The Democratic Party is a mess, but what about Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Joseph Stalin?

Nicholas King said:The Democratic Party basically tossed us into the dustbin of history just because of a username.

Meanwhile, you’ve got people registered on this forum using names like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Joseph Stalin without any issues at all. I’m sure there are probably a few other cheerful nicknames floating around too, but honestly, I have better things to do with my life.

I've actually forgotten what I was even trying to ask... 😬.

no one will be banned or face issues with the moderators due to a "username that violates the rules," because, aside from the first two points, these are merely recommendations rather than strict mandates.

Do not use the names of (American) public figures: this is prohibited because we do not want users impersonating people like Branka Bebić or Stjepan Mason on the Forum.

Daniel Ward87 said:cyberTITO - last active 10/24/2008.
comunistito - last active 01/23/2010.
drox-marshall - last active on: 04/23/2009
drugtito - last active on: 05/28/2008.

I didn't go through every single one, just picked a few names at random. Some of these users have zero posts and haven't been online in ages, so they aren't really saying anything. The issue starts when they actually begin posting.

Furthermore,

Adolf. H. - last active on: 10/12/2008.
Adolf Hitler - last active on: 05/10/2011, has one post
Adolfo Hitler - last active on: 09/06/2009

As far as the names that hit close to home historically go—well, Saddam and Co. don't really apply here, so I won't dwell on them. Looking at the last activity dates, you can tell how serious these people are about their handles. You’ll probably try to argue about the universality of dictators, war crimes, and all that. But look, we live in America, and we have our own specific history to deal with. Even though I get why it's controversial, I want to avoid any unnecessary drama that could stem from a user's nickname. So, my stance on the Marshall Party remains the same.

no one is going to get banned or run into trouble with the moderators because of a "username that violates the rules," since—aside from the first two items—these are merely recommendations rather than strict mandates.

Nicholas King said:I think there's been a fundamental misunderstanding here—it isn't actually about what the final decision will be, or whether it might eventually change. The core issue is that the Forum rules explicitly state, as the single applicable rule in this specific instance:

no one is going to get banned or run into trouble with the moderators because of a "username that violates the rules," since—aside from the first two items—these are merely recommendations rather than strict mandates.

It seems somewhat peculiar, if I may say so, for a ban to be issued on this platform for something where the rules explicitly state that no one will face a ban. So, we aren't even talking about some vague, undefined gray area; we are looking at an action that runs directly contrary to a clearly stated rule.

Now, I have no issue with an administrator exercising discretionary power to permanently ban any username they deem inappropriate for whatever reason—but if that’s the case, it really ought to be clearly formulated and documented as an actual rule. That way, everything remains transparent for everyone involved. Though, I suppose they should probably provide at least a rough definition to clarify what constitutes an "inappropriate" name (for instance, what would happen to a serious, highly active user like Stane Dolanc?).

Daniel Ward87 said:cyberTITO - last active 10/24/2008.
comunistito - last active 01/23/2010.
drox-marshall - last active on: 04/23/2009
drugtito - last active on: 05/28/2008.

I didn't go through every single one, just picked a few names at random. Some of these users have zero posts and haven't been online in ages, so they aren't really saying anything. The issue starts when they actually begin posting.

Furthermore,

Adolf. H. - last active on: 10/12/2008.
Adolf Hitler - last active on: 05/10/2011, has one post
Adolfo Hitler - last active on: 09/06/2009

As far as the names that hit close to home historically go—well, Saddam and Co. don't really apply here, so I won't dwell on them. Looking at the last activity dates, you can tell how serious these people are about their handles. You’ll probably try to argue about the universality of dictators, war crimes, and all that. But look, we live in America, and we have our own specific history to deal with. Even though I get why it's controversial, I want to avoid any unnecessary drama that could stem from a user's nickname. So, my stance on the Marshall Party remains the same.

The fact remains, we live in America, which has its own history....

Daniel Ward87 said:Who says we can't talk about Josip Broz Marshall or The Party? On this site, there are endless threads about him and—get this—communist atrocities. And if you follow those crimes back to their source, they lead straight to the guy at the top, which in this case is Josip Broz Marshall, rather than someone like Pol Pot or the late Saddam Hussein. There’s definitely a time and place where discussing his legacy makes sense. But honestly, given how recent all these revelations about communist crimes in America have been, I think it's smarter to head off any potential drama by just not letting certain usernames post here under those specific handles, right?

Just to be clear, using the name Marshall Party isn't my way of glorifying any crimes. In fact, I haven't even claimed he was solely responsible for everything.

As an admin, I don't really care whose birthday you're celebrating.

As an administrator, I don't care whose birthday you're celebrating.

Nicholas King said:What is the deal with Stane Dolanc? 🙂

Sandra Parker3 said:What's the deal with Milka Planinc?

Daniel Ward87 said:"The Forum staff reserves the right to modify or delete your account if they feel it's necessary. These rules can change at any time without notice."

Nicholas King said:In other words—if you ask me—the Forum editors haven't actually decided that removing Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc is warranted.

Thirdly, I suppose it boils down to this: Marshall's party not good, while Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc are good.

As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and lock it.

Daniel Ward87 said:In other words, the Forum staff will handle each case individually whenever they see fit, without giving any heads-up—just like the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

steelskipper5 said:Basically, the admin just doesn't want to justify their decision or explain to the members which specific rules were broken so we don't end up in this exact same mess again. ☕

Sure, the rules say what they say. But that kind of clause is supposed to be a last resort—you know, for those weird situations where the actual rules somehow fail to cover something.
And look, we already have rules about acceptable usernames. So, when someone gets a permanent ban for a nickname that doesn't even violate the existing rules—but instead falls under "administrator discretion" (which covers pretty much everything else on this site, including things like deleting half the forum just for kicks, something an admin actually did once in a historical moment)—it leaves a really bad taste in everyone's mouth. It feels like nothing has really changed since the days of ZgSashov's administrative arrogance and ego.

I'd really love to hear Nice weigh in on this. ☕

rustydrifter10 said:Oh, I see my name popped up here! Sorry about that, guys, I might not have the full scoop on this specific situation.

I took a quick look at the profile and went through their recent posts, and honestly, here’s my take on it. It looks like someone signed up with a handle that might seem harmless enough at first glance, but then they immediately started dropping nothing but problematic, troll-style comments. Basically, they look like a troll and they're acting exactly like one. In my opinion, if this user had chosen a less "flashy" username or if they had just engaged in normal conversation without trying to provoke everyone, they probably wouldn't have been banned so quickly. But when you combine a loud username with constant agitation right when they join the community, it’s a massive red flag. It’s usually better to just clear them out fast before they cause real damage to the vibe of the board. Just like how we jump on spammers or people posting ads the second they show up, sometimes we have to do the same with trolls if that’s the only reason they’re even here. Honestly, two posts can be more than enough to make a call, especially when the username itself is screaming for attention.