Moderating Skywalker on Tourism

The rules for the Tourism subforum state—very clearly and in bold—that we don't tolerate posts based on Politics.
Since many of you requested it, we moderators decided to open up a chat thread meant more for lighthearted banter and casual conversation... keeping the vibe positive. We also have an "Offtopic..." thread on the main US Tourism forum where you can talk about anything that isn't strictly about travel topics. If you check the topic list—look at the "Destination and other topics" pinned thread or the master list on the US Tourism forum—you'll see plenty of other threads covering different sides of the industry too. By doing this, we’re keeping the Tourism section clean and on-topic, while still respecting everyone's desire to chat about random stuff (even though those kinds of posts are actually pretty rare)... we just nudge people toward the chat or the Offtopic thread, or move them ourselves if they end up in the wrong place.
If that's still not enough, there are dedicated subforums for Politics, History, and Economics where you can discuss various aspects of tourism depending on what you're interested in.

So, Mark Harris66 claims there's always a relaxed debate and a positive vibe in the Offtopic destination and other topics thread on the US and Tourism PDF?
From page 237 onwards:

Starting from page 263, Goldtrieczk is officially walking away from this insanely politicized “off topic” thread.
At one point, I actually asked for moderation, and then later I just wondered why people feel the need to inject so much politics into a thread about Tourism. I was told that, apparently, doing that is allowed here.

Let me clarify this one more time just to be safe: the main chat area is strictly for casual vibes—no politics allowed there. If you want to dive into political debates, you need to head over to the Offtopic thread instead.
So, to recap: we have the
chat thread on the main forum (it's called "Ups and Downs... Chat") where things stay chill and political talk is discouraged, and then there’s the Offtopic thread within the US Tourism subforum ("Offtopic...") where you can discuss politics if you really want to.
Basically, just make sure you know the difference between the casual chat and the Offtopic section under Tourism.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Kate Roberts said:I really wish someone would keep an eye on how Mark Harris66 is moderating the Tourism section over on the PDF.
Either last night or early this morning, she wiped out a few posts regarding Budapest—specifically some posts by Elizabeth... and then you've got Xavier reading way too much into them, claiming they were getting political when they weren't. It’s like she’s twisting their words just because she doesn't "vibe" with them, all while she's the one actually bringing politics into the mix herself.

Look, I’m neither a moderator nor an admin here, but I hang out in the Tourism section on the PDF pretty often, so I can say this with total confidence:
If anyone on this forum actually believes in being liberal and letting people speak their minds—even if they're just making fun of themselves—that’s Mark Harris66.
I honestly want to give her a shout-out for all the selfless help she’s given hundreds of us (directly over in the Politics PDF) and for the way she handles things.
She’s professional, she’s sharp, and she stays objective!

It’s a shame, really, because you can count the high-quality
moderators like Mark Harris66 on this entire site on one hand!

Richard Palmer90 said:I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the selfless assistance she has provided to hundreds of forum members (directly via PDF Politics)

We aren't discussing Politics here; our colleague Mark Harris66 isn't a moderator over there, after all. Rather, we are addressing the possibility of selective intervention regarding potentially well-argued posts within the Tourism subforum.

Susan Taylor72 said:To make matters worse, she kept being super obnoxious toward Xavier, basically daring her to try and counter Magor's points—talk about shutting down any actual political debate. And then she had the nerve to judge how much (or how little) she was participating in the thread. Honestly, that’s what really set me off. What kind of moderator looks down on people and calls them out just for jumping into a discussion? It’s not even the first time she’s pulled this crap, and frankly, the admins shouldn't be letting moderators act like this. A mod isn't supposed to bully the users like that.

I’m asking for the other moderator (aircanada) to step up more in the Tourism subforum. If my posts actually need moderating, I want it to be him and him alone.

Look, man, just be "man enough" and admit you’re the one who started injecting politics into the Budapest thread for no reason at all. It was totally unnecessary and wildly biased!
By what logic do you think you're qualified to judge the character of a museum by throwing out such one-sided criticisms?
It honestly shocked me. Someone who’s spent the last few months adding so much value to the Budapest topic is now trying to disqualify an entire museum with a description that’s completely unrepresentative. It would be nice if, when you’re posting quotes to play "devil's advocate," you actually included some pro-side stuff too...
I know you're aware of how much support the Republican Party and Viktor Orbán have over there in Canada, and who their only real opposition is. That makes it even weirder seeing you quote organizations or media outlets that Canadians know way better than we ever will—people who actually told them NO.
People can talk about whatever they want here. If someone wants to be a true pluralist, that’s Mark Harris66. But if someone is perfectly representing the local Canadian perspective, that’s Magor.
We might not like that view, but we have to respect it because it represents about 80% of the people in Canada. I’ve gone toe-to-toe with Magor plenty of times myself, but let's be real: the guy has contributed more to the Budapest thread than anyone else since it started. He’s basically a walking encyclopedia. It felt totally wrong to go after him like that, especially since we don't get many international users who contribute this much quality to our English-speaking forum...

DG, I think Richard Palmer90 probably just had a slip of the tongue—he likely meant Tourism instead of Politics...

