules—we just report them. (It’s all laid out right at the bottom of the post.)
Third Post!
So then you just jump in like, "Oh, I'm practically part of the moderation team and the inner circle," blah, blah, blah!
Fourth Post
My posts keep getting deleted and I’m picking up warnings just because I’m commenting on the Moderator!

So, I either got flagged because of that coffee comment or because I compared you to Joe the cop. Look, if that’s why I got a warning, fine by me! But honestly, he basically baited me with that skinny little argument of yours: "I'm a forum regular first."
So if "contacting the Moderator" just means me asking where my thread went—since that was the only one they nuked—or me saying I don't agree with Eric Fox7, even though he had the last word, then what? 🤷 Look, basically, I don't see eye to eye with him on this one, but hey, I respect his call. So, I just dropped it. Period.

Here we go again:

Make up your mind! First I didn't get it because of the fourth point, then suddenly I did. And looking at the thread above, there’s zero moderator interference in posts two and three—unless you’ve suddenly developed a unique opinion on that. (So, what is it? Are you saying my post is missing, that I'm interfering with the Moderator, or are we going back over why I disagree with Eric Fox7 while still respecting his take?)

Here we go again: Look, I didn't start this thread just to whine about getting a penalty, and I'm definitely not looking for sympathy or asking for it to be wiped from my record. But when you start pushing my buttons like that, I've gotta say something back!

So, the header for this subforum says: "Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. How can we make this Forum better and more polite?"
I started this thread because I want to help make this forum—specifically the betting subforum—actually better. This isn't the first time people have complained about how you and Eric Fox7 handle moderation. Look, I get it. It’s not exactly easy dealing with all the trolls who just show up to stir the pot, but it’s also not right when it feels like certain people get treated with kid gloves while others don't.

Can someone else weigh in here? And please, let's not have Tominator chime in, since this hits a bit close to home for him too.

Edit:
After digging through this a bit deeper, just one more thing:

Quote:
Tominator says:
Since the post was in the wrong spot. You don't comment on posts that break the rules; you just report them.

(I can't quote him directly because the post was deleted, so I'm just typing what it said)

Then Joshua Garcia8 says:

So, my post got nuked because apparently I commented on a post that "breaks the rules"—except there isn't even a rule to break, it's just a request! The bottom line is: it was deleted because it was a repeated request (your words), not because I was arguing with the Moderator or quoting rules or whatever.

The whole mess really started because they deleted that one post. That’s what triggered the second, third, and fourth posts.

🤷

I wasn't actually planning on chiming in, but since I got tagged (and since nobody was specifically asking for my two cents 🤔), I'll just say this: personally—and I think Joshua Garcia8 would agree—I don't coddle anyone, nor do I have any intention of starting. If people aren't fans of how I moderate (or how anyone else does it), well, that’s perfectly fine by me. If everyone agreed with everything I said, we might as well just shut the whole forum down. Of course, there are mistakes made during moderation—we're only human, after all—but we're actively working to fix them and trying our best to improve the subforum we manage.
Drawing massive conclusions based on a single outlier—especially one that isn't even a comparable case—and then building an entire argument out of "what ifs" is just misplaced, and frankly, I don't want to waste my time entertaining it.

Come on, just give me your thoughts on what was added to the Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea!

My posts were deleted for absolutely no reason!

Look, I didn't "ban" you from sharing your thoughts! It’s not like that at all. I just asked that we get a third-party perspective instead—you know, like getting a second opinion from someone outside the circle. 😉

George Barnes25 said:Come on, just give me your thoughts on what was added to the Last edit of the Mediterranean Sea!

My posts were deleted for absolutely no reason!

Look, I didn't "ban" you from sharing your thoughts! It’s not like that at all. I just asked that we get a third-party perspective instead—you know, like getting a second opinion from someone outside the circle. 😉

Actually, they weren't. This chat isn't some town hall meeting where we debate the rules or nitpick everyone else's comments—I've already told you twice (okay, maybe three times now) 🤷

Eric Fox7 said:Actually, they weren't. This chat isn't some town hall meeting where we debate the rules or nitpick everyone else's comments—I've already told you twice (okay, maybe three times now) 🤷

Look, I wasn't arguing about rules; I was just repeating a request. (There isn't even a rule against it)
So, basically, I'm not allowed to comment on someone's post if I think it's bad? I didn't cite any specific rules, just a request, which ended up getting my post deleted. If we can't comment on each other's stuff, this forum is going nowhere fast.
My whole point was just asking him to follow the request, just like everyone else who started typing (I think he was actually explaining his reasoning for those picks too, and I was just following along).
And y'all made such a huge deal out of nothing.
It’s like: the Agent posts the picks, I quote the request, he explains the picks, and then boom—my posts get wiped.

