hollowtrucker77 said:John, honestly, the biggest issue here is how they’re just killing any actual discussion and strangling free speech
it's straight out of some authoritarian playbook
🙂
from the outside, it might look like they're actually moderating or putting in a lot of effort, but that couldn't be further from the truth
if you want to be moderated in a way where everything is reduced to nothing but rigid questions and answers, then go ahead and move over to a corporate platform like LinkedIn
nimblelynx7 As requested:
I have to agree—the PDF is far too sanitized and rigid. From what I can gather, the moderators seem to be almost exclusively from law enforcement or legal backgrounds. It feels like they’re constantly trying to force this overly formal, bureaucratic tone onto the document, as if we’re all reading official government filings or court summons instead of having a conversation.
Since we’re posting in the Law subforum, most of what happens here naturally revolves around specific regulations—which usually means the discourse follows a predictable pattern of questions and answers. Of course, debating the merits of those laws is both allowed and encouraged, but let’s be realistic: when someone joins a thread specifically looking for legal clarity, they shouldn't be forced to wade through dozens of pages of aimless chatter and off-topic nonsense just to find a straight answer.
Michelle Alvarez8 As specified by:
So, I’m lying again, am I?
You’re only presenting a fragment of the conversation. While I wouldn't go so far as to call it an outright lie, you aren't exactly being forthcoming either. Anyone reading this is going to be left without the full picture.👍
nimblelynx7 As stated by:
I frequently find myself under the impression that behind that particular username sits an entire task force from the FBI, stationed here on official duty just to defend and represent the police department...
You’re doing nothing but complaining and playing the part of the skeptic.👍
nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.
Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.
Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)
Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?
Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?
Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.
Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.
I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.
Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.
Look, that’s your opinion—and certainly anyone else's right to have one—but there’s a time and a place for everything. The issue isn't finding that "place." We’ve danced around this enough times already, and there’s really no point in circling back to it every few pages.
nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.
Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.
Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)
Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?
Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?
Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.
Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.
I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.
Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.
In the US, there are hundreds of thousands of officers exercising police authority. Of course, there are individuals who are an embarrassment to the force and to society at large, but constantly insisting that the entire department is defined by those outliers is simply a generalization. I don't claim to be superior to you, but when it comes to this specific subject, I happen to have significantly more experience than you do.👍
nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.
Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.
Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)
Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?
Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?
Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.
Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.
I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.
Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.
It isn't, nor did I ever suggest that it was.👍
nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.
Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.
Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)
Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?
Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?
Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.
Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.
I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.
Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.
We haven't. Law enforcement isn't a monolith where everyone performs identically. There are specializations and professionals who are exceptionally good at what they do (most of them, actually), so generalizing like that only does a disservice to the good officers, not necessarily to the ones being criticized.👍
nimblelynx7 said:So, I’ve already been slapped with a warning for commenting on the moderation, and now I’ve been moved over here. Fine. Since I'm here, I might as well actually say something.
Regarding this whole "Drot Inc" trend—deleting my post feels an awful lot like censorship. Honestly, I’m starting to suspect there’s an entire squad from the FBI hiding behind that username, just doing their job to protect and represent the police.
Yeah, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the police exist to pad the budget they live off of. That’s my opinion and it’s my right to have it. Fortunately, even in America, there isn't some "Department of Thought Policing"—unless I'm mistaken.
John's "argument" regarding those specific percentages proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that roughly a million people—give or take the number of car owners in the US—paid half a million dollars each in fines to a country of only about 330 million people. If that doesn't strike you as massive, then I don't know what does. (A bit off-topic, I know.)
Let’s be clear: I stand by what I said about the police being incompetent and poorly trained. My comments weren't baseless—they were drawn directly from my own personal experiences, news reports, and the discussions happening right here on this forum. Yet, John deleted it, claiming I was "mocking law enforcement." I’d love to know: does anyone have an OBJECTIVE reason for that?
Isn't it true that the cops took a dealer out for coffee and then let him slip right through their fingers?
Has anyone else noticed how little people actually know about cybercrime? Honestly, looking at these threads, the level of digital illiteracy is almost impressive. It’s embarrassing.
Honestly, John has this habit of calling people liars whenever he doesn't get his way. It’s like he thinks he's on duty at the FBI or something. This is a forum, not a police shift.
I agree. That PDF is way too sterile and rigid. From what I can tell, the mods—mostly coming from law enforcement or legal backgrounds—are trying to force this thing into the mold of an official government document or some dry court filing. It’s unnecessary.
Don't get it twisted—this isn't some organized movement to oust Drot Inc from their position, even if that's how it might come across.
Not if I'm just unhappy with something, but rather if I believe something is untrue. Besides, everyone is entitled to their perspective. Just as your perspective is that I am not an individual, my perspective is that a great many people are exaggerating. I base this on the fact that I do this job every day and observe my colleagues doing it as well. The truth is, it isn't rocket science; the procedures are often repetitive or similar, which makes it fairly easy to spot when something is off.👍
Laura Chavez19 said:I’ll sign off on this. I’m not exactly a regular fixture around here, but I’ve started noticing a pattern where comments seem to vanish—specifically whenever someone drops a critique regarding how the police operate, especially in threads dedicated to their conduct. Look, I don't get this obsession with sweeping generalizations. If I happen to get pulled over by an officer twice and they’re both incredibly rude, then in my book, that's just how they are. It doesn't matter if every other cop in the country is perfectly polite; I haven't met them, so their behavior doesn't change my reality. To me, that isn't "generalizing"—it's just reporting my own experience. And honestly, it feels like nobody else on this forum sees it that way either.
Well, you should drop by more often then. Perhaps it feels that way to me because I tend to reply to them, but from where I’m sitting, there seems to be a massive pile of negative comments that are still very much visible.👍
Laura Chavez19 said:I’ll sign off on this. I’m not exactly a regular fixture around here, but I’ve started noticing a pattern where comments seem to vanish—specifically whenever someone drops a critique regarding how the police operate, especially in threads dedicated to their conduct. Look, I don't get this obsession with sweeping generalizations. If I happen to get pulled over by an officer twice and they’re both incredibly rude, then in my book, that's just how they are. It doesn't matter if every other cop in the country is perfectly polite; I haven't met them, so their behavior doesn't change my reality. To me, that isn't "generalizing"—it's just reporting my own experience. And honestly, it feels like nobody else on this forum sees it that way either.
That part isn't up for debate. If you had a bad experience, you are naturally going to describe it as such; however, if you extend that sentiment to the thousands of officers you have never even met, that is precisely what constitutes generalizing.👍
nimblelynx7 said:Exactly. The guy was actually a decent, likable person to talk to, and then he goes and gets moderator powers! 😁
We were exactly the same before and we are exactly the same now.😁
