History: Vol. 3

Sandra Brown18 said:Look, some of you have been breaking the rules—even if it’s nowhere near the level of what Jose Clark2 was pulling. He was racking up warnings and getting banned, while I've just been busy cleaning up threads and scrubbing posts. Please bear with me; I’m still settling into this moderator role, and there is quite a bit of work to be done.
Only one person has been sending their applications via DM. Everyone else is using email—and since my inbox has been acting up lately, I’ve been missing some of those messages. It’s much better if you just send your applications through PM instead; that way, I can respond significantly faster than I can with the emails.

Deal Quote 👍

Jose Clark2 said:These are merely hints of objectivity. 😉 It isn't about the content—it’s about control. A handful of them would be thrilled to see me banned or harassed simply because I refuse to parrot their talking points—or rather, because my posts happen to contradict their narrow worldview. They want total freedom for themselves, yet they demand silence from anyone who disagrees. That is exactly why they're coming after me.

The issue lies in your behavior.
You're just running in circles—either dodging the question when someone asks for a source, or tossing out a link to something you clearly haven't even bothered to read.
Start following the forum rules—then nobody will have a reason to complain about you.

Regarding the other matter—if it helps resolve this—instead of me reporting your posts for violating the PDF guidelines, the forum rules, and everything else you’re already disregarding, I will simply send PMs directly to the moderator. I am hoping that this approach ensures the rules are actually respected.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Deal Quote 👍

The issue is your conduct.
You just circle the same topics. When asked for a source, you either dodge the question or drop a link to something you haven't even read.
Follow the forum rules properly, and nobody will have a reason to complain about you.

As for everything else, if it helps, instead of reporting your posts for violating the PDF guidelines and various other forum rules, I’ll just send a PM to the moderator. Hopefully, that ensures the rules are actually respected.

So that's how we're playing this? Am I supposed to report every single thing you or your allies do as well? Should I remind the moderation team about how they agreed to report my every move until they finally reach their goal of erasing me from history? As far as you're concerned, it's clear to everyone else that your definition of trolling is incredibly broad. Are you planning on spamming the moderator with reports then?

Jose Clark2 said:So, this is how we’re playing it now? Am I expected to report every single breath you or your ideological allies take? Should I remind the moderators about your little pact to flag me for everything until you finally achieve your goal—which, let's be honest, is just erasing me from the record? As for you personally, it’s clear to everyone else here that your definition of "trolling" is incredibly elastic. Are you planning to bury the moderators under a mountain of spam reports?

Be my guest.
The rules exist for a reason. And they should apply to everyone—without exception.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Be my guest.
Rules exist for a reason. They should apply to everyone equally.

I don't think anyone benefits from weaponizing the report button just to harass people or waste a moderator's time. One ought to be realistic and actually think before reporting something based on some conspiracy theory.

The fact that I don't submit many reports isn't because you all are doing a great job—objectively, you aren't. It's simply because I'm not a complainer and I don't hold any grudges against anyone here. I'm saying this so there's no misunderstanding regarding how often certain users get flagged.

Jose Clark2 said:I believe it shouldn't be in anyone's interest to weaponize the report button for "inappropriate" posts—it’s a massive drain on the moderators' time and patience. We need to be realistic here: people ought to think twice before hitting that button, rather than using it as a tool fueled by nothing more than conspiracy theories.

I am not filing a report. Every single one. I’ll only moderate the posts that clearly violate the rules—and even then, only if I feel like it. Despite your extremely liberal definition of what constitutes a violation, there is an overwhelming number of your own posts that are, quite frankly, an eyesore.

Jose Clark2 said:The reason I don't submit many reports to the moderator isn't because your performance is stellar—objectively speaking, it’s far from it—but rather because I have no interest in being a complainer or harboring ill will toward anyone here. I am clarifying this only so there is no misunderstanding regarding the ratio of reports filed against certain participants.

If you spot someone breaking the rules—do it. You aren’t just policing the space; you’re doing a service to the community and the individual by calling out their mistakes.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:I don't report every single post of yours. I only flag the ones that clearly break the rules when it catches my eye. Despite how loosely you define things, there are far too many posts from you that violate our guidelines.

If you spot someone breaking the rules... you're doing the community a favor by pointing out their mistakes.

