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

swiftcrane96 said:

Uncle Strile Asks:
Look, just a heads-up regarding your account: the Forum editorial team reserves the right to modify or even delete your profile if they decide an Action is warranted. I guess it’s just the way things work here. Also, keep in mind that these rules might be tweaked at any time without us giving you much of a warning beforehand.

Uncle Strile Asks:
Look, I’ve already laid out my reasoning behind this decision. If you and a handful of others aren't happy about it, that’s really not my concern. It’s all clearly stated in the rules—exactly what can happen under these circumstances—and everyone here agreed to those terms when they joined. As the Admin, my accountability lies with Anderlon. If you want to go complain to him, be my guest. Honestly, if he actually decides to listen to you, I’d probably be the happiest person on this site.

Look, since you aren't an Admin, you don't get to call the shots on when we implement "emergency protocols." It’s not that simple—you just don't have the full picture. I’m not obligated to lay all my cards on the table for you, and honestly, I'm probably not even allowed to.

She’s a smart one, I guess.
And honestly, they could probably just wake up one morning and decide to ban all those other handles, too. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. 🤷

It really depends, I suppose. It’ll likely come down to how people decide to carry themselves and what kind of tone they pick when using those handles. Who knows, really? 🤷

It really depends, I suppose. Where exactly is this all headed, and more importantly—how on earth are we actually going to pull it off? I honestly can't say for sure, but looking at the current trajectory, things seem incredibly uncertain. Maybe there's a way forward, or maybe we're just spinning our wheels, but I guess it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting. I suppose people will be posting under those handles, I guess. 🤷

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:The Admin didn't screw up anything here... none at all.

This guy showed up on the politics board, merging over from Proxy—probably just some clone of one of those political trolls, using a fake handle just to stir the pot. It was obvious from his very first post in that sub-forum... he's just here to provoke. On the politics side, we’ve dealt with a million useless trolls like this before, no big deal. If Uncle Strile hadn't banned him, one of the politics mods would've eventually stepped in and handled him anyway...

Nicholas King is bored out of his mind... ☕

Given how Josip Broz Marshall showed up on this subforum and those first posts of his, the decision is more than just smart... it's a no-brainer.

Nicholas King is just bored. ☕

Nicholas King said:The Admin made it perfectly clear—and I don't think there's any room for debate here—that Stane Dolanc is absolutely fine.

It really depends, I suppose. Where exactly is this all headed, and more importantly—how on earth are we actually going to pull it off? I honestly can't say for sure, but looking at the current trajectory, things seem incredibly uncertain. Maybe there's a way forward, or maybe we're just spinning our wheels, but I guess it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting. I suppose people will be posting under those handles, I guess. 🤷

What am I even supposed to make of this? It seems like Stane Dolanc is allowed to jump into a thread about planting pansies, yet he’s somehow barred from discussing Psychology? I guess it just doesn't add up—it feels completely arbitrary, if you ask me. 😕.

Christian Taylor3 said:@rustydrifter10

You should probably just say it out loud at this point: you're basically using ideology as a convenient excuse to hand out bans. It’s a pretty massive blunder, honestly—even the folks over at ZgSash didn't see that coming. Like I mentioned before, if you're going to ban someone just for having a username like "Marshall forever," you really ought to require approval from the other admins and the editorial board of Monitor (since they actually own this forum), and then make sure that rule is explicitly laid out in the terms of service.

Thanks for listening. 🙂

Nicholas King said:The Admin made it perfectly clear—and I don't think there's any room for debate here—that Stane Dolanc is absolutely fine.

It really depends, I suppose. Where exactly is this all headed, and more importantly—how on earth are we actually going to pull it off? I honestly can't say for sure, but looking at the current trajectory, things seem incredibly uncertain. Maybe there's a way forward, or maybe we're just spinning our wheels, but I guess it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting. I suppose people will be posting under those handles, I guess. 🤷

What am I even supposed to make of this? It seems like Stane Dolanc is allowed to jump into a thread about planting pansies, yet he’s somehow barred from discussing Psychology? I guess it just doesn't add up—it feels completely arbitrary, if you ask me. 😕.

Nicholas King said:The issue isn't actually the ban itself—it's the lack of a coherent argument used to justify it.

Nicholas King is just bored. ☕

It seems when an observer runs out of actual points to make, they inevitably resort to the standard, lazy mockery.

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.

With a handle like that, you’re basically banned from posting on this Forum. If you actually want to learn something, I’d suggest spending some time digging into American history between 1945 and 1995 instead.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:That is straight up false. It's a total lie. Nobody's getting banned because of their politics.

Why not? Honestly, I doubt anyone would even notice if Josip Broz Marshall, the Communist Party, or even Stane Dolanc were posting about gardening on some hobbyist forum.

There’ve been plenty of cases like this before, nothing flashy, like I said. The arguments have already been laid out right here in this thread multiple times... I still think my point stands: you're just bored. As soon as you find some other "mistake" by the mods, you'll move on to that. 😉

Thanks for the attention. Catch you later when the next "massive crisis" hits.

swiftcrane96 said:"This caught us all off guard, I guess"

Who exactly are we talking about here? You and Lastan?