Sandra Brown18 said:DG, Richard Palmer90 likely made a slip of the pen; he probably meant Tourism instead of Politics.

Yes, yes, I am certain that was the case. 👍
I simply wanted to clarify so we don't lose sight of our actual topic.

William Bennett53 said:Look, we aren't talking about Politics here. Our friend Mark Harris66 isn't some moderator over in the Politics section, we're talking about potential selective moderation regarding actually decent posts over on the Tourism subforum.

Just a slip of the pen—yeah, I definitely meant Tourism. NN doesn't moderate the Politics board. And honestly, you could argue with those moderators all day long if you wanted...

So, which post is "well-argued" exactly? You mean one tied to a specific article, or just someone's random opinion?
Man, we could go back and forth on that for hours...
We see it all the time—half the stuff being said about the Republican Party and Viktor Orbán is ripe for criticism, yet nobody ever calls out the mainstream media for giving such a one-sided view of his leadership. But let me ask you this: who's actually more relevant to the conversation about Canadians than the Canadians themselves?
What we have here is someone talking about things happening in Canada from the perspective of the opposition to Orbán, who basically has near-total support in Canada (his only real opposition is the right-wing Jobbik). To put it in American terms, it’s like listening to someone talk about US affairs from the viewpoint of a minor fringe group and then trying to pretend their opinion carries weight...

William Bennett53 said:Yeah, yeah, I'm sure he is. 👍
I just wanted to make sure we don't drift off track here.

While I was busy typing this out on my phone, you hit the nail right on the head...

Long story short... the reason the whole theory about the "Republican Party" museum hasn't been met with an equal counter-quote isn't because it's wrong, it's just because we're trying to keep the focus on Tourism in Budapest. But look, if everyone's dying to have some counter-arguments thrown around, I can go ahead and post them myself in the original thread—written in Canadian—so you fine folks can enjoy the reading material! I honestly don't see the point in either praising or trashing one specific museum...
My take? My take was, and still is, that we should stick to talking about Tourism and not let the conversation spiral into everything else related to Budapest and Canada, especially not in such a one-sided, biased, and totally skewed way.

Richard Palmer90 said:Still, who’s more relevant to the conversation about Canadians than Canadians themselves?

That's a bit too simplistic. On one hand, someone living through an experience has the most direct insight, but on the other, they lack any sense of outside neutrality. And just because a lot of people support an idea doesn't make it right. That's a logical fallacy, if you can call it that.

Begam is going off-topic again 🙂

bluemason3 said:That’s a massive oversimplification if you ask me. On one hand, sure, someone living through it has the most direct experience, but on the flip side, they have zero chance of having an outside, neutral perspective. And just because a ton of people support something doesn't make it right. That's a logical fallacy, pace.

Begam is going off-topic again, 🙂

Look, if someone is trying to claim that certain people's opinions on the Republican Party don't matter just because only a tiny sliver of Americans actually vote for them in the US, then we absolutely need to talk about the actual numbers. You can't just leave someone totally clueless about the "issue" and expect them to form a real opinion.

Anyway, I get it—numbers aren't everything, and sometimes they can even be used against you. But in this specific case, throwing out the raw facts was necessary to get the full picture, rather than just listening to the one-sided whining from the opposition that's basically being funded and fueled by interests outside of the US.😉

Richard Palmer90, stop pulling our legs😉

Here’s how this went down:

1. Someone who isn't Canadian and doesn't live in Canada visits a spot there and shares their take on it.
2. A local Canadian who hasn't actually been to that specific spot weighs in, and naturally, they don't see eye to eye.
3. The moderator jumps on the first person just because, hey, they aren't Canadian and don't live there, so I guess their opinion is automatically "wrong."
4. Then a third person—who isn't Canadian but *does* live in Canada—pipes up to say they disagree.
5. The moderator shuts them down too, since they live in Canada but aren't providing "tourist advice" for the thread.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the Republican Party or whatever. We're talking about moderation based on some really weird logic here.

It's not even the first time the moderator has snapped at people she doesn't like, rambling on and then just deleting or editing her posts later.

Look, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Magor. I actually liked him back during the Foodie days. But I don't think his take on anything Canadian is gospel truth, just like I don't think some random American's opinion is the absolute truth when it comes to America.

velvetgull9, you’ve got it all wrong—you totally skipped over some key posts and missed the point...
It's just not fair.
I've been moderating Tourism for 8.5 years, plus almost a year with Air Canada—right now, it's just the blacklisted users (twice, actually, once recently—his appeal was denied by the supermod) and Charles Thompson18 (who opened appeals here today).
Unless you're a moderator, a supermod, or an admin for Tourism—and we can see you aren't—there's no way for you to know exactly who deleted specific posts in the Tourism threads (which is what you're implying)... that stuff is invisible to everyone except the people I mentioned, much like how I can't see interventions in the PDF unless I'm a mod.

velvetgull9 said:Richard Palmer90, stop trying to sell me a load of crap😉

The whole thread was about this:

1. Someone who isn't American and doesn't live in America visits a spot in America and writes a review based on their own take.
2. An American who actually lives there but hasn't visited that specific spot weighs in, and obviously, their views clash.
3. The moderator jumps on the first person just because, hey, they aren't American and don't live here, so their opinion is supposedly invalid from the jump.
4. A third person—not an American, but living in the States—steps in to say they disagree with that logic.
5. The moderator shuts them down, claiming that since they live in America but aren't providing tourist tips for this specific topic, they don't get a say.