Then why aren't you being objective? Why don't you call out other users who agree with you when they break the rules? When insults were involved, that "honest moderator" impulse seemed to disappear. Look, Rachel Richardson, what we actually need is an impartial moderator and consistent standards. It isn't helpful when we all act as judge and jury based on our own personal biases.

Jose Clark2 said:Why aren't you being objective—specifically by calling out your own allies when they break the rules? When insults were flying, you didn't seem to have that sudden impulse to act like an honest "moderator." Look, Rachel Richardson, what we actually need is an impartial moderator and a set of realistic standards—it’s useless if we all just judge others' behavior based on our own personal biases, because we'll never reach a consensus.

Fine, I'm reporting this post.
Are you seriously trolling in a thread about trolling?
If I were personally moderating history, believe me, you’d be looking at a permanent ban.
Again, this isn't personal—but you are systematically trolling and violating the rules. Others have broken them, sure, but nobody—absolutely nobody—does it on the scale that you do.
I don't get it—is life really that boring for you?

Nasmijanonebo lacks both the fundamental expertise and the necessary temperament required to serve as a moderator.

It’s frankly disheartening to see this forum appoint just anyone simply to fill an empty slot.

We see the exact same pattern on other platforms, with people like Danny and Nice being brought in. Seriously, don't insult my intelligence—don't try to push me into an alternative moderator role either...

It isn't that I have a personal vendetta against these specific moderators; my issue is strictly that they hold the title without having any of the competence to back it up.

Would you like to appoint me as a moderator until you actually find someone with the requisite knowledge and the drive to do the job?

Watching History and DZ lately is genuinely nauseating; it feels like reading The New York Times during its most biased eras...

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Fine, I’m reporting this post.
Trolling in a thread about trolling? How ironic.
If I actually moderated history, believe me, I’d be looking at a permanent ban myself.
Look, it isn't personal, but you are systematically trolling and breaking the rules. Others have bent the rules before, but nobody—absolutely nobody—does it on the scale you do.
I honestly don't get it. Are you just that bored with your life?

Really, what is there even to say to that? It's clear you'd love to hand out permanent bans to me, then to Linda Smith7, and everyone else who dares to seriously challenge your authority. We all know how much weight those positions actually carry, and just how little scientific merit they really have. 😉

Sandra Brown18 said:Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. Just like everyone else participating in this discussion. At least we can all agree on one thing: everyone seems to think I'm on the opposing side here. 😁

In my view, you harbor far too many fascist leanings to ever serve as a moderator.
That's just how I see it. If one of your colleagues decides they want to issue me a ban, I would certainly appreciate being asked for my reasoning before the hammer falls...😒

bluecyclist64 said:She simply lacks the skill set and the insight required for a moderator role.

It’s unfortunate when a forum recruits anyone just to fill a seat.

It reminds me of how we have Danny and Nice over on Reddit. Don't give me that—just appoint me as an alternative moderator instead...

It isn't that I have an issue with those specific mods; it’s just that they are moderators without any actual competence.

Would you like to appoint me as a moderator until you find someone with genuine knowledge and drive?

Watching History and DZ is nauseating. It feels like reading The New York Times...

A very bold stance. Though, I hope you aren't including me in your critique of History. A few of us actually try to prevent it from becoming what you described.

Look, if you weren't being so blatantly disrespectful toward the rules, I wouldn't have anything to report in the first place, would I? ☕

bluecyclist64—really, you’ve managed to find the perfect corner of the internet to hunt for witches and fascists.
Could you please just skip this thread—or at least attempt to follow the rules of the forum? ☕

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Look, if you weren't being so blatantly disrespectful of the rules, I wouldn't have anything to report in the first place, would I? ☕

Look, you aren't exactly slow. Since neither of us is, it’s clear this isn't actually about the rules or breaking them. Down in California, we have a saying for this kind of nonsense: it's just a nuisance. ☕

Anthony Nguyen81 said:bluecyclist64, honestly, you really have a knack for picking fights and hunting down anyone you deem a fascist or a bigot.
Could you please just move on from this thread, or at least try to follow the community guidelines? ☕

I’m honestly not sure what you’re getting at here.
It was never my intention to be offensive.
The reality remains that the History section has a history of having no moderator, making it a complete disaster compared to the rest of Reddit.

I fail to see how you arrived at the conclusion that I am violating any rules.