Joshua Garcia8 said:Since you sent a DM to me and Tominator (via me) where you said

and go ahead and chime in on this one too

well, I've already spoken my piece.

I'll take the suggestion, though honestly, I've got nothing left to add to this. The Admins can see everything we've deleted and how we've handled things, so they'll probably show up soon enough.

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't post snippets of private messages. According to the forum rules, that's strictly forbidden.

Eric Fox7 said:I wasn't actually planning on chiming in, but since I got tagged (and since nobody was specifically asking for my two cents 🤔), I'll just say this: personally—and I think Joshua Garcia8 would agree—I don't coddle anyone, nor do I have any intention of starting. If people aren't fans of how I moderate (or how anyone else does it), well, that’s perfectly fine by me. If everyone agreed with everything I said, we might as well just shut the whole forum down. Of course, there are mistakes made during moderation—we're only human, after all—but we're actively working to fix them and trying our best to improve the subforum we manage.
Drawing massive conclusions based on a single outlier—especially one that isn't even a comparable case—and then building an entire argument out of "what ifs" is just misplaced, and frankly, I don't want to waste my time entertaining it.

It's not just one example, obviously. But it would be pointless to go hunting through the sub-forums right now to find more. I'm sure plenty of other users would jump in with examples of how bad the moderation has been lately. (Like feralotter2, Mars, Noname, etc.)

And look at this:
Joshua Garcia8 is back to being a Moderator, not just a regular user.

vs.

Your post lost its point once the Agent posted their explanation of the pairings. It was deleted—just deal with it 🤷.
I’ve already explained why it was removed (both in chat and now for the third time), yet here you are asking the same thing again.

George Barnes25 said:Just one question for the respected Moderator.
Where did that post go—the one where I was calling out how the Agent failed to explain the pairings?

Tominator said:It was deleted because they ended up posting an explanation in the meantime.
In the future, just report any post that breaks the subforum rules instead of replying to it.

Explanation number one

George Barnes25 said:I don't see why that would be a reason to delete it, but fine—you're the Moderator, you call the shots.

Messy business, commenting on the Moderator.

Tominator said:Because the post was in the wrong place. You don't comment on posts that break the rules; you report them.

Explanation number two

George Barnes25 said:Alright. It would just be nice if the Moderators actually reacted to a post like that, since they have in the past. And based on the replies, it's clear Joshua Garcia8 saw the post (even before me). Maybe this post will get nuked too under the "commenting on moderation" rule, and honestly, I don't care. See you over on Subforum 10 soon enough.

Commenting on the Moderator—something you clearly know you're doing. 🤷
But even then, you didn't even get a warning; you only got one after another explanation from our colleague Joshua Garcia8, which you then went ahead and commented on again.

EOD.

Heading to bed.

If this keeps up, I’m officially done. Seriously.

George Barnes25 said:Look, I wasn't arguing about rules; I was just repeating a request. (There isn't even a rule against it)
So, basically, I'm not allowed to comment on someone's post if I think it's bad? I didn't cite any specific rules, just a request, which ended up getting my post deleted. If we can't comment on each other's stuff, this forum is going nowhere fast.
My whole point was just asking him to follow the request, just like everyone else who started typing (I think he was actually explaining his reasoning for those picks too, and I was just following along).
And y'all made such a huge deal out of nothing.
It’s like: the Agent posts the picks, I quote the request, he explains the picks, and then boom—my posts get wiped.

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't post snippets of private messages. According to the forum rules, that's strictly forbidden.

It's not just one example, obviously. But it would be pointless to go hunting through the sub-forums right now to find more. I'm sure plenty of other users would jump in with examples of how bad the moderation has been lately. (Like feralotter2, Mars, Noname, etc.)

And look at this:
Joshua Garcia8 is back to being a Moderator, not just a regular user.

vs.

No, posting private messages is what's banned. As far as I can tell, I haven't posted a single PM.

George Barnes25 said:Look, I wasn't arguing about rules; I was just repeating a request. (There isn't even a rule against it)
So, basically, I'm not allowed to comment on someone's post if I think it's bad? I didn't cite any specific rules, just a request, which ended up getting my post deleted. If we can't comment on each other's stuff, this forum is going nowhere fast.
My whole point was just asking him to follow the request, just like everyone else who started typing (I think he was actually explaining his reasoning for those picks too, and I was just following along).
And y'all made such a huge deal out of nothing.
It’s like: the Agent posts the picks, I quote the request, he explains the picks, and then boom—my posts get wiped.

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't post snippets of private messages. According to the forum rules, that's strictly forbidden.

