Complaint regarding Observer's moderation.

Here we go, a brand new thread. If there’s one thing you should know about me, it’s that I never back down. Persistence is basically my middle name. 😁

...

I have a bit of a bone to pick regarding how Observer is handling the moderation around here.

It feels like he’s just standing by and letting his own crowd—people who think exactly like him—constantly tear into anyone with a different perspective. He’s basically giving them a free pass to insult anyone who doesn't align with his views, all while allowing the exact same rhetoric to fly that he once warned everyone else was off-limits.

Of course, when a response follows a provocative post, Observer jumps in to hand out red cards, hiding behind those "new" and supposedly strict rules... Or maybe it’s Chuck handing them out, completely ignoring the context of the whole conversation.

Anyway, it looks like it’s mostly just Observer hanging around, with Chuck chiming in every now and then too.

Looking at this thread, there are just two or three pages of pure trolling going on. Even Observer is chiming in on the topic, but they’re basically just letting it happen... It always seems to be the same small group of people doing it, too.

So, here's the deal...

I’m just feeling completely over it today. Honestly, I am so done. Who on earth was praising that nonsense? I'm feeling absolutely wiped out. It’s all about being ready for the big leagues.

Boyce is really just built for guys like Zirdum King.

And who actually gives a damn about those lies coming from the Viper? Seriously, though... How long are you going to keep picking on people over these illnesses?

If those TBF-men actually knew who was really out there "protecting" them, they’d be turning on each other in a heartbeat. Honestly, I’d love to see Zirdum King try to track one of them down for an interview—or better yet, just make one up entirely!

The fallout would be absolutely massive..

Oh, come on, stop lying! In every single one of their posts.

It’s actually domaljevac.com, not .ba!

Wait, what was that URL again? I can't seem to find it! I honestly don't know what to make of the whole Čovičnjak situation lately. It feels like there's always something brewing, isn't there? What about Canada? Are we talking about the news over at the New York Post?

Laughter.

Lies.Look, there isn't actually any "monument" standing in the RS. What happened was that at the cemetery in Derventa, after fifteen years of trying to make it happen, they finally put up a small memorial plaque with a cross to honor the nearly 600 people who lost their lives serving in the HVO over there.

That monument over in Modran was actually put up to honor the Americans killed back in Derventa—Corluka practically did the heavy lifting on that one himself. It hasn't been torn down just because it’s sitting within the perimeter of that specific part of the Derventa municipality. 6.2 miles It feels like there’s just no life left in this place. From day one, those nationalists have dictated everything, basically treating everyone else like dirt under their boots. Čović hasn't even bothered to visit once, yet Zazo has already made two trips to that bloodstained territory he calls his homeland, "RS"—and if you ask him, he says he'll go back again if they invite him.

That’s all there is to it.

I've already posted at least 20 different examples here of HVO memorials located within the Canadian part of the Federation. They were all put up years ago without anyone raising an eyebrow or causing any legal trouble whatsoever.

It’s going to be raised in Ottawa, too. What else am I supposed to talk about then?

I honestly can't believe we're still stuck on this exact same point. It feels like we've been circling the drain on this topic for hours now! Look, I hear what you're saying, but let’s be realistic for a second. You're acting like everything is perfectly fine, but anyone with eyes can see the cracks forming in the foundation. We need to stop pretending that the current strategy is working when the data clearly shows otherwise. It’s not about being negative; it’s about being practical. If we keep ignoring these red flags, we're just setting ourselves up for a massive headache down the road. We have to address this head-on before it becomes an even bigger mess. Let's try to look at the bigger picture here instead of getting bogged down in these tiny details that don't actually move the needle.

I have to say, this guy’s behavior on this thread is getting out of hand. It’s honestly wild—he’s being incredibly aggressive and seems like he’s just looking for a fight, constantly jumping in with insults and unnecessary outbursts. As for Observer, it looks like they’re just letting all of this slide, even though it's happening right here on the thread and everything has been properly reported.