I’m not certain if this warrants a penalty, but I’d suggest all these aspiring linguists take a serious look at their American English; it might serve them well...

Nasmijanonebo simply isn't cut out for the role of moderator. What we actually need is someone impartial and professionally qualified.

Jose Clark2 said:Look, if nothing else, you aren't stupid. Since you aren't an idiot and neither am I—then we both know this isn't actually about rules or breaking them. It’s just noise. That’s how we say it back in California. ☕

But it really is about the rules.
Specifically, their existence and your violation of them. 🙂

bluecyclist64 said:Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not trying to be offensive.
The reality is that the History section has a history of having no moderator, making it a total disaster compared to Reddit.
How can you possibly conclude that I'm ignoring the forum rules?
I don't know if this counts as a violation, but I'd suggest all these aspiring language experts brush up on their American English—it might serve them well...
Nasmijanonebo is simply unfit for a moderator role. We need someone impartial and actually qualified.

The PDF History thread has (as the opening post makes clear) gone completely off the rails.
Why do you think I'm complaining?
As for everything else, your arguments are bizarre at best. Ad hominem attacks and ideology?
Get real.
The focus is strictly on the (non)compliance with rules—not the quality of linguistic standards.

Sandra Brown18 said:Guys, look, some of you have been breaking the rules too, even if it’s nowhere near the level of Jose Clark2. Jose was getting cards and bans, and I've been busy cleaning up threads and deleting posts. Just bear with me, please—I'm a brand new mod and there is a massive amount of work to do.
The guy from the suburbs only sent one report via my DM. Everyone else used email, and since I'm having issues with my inbox, I'm missing reports... Please send your reports through PM instead; I can react way faster that way than I can through email.

I can't agree with the idea that others have broken the rules significantly less than Jose Clark2. That guy from the suburbs is notoriously disrespectful to everyone, which just baits people into reacting and completely trashes the quality of the discussion in the History PDF thread. So far, all he's gotten from you is a light slap on the wrist. If your moderation were actually objective, he would have been hit with those famous 500-point penalties ages ago. But no. It's actually the opposite—you constantly jump on his reports, handing out points and deleting posts... That isn't the kind of objectivity we expect from a moderator. ☕

Anthony Nguyen81 said:Go right ahead.
Rules exist for a reason. And they should apply to everyone equally.

If rules actually applied to everyone, you would have been banned from this forum a long time ago... ☕

Hand on heart, almost everyone here should’ve been handed a warning—I didn't want to come at you guys with the hammer right away. I’ve given plenty of heads-ups before this.
But there’s been zero change. From here on out, the bans are going to start flying—honestly, hardly anyone seems to be following the rules. It’s just constant insults... nothing new there.
Faro was rightfully penalized, and that’s only after repeatedly attacking an entire profession.
And like I said, it’s nice to see some actual teamwork when it comes to ganging up on me. At least you can all agree on something. 😁.
By the way, I’ve barely received any reports...

Sandra Brown18 said:To be perfectly honest, most of you should have been banned already. I didn't want to go straight to the hammer, especially after multiple warnings.
There were no results. From now on, bans will be handed out freely, as very few of you actually follow the rules. It’s nothing but insults.
Jose Clark2 was rightfully penalized, and even then, it was only after repeatedly insulting an entire profession.
As I said, it's nice to see such unity in attacking me. At least you can agree on something. 😁.
By the way, I received very few submissions.

Speaking of moderation, announcing that "bans will be flying" isn't helpful. It serves no one's interest—not even the group of users who started this complaint thread. I am against swinging to the other extreme where moderation becomes nothing more than handing out punishments.

Ultimately, things are being blown out of proportion here because a few people simply cannot handle their ideas being challenged. Instead of enjoying a hobby or seeking the truth, they turn this into what Hildebrand called a "cyberwar."

I am unsure why you are bringing up those 500 points you awarded again. You gave them, I filed a grievance, everyone shared their thoughts—including Nica—and the matter is settled for me. Furthermore, Hildebrand wasn't calling you out because of me; he was pointing out that if we follow the criteria strictly, others deserved the same amount of points.

In my view, it would be best if no one had to deal with awarding points or issuing bans at all. Let's just move forward normally and civilly, with a bit more respect for one another and for the forum we all enjoy using.