It's not just one example, obviously. But it would be pointless to go hunting through the sub-forums right now to find more. I'm sure plenty of other users would jump in with examples of how bad the moderation has been lately. (Like feralotter2, Mars, Noname, etc.)

And look at this:
Joshua Garcia8 is back to being a Moderator, not just a regular user.

vs.

Exactly. One post was in the chat, the other was in a specialized thread where the rules are laid out right in the opening post.

👋

I was gonna add more, but honestly? What's the point?
It’ll probably be the same story even after a third person weighs in, but whatever...

Just so we're clear: I truly believe that post was deleted for no reason. It didn't break any rules, wasn't offensive, or anything like that. It just got nuked because a moderator decided it "served no purpose" anymore. 🤷 Everything that happened after that was just a domino effect 😉 (including that warning I got—which was totally justified, by the way, since I forgot about the specific post Eric Fox7 was quoting. Like he says, I didn't get flagged for *that* post, but for the next one I already explained)

More: You posted part of a private message I sent you. 😉

And hey, my bad on that comparison. I thought I was hanging out in the chat room instead of this OI thread.

I'll read what the third person thinks (I can already guess how it'll go), and then I'm done. I'm stepping away from the forums, at least until things change around here. Don't bother telling me you'll miss me; I know I won't be missed.

Later.

George Barnes25 said:I was gonna add more, but honestly? What's the point?
It’ll probably be the same story even after a third person weighs in, but whatever...

Just so we're clear: I truly believe that post was deleted for no reason. It didn't break any rules, wasn't offensive, or anything like that. It just got nuked because a moderator decided it "served no purpose" anymore. 🤷 Everything that happened after that was just a domino effect 😉 (including that warning I got—which was totally justified, by the way, since I forgot about the specific post Eric Fox7 was quoting. Like he says, I didn't get flagged for *that* post, but for the next one I already explained)

More: You posted part of a private message I sent you. 😉

And hey, my bad on that comparison. I thought I was hanging out in the chat room instead of this OI thread.

I'll read what the third person thinks (I can already guess how it'll go), and then I'm done. I'm stepping away from the forums, at least until things change around here. Don't bother telling me you'll miss me; I know I won't be missed.

Later.

It’s a shame to see you taking this stance, honestly. Regardless of this specific argument, you've always been a standout member here and have contributed a ton to this subforum. Walking away just because things aren't running exactly the way you think they should... well, it feels a bit pointless, 🤷

Eric Fox7 said:It’s a shame to see you taking this stance, honestly. Regardless of this specific argument, you've always been a standout member here and have contributed a ton to this subforum. Walking away just because things aren't running exactly the way you think they should... well, it feels a bit pointless, 🤷

I'm stepping down because of how the mods act. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's bad. Why did great tipsters like Mars, No Name, Timsky, Ti Too, Richard Morales79, and plenty of others leave? Was their exit "pointless" too? You guys run this subforum poorly. Look, I get it, sometimes things are tough for you too, but even when you mess up, instead of owning it, you just go EOD.
So many people are unhappy with how you handle things, but unfortunately, they're venting in all the wrong places. And I don't mean petty fights like "give us back our daily thread." If more people actually spoke up right here, it would probably carry way more weight. Instead, it looks like I'm just some lone guy throwing a fit over a warning, mostly because that's how you steered the conversation. But honestly, you're in the wrong here too. This whole thing started because a post was deleted for no reason—it didn't break any rules or even a simple request—but of course, you can always twist the narrative to suit yourselves based on the reaction you provoke.

EOD

It was (more/less) of a pleasure working with you all.
Best,

Mars and the rest of the crew got flagged because of how they act and the way they talk—honestly, I’m not even going to get into your situation,

Just to be clear, I have zero interest in debating things based on someone's purely subjective take.

George Barnes25, what kind of cop do you think you are? You have zero authority here. You messed up and deserved a card because you're overstepping and inserting yourself into things that aren't your business.

Issues like this should be handled via PM, though calling it out in the thread isn't necessarily wrong, but you went too far and earned that card..

Then you just went off the rails and started rambling about clans and all that nonsense..

Personally, when I see someone either doesn't know the rules or is breaking them, I send them a PM to fix it. If they keep doing it, I report the post or message the moderators directly..

You immediately went on the offensive like we're all mortal enemies. From my own experience, I'm certain that forum mods usually give a warning for minor infractions first, and only step in if it keeps happening—but you just keep repeating your own mistakes..

Quite frankly, I've complained about posts and within threads many times, but after a while, I realized it's much easier to just send a PM or report a post (depending on who it is) rather than making a post myself that will just end up being deleted by me or a mod because it doesn't belong there..

So, I’ll ask you: if you're still reading this, what is your main reason for leaving the forum?🤷

Just please don't bring up clans again.😉