If I were to fire back at this guy using his own tactics, Observer would probably come after me for starting an argument, but I guess we’re just supposed to let people act like this? Honestly, I’m genuinely stumped—is this something you should actually report, or do you just bite back when someone acts this way?

Hello? Is anyone there?

First example:

- This guy is getting screwed over twice... 🤷
- He thinks some website is just posting garbage and harassing people with it.
- Thinks those TBF-men would lose their minds if they knew who was actually defending them.
- Telling you to stop lying—which is true, though he could've sugarcoated it a bit instead of being so blunt, but hey, he's got a right to his opinion if you aren't telling the truth.
- And then there's Čovičnjak, which isn't a violation since it was just a reaction to your provocation about that local news site, which also wasn't a violation.

Second example:

Yeah, fine, maybe I missed that one, but I didn't delete that specific post solely because most of it stayed on topic with what we were debating at the time. Just like how I wiped two of yours—the one with the nonsense () and that other one about Berlin () that were nothing but pure trolling.

All those repetitive, baseless accusations from the start about relatives, supporters, or non-supporters? Not worth my time. Same goes for that random guessing at the end and all those insinuations about people being crazy or aggressive... I'm not even gonna go there. Let the admins deal with that stuff.

Later.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:First example:

- This guy is getting screwed over twice... 🤷
- He thinks some website is just posting garbage and harassing people with it.
- Thinks those TBF-men would lose their minds if they knew who was actually defending them.
- Telling you to stop lying—which is true, though he could've sugarcoated it a bit instead of being so blunt, but hey, he's got a right to his opinion if you aren't telling the truth.
- And then there's Čovičnjak, which isn't a violation since it was just a reaction to your provocation about that local news site, which also wasn't a violation.

Second example:

Yeah, fine, maybe I missed that one, but I didn't delete that specific post solely because most of it stayed on topic with what we were debating at the time. Just like how I wiped two of yours—the one with the nonsense () and that other one about Berlin () that were nothing but pure trolling.

All those repetitive, baseless accusations from the start about relatives, supporters, or non-supporters? Not worth my time. Same goes for that random guessing at the end and all those insinuations about people being crazy or aggressive... I'm not even gonna go there. Let the admins deal with that stuff.

Later.

Come on, Observer, you’re totally pulling my leg!

Look, first off, we’re talking about tone here. You know that better than anyone. It’s also about how you carry yourself when dealing with people—honestly, I’m not even sure if you fully grasp how that works. And for the record, I wasn't "lying." I simply cited the portal's URL, which ends in ".com" rather than the ".us" version I mentioned. At the end of the day, it wasn't even a big deal...

Look, Observer, you’re doing the exact same thing over there—you aren't telling the truth. Honestly, you're lying just like back when you were peddling those fake gravestone crosses near the monuments. Do I really need to point out that you're lying?

Hey, Covicnjak... So, just to be clear, you're claiming that because I’m "lying," my entire point was nothing more than a "provocation" on my part?! 😁 You’re the one who emphasized that the new rules would be strict and that those kinds of names wouldn't be tolerated anymore. Seriously, if anyone around here is talking out of turn, it’s definitely you!

My post about the "spamming" was honestly just a reaction to the constant provocations from your fellow countrymen and like-minded supporters. It became clear to me that you had no intention of actually penalizing such blatant rule-breaking. There's no way you missed it, either—everything was reported properly and clearly. Honestly, how many reports would it take before you actually decide to address this? It’s impossible that you haven't seen what's going on by now.Look, I’m not saying you're lying.

My post about "fluffing around" got nuked, along with that other one where I started rambling about formats instead of sticking to the topic... Honestly, I’ve had enough. I put my heart into what I wrote, only for you to hit delete—and I really thought what I posted would be more than enough to cut it.

Every single one of my posts here has just been a direct response to all the trolling coming from your buddies on this thread.