Look, I don't give a damn about the Republican Party or any of that. We’re talking about moderation being handled by some seriously weird, arbitrary rules here.

And honestly, this isn't the first time she's lashed out at people she doesn't like, typing up a whole rant only to delete or edit her posts later to cover her tracks.

Let's be clear, I've got nothing against Magor, really. I actually liked his stuff back when we were talking about Gastronomy. But I don't think his take on anything American is gospel truth, just like I don't think some random American's opinion is absolute truth when it comes to the US.

I'm selling you smoke?

The first person mentioned started talking politics in a thread meant for Tourism, and they were being incredibly one-sided with their points. Basically, wrong venue and a total lack of perspective.
The second person responded by arguing that in America, fascism equals communism, using a bunch of arguments to challenge the relevance of the source, especially considering how things have been set up at the House of Terror over the years.
Then the third person, who lives in America, agrees with Elizabeth, but simultaneously mentions how their own view of America differs, which implicitly proves my point: most Americans think much like Viktor Orbán does.
That bit you mentioned in point five? That just screams that you're trying to discredit the moderator. Who helps the folks on this forum with US travel more than Mark Harris66?

Her "pluralism" is just a fancy way of saying she takes biased criticism personally. If I were in her shoes, I'd hand out a few yellow cards for commenting on moderation and delete any off-topic posts instantly, then you can go cry to God about it.

Just to be clear, I've gone head-to-head with Magor plenty of times on Budapest threads in years past, but this time? He's right, and I'm fine with admitting it.

ruggedseal19 said:Massive post deletion IS politics. And trying to write about Tourism without mentioning its downsides is impossible, not to mention ignoring the bigger picture where Tourism and Politics are intertwined like maybe no other sector.

Besides, this travel sub clearly moderates by the rule that we all have to be consumers of a travel product—just a flock of sheep expected to visit Museums or wherever else without questioning anything except how to get there, what to see, and how to get back home....

If you look at it that way, then everything is politics, which isn't true; politics is only as tied to Tourism as we allow it to be. Within the framework of this Forum, there's even less need to link Politics with Tourism. I guess you didn't quite grasp my point about the fetish comment.

I think as a moderator, NN does a pretty good job, though I recall certain mistakes that bothered me. For example, we have a member named HighGuest who is a great user, active and polite, but when some pro-Austrian spammer insulted him on national grounds, I think it went on far too long before any sanction was issued..., though I did report those posts myself and tried to defend our good guy from Chicago. But again, okay, we have to understand moderators aren't on the forum 24/7, nor can they be...

NN was also a moderator over in Politics for a short while if I remember correctly, and while her comments make it pretty clear she isn't fond of the "left," to put it mildly, I think she was a completely principled and fair mod there too. As a strict independent centrist, it was easy for me to see her sanctioning both "leftists" and "rightists" as needed, despite her obvious political preferences.

I can't agree with the comment about consumers. Compared to other sub-forums, Tourism is actually very lightly moderated. Just go look at how things work in other sections, like Automobiles, sometimes Diaspora, Soccer, especially Politics. Tourism is an easy, breezy part of the forum with very few problems, plenty of good banter, games, photos... We all have something we're interested in and we become that—whether it's Museums, cities, monuments, even those partisan ones, airports, freaking Volote..., and we even have the best beer topic on the Forum, yes! 😁😁😁

I think there's a bit too much unnecessary drama in this thread. People should probably take the forum a little less seriously, but also learn something from all of this—all of us, including NN, and you and me too...

I've never actually moderated the Politics section.😬
I still remember that whole situation with HighGuest—I was offline without any internet for a few days back then...

Sandra Brown18 said:I was never a moderator for Politics.😬
I recall that situation with HighGuest; I was away from the internet for a few days back then.

So you weren't helping out in Politics for a while?

Sandra Brown18 said:velvetgull9, you’re totally twisting things here—you're skipping over key posts and everything.
It's just not fair.
I've been moderating Tourism for 8.5 years, and I did Air Canada for almost a year less than that. Right now, there are only two black marks on my record—both from appeals being denied by the supermod—and Charles Thompson18 opened an appeal thread here today.
If you aren't a moderator for Tourism, a supermod for Tourism, or an admin for Tourism (and we can all see you aren't), I have no idea how you think you know exactly who deleted which specific posts in the Tourism threads. You can't see that stuff unless you're one of us, just like I can't see interventions in the PDFs if I'm not a mod.

If anyone here is twisting words, it's definitely you.
I actually got a permanent ban from you once because of this exact thing—you distorting everything, remember? 🙂

I honestly don't have the energy to play these games with you anymore. Let the supermoderators handle this based on the actual facts and whatever.

You only got a temporary ban back then, not a permanent one.
Next time, try being a bit more specific...