I’m leaning toward supporting the decision, mostly because it seems like the smart move, plain and simple. 🤷

Nicholas King said:And what about the section regarding Stane Dolanc and Milka Planinc? 😁

Nicholas King said:Look, this isn't actually a debate about whether we're dealing with a troll or not—anyway, Henry Hernandez7 raised a question regarding his seven-day cooling-off period following those allegations about cloning within the Communist Party, and so far, he hasn't received a single answer or any sort of clarification.

If the official explanation from the mods had mentioned trolling, cloning, or anything of that nature, this entire thread wouldn't even exist. However, first over at the KZB and now here as well, Uncle Strile insisted all the way until the semifinals that the sole reason for the ban was the inappropriateness of the username, only to bring up the famous background info in the very last post ("Since you aren't an Admin, you don't get to decide when "extreme measures" are taken just because you lack all the necessary information. I am under no obligation to give you access to that, nor am I allowed to.").

swiftcrane96 said:"This caught us all off guard, I guess"

Who exactly are we talking about here? You and Lastan?

I’m leaning toward supporting the decision, mostly because it seems like the smart move, plain and simple. 🤷

swiftcrane96 said:Look, you're asking me? 🤣

I’d probably include those two as well. I mean, who cares which high-ranking officials we pick? 🙂 😳 They were the ones calling the shots behind those crimes, so whatever—they get banned from the forum, big deal. 😳

Which criminal Communist Party elite? 🧐

Honestly, they were criminals, so what am I supposed to say? 😳

Christian Taylor3 said:Uncle Strile, with all due respect, this feels like a completely unnecessary blunder by the Admin. You’re opening a massive Pandora’s box here; there are hundreds of usernames just like this one floating around. Honestly, your arguments feel a bit thin—they don't really hold much water. Besides, the phrase "The Party" is likely just a nod to that old slogan from those community service projects back in the day: "Marshall, The Party, Youth League, Action!" You’d be surprised how many people earned enough money from those summer work programs to buy their first pair of Converse, get their first car, or make lifelong friends... Sure, we might have shouted that slogan back when we were just kids eating ice cream at the local park, but does that make us Titoists, communists, or potential criminals in your eyes?

In other words, if someone can shout that slogan right now in the middle of Times Square without fearing any kind of backlash, I don't see why we need to purge these kinds of nicknames from the Forum. It's like how some of the most iconic spots in NYC are named after historical figures. For example, back in 2012, here you provided a list of places in America named after Josip Broz Marshall.

If that specific nickname (which we've established is tied to a slogan, not a name) is actually causing trouble in certain threads, then go ahead and hit them with the standard trolling or harassment penalties. But doing this on the Forum without prior agreement from the Monitor editorial staff—and without clearly stating such things in the rules for creating new accounts—is going to cause a stir. All I would have to do is tweet about it once, and in a split second, ten thousand people would be onto it. Then you'll have Babic, the Vecernjakovac crowd, the Pavicev vultures over at JL, and the entire force of the American news cycle and Anderlon starting to poke fun at the Forum for acting like Tomislav Karamarko. 😬 There's really no need for that headache.

I also request that we hear from rustydrifter10.

p.s. This isn't personal; you know I'd stick my neck out for you as an Admin anytime. At least, that's how it's been until now, so this whole situation has caught us all off guard.

Nicholas King said:So, let me get this straight—you actually think it’s a smart move, even though you clearly don't agree with it.

Uncle Strile Asks:
Look, just a heads-up regarding your account: the Forum editorial team reserves the right to modify or even delete your profile if they decide an Action is warranted. I guess it’s just the way things work here. Also, keep in mind that these rules might be tweaked at any time without us giving you much of a warning beforehand.

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.

Uncle Strile Asks:
Look, I’ve already laid out my reasoning behind this decision. If you and a handful of others aren't happy about it, that’s really not my concern. It’s all clearly stated in the rules—exactly what can happen under these circumstances—and everyone here agreed to those terms when they joined. As the Admin, my accountability lies with Anderlon. If you want to go complain to him, be my guest. Honestly, if he actually decides to listen to you, I’d probably be the happiest person on this site.

Look, since you aren't an Admin, you don't get to call the shots on when we implement "emergency protocols." It’s not that simple—you just don't have the full picture. I’m not obligated to lay all my cards on the table for you, and honestly, I'm probably not even allowed to.

Nicholas King said:So, let me get this straight—you actually think it’s a smart move, even though you clearly don't agree with it.

Alex Cook said:That’s just not true, he got his answer a long time ago.

Henry Hernandez7 said:I don't really want to dwell on it, but honestly, those arguments are pretty weak if you ask me. Plus, according to what Uncle Strile said, he was banned for ideological reasons, whereas I got hit with a ban over some non-existent clone account.

This thread is actually a good thing, since it shows how much the Admin team has totally lost the plot.

Christian Taylor3 said:@rustydrifter10

You should probably just say it out loud at this point: you're basically using ideology as a convenient excuse to hand out bans. It’s a pretty massive blunder, honestly—even the folks over at ZgSash didn't see that coming. Like I mentioned before, if you're going to ban someone just for having a username like "Marshall forever," you really ought to require approval from the other admins and the editorial board of Monitor (since they actually own this forum), and then make sure that rule is explicitly laid out in the terms of service.

Thanks for listening. 🙂