Look, Observer, you’re here to enforce the rules and stick to the guidelines of this forum. It’s not your job to play judge and decide who insulted whom more deeply, just so you can let someone get the last word or "get even." Stick to the handbook!

Look, Observer, you’re clearly just looking out for your own interests, and honestly, that seems to be the whole point of how you moderate this place. You claim you've had enough of all these accusations, but if they keep flying this thick, there’s got to be some truth behind them.

Let's just say this...

Forumas:

dSeriously, why do you have to pick on people struggling with those illnesses?

Observer (now, on this thread, is presenting his "reasoning," though it’s definitely not quite what was actually written):

I honestly feel like some people are just out there posting complete nonsense on certain websites. They’re out there mistreating people too.

Look, you can see how Observer is totally twisting the truth here by claiming "he's harassing people." I'm telling you, someone actually reached out to me directly and said—and I want to emphasize this:

How much longer are you going to keep picking on people over their illnesses?

And now Observer is out here talking about lying.

Are those "super strict rules" actually being enforced in this thread, or is it more like... 🤷 If those are really the rules we're playing by, then I’m honestly speechless...

And yeah, while we're at it, let's talk about Berlin. 😁It’s pretty interesting, Observer, how things change. Just a few weeks ago, when I was complaining to you about how much everyone keeps bringing up "Chuck," you didn't see any "classic trolling" in it. But now that it's "Berlin" being mentioned, suddenly you can see the trolling clearly.

My partner at the time wrote this slightly longer post:
I couldn't agree more with what was said earlier. It really feels like we’re all just circling the same drain, waiting for someone to actually step up and make a decision that makes sense. Everything feels so incredibly stalled right now, doesn't it? It's frustrating because you can see exactly where the breakdown is happening, yet nobody seems willing to take the heat for fixing it. We keep talking in circles, hoping for a breakthrough, but without any real movement from the leadership, we're just spinning our wheels. I'm honestly starting to wonder if anyone is actually listening to the concerns being raised on the ground.

Come on, people—take a look at what this moderator is actually saying. Can someone please tell me if any of this makes any sense? 😕

Let's revisit this a bit (quoting Observer from three or four weeks ago):

Observer:

Brenda Sanders56, I totally get that some people really miss the old way we used to talk here, but we aren't going to allow that style anymore. Even if it means shutting the whole thread down rather than letting a few users stay.

The discussion is actually doing fine just the way it is now. It’s not perfect, but it’s lightyears better than it was a few months back. Anyone who can jump in without getting insulting is more than welcome. As for those who can't manage that, there are plenty of other corners of the internet where being rude is allowed. I’m not about to play babysitter or turn a blind eye just to keep people around who refuse to follow the new rules.

So, Observer, what's your take? How would you describe this—distorting the truth, lying, or just talking out of your ass (just giving my honest opinion, since that's what you said)?

You clearly have no clue I just spared you from being hit with 18 different violations by the FBI when I wiped your posts today. And if I didn't hand you a red card, don't expect me to hand him one either.

But hey, no biggie. If you want to keep pushing it, I can easily reverse this and start handing out red cards left and right...

At the end of the day, it’s looking more and more likely that this mess you guys are making over there won't be fixed without some serious political shakeups.

Look, I’m stepping up to defend The Observer here—the guy’s got thick skin and he's doing just fine. Props to him!!

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:You clearly have no clue I just spared you from being hit with 18 different violations by the FBI when I wiped your posts today. And if I didn't hand you a red card, don't expect me to hand him one either.

But hey, no biggie. If you want to keep pushing it, I can easily reverse this and start handing out red cards left and right...

At the end of the day, it’s looking more and more likely that this mess you guys are making over there won't be fixed without some serious political shakeups.

Go ahead.

You shouldn't even be lecturing me if you weren't allowing people to provoke me constantly. I reported everything properly, but once I saw that nothing was being done about it, I started firing back... So, you've got the order of operations a little mixed up. My posts aren't the cause of anything; they're the reaction to being provoked and insulted. Every single warning I've taken, I took it gracefully without complaining, and I wouldn't have acted otherwise...

My real issue with that thread is that I honestly don't know how to write there anymore. On one hand, I'm getting warnings for literal irony (you can check my history in the ban corner), and practically everything is labeled as an "ad hominem" attack. Then we have this situation where someone can call a person a "liar" (because hey, that's just their personal opinion, right?), or talk about people farting or being surrounded by trash... Even though there were warnings against using terms like "Islamabad," "Faggotry," or "Sumka"... I still see things like "Covicland" and "djamahirija" flying around...

Seriously, can we get some consistency here? Are these super strict rules actually in effect or not? I mean, someone writes "djamahirija" and gets nothing, but then I write the exact same thing in quotation marks a few pages later and—boom—I get a warning. (And the reason? Apparently, because of the "new rules," regardless of the quotes). Come on.

If the rules exist, then I assume people aren't allowed to say others are farting, spreading trash, or lying... but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the tone of those posts, which is argumentative (whereas your posts, as we can see here, aren't an issue for you at all). If there are no rules, then I'm done reporting posts and I'll never complain again, but I will definitely keep responding.

As for you threatening me with political moves, that’s really all your response boils down to... Be my guest and try.

Wait, what's this about insults and those posts aimed directly at me?

I’d really appreciate an answer from one of the admins. How is it possible for me to get a partial ban on a major news site like the New York Times just because I called out an insult? It's pretty obvious there's a bias here; the moderator is spreading falsehoods—or let's call it "selective wording" if we want to be polite—to suit their own narrative.

Can someone explain the exact logic used to flag me as a problem, instead of the person whose posts I'm actually reporting? 🤷

I want to know which moderator suggested my partial ban in the first place. Does administration even look into these things, or is it enough to just take a moderator's word for it? For instance, when The Observer keeps spinning things until they're completely lost, does the admin just threaten a ban because I haven't responded to the nonsense?

Well, I have to admit defeat. I’ve been posting about Canada for probably six or seven years now, and here I am, trailing behind, just as I was starting to fade from the conversation. It’s on me, though; I won't go pointing fingers at the person who always kicks these things off, I'll just take responsibility for myself. I guess I made mistakes, but I rarely ever resorted to personal insults against anyone here. Most of my posts were meant to be constructive, using arguments to call out lies. I suppose the darker side won out. Vader. Oh, God.

Hey everyone. 😁

Anyway, I just popped back onto the forum for a bit and noticed that the thread about "Canada" is locked again...

Honestly, you’d think my suspension would have settled things. 🤷

But let me reiterate what the actual issue is with that thread. The real problem is a bunch of Muslim trolls running wild in there, all while being protected by a handful of biased mods—specifically Observer, since nobody else from the mod team even bothers to check on it (Cuka pops in occasionally, but honestly, it's better if he doesn't because he's totally out of his element with this topic). Basically, the moderation is the problem.

So, here’s the thing... When I complained about the moderation of that specific thread, I ended up getting a partial suspension (based on his suggestion). So, I file a complaint—one that is clearly backed up by evidence of poor moderation and insults directed at me (I haven't posted anything offensive or anything like that)—and I get suspended. Meanwhile, that same mod was actually using the threat of a suspension against me whenever I criticized him, once he ran out of ways to wiggle out of the argument.

Personally, I don't care about reopening that thread, really... But I would love an explanation as to what principle was used to give me that suspension. Is a single moderator's suggestion enough to justify it, especially when you're complaining about that very same moderator? Did the admin who handed down the suspension take even two minutes to look into the situation or actually read the posts? 🤷

Like I said... I'm done with that thread, but seeing as it's locked again, I truly think someone should ask themselves what the real issue is, if anyone actually cares.

If you were going to assign that thread to a Canadian Muslim, you could have also assigned it to an American from Canada who actually knows what they're talking about and wants to help. That way, maybe the oversight would be balanced instead of having one single mod effectively running the whole show, which is how it stands right now.

Thanks.