Red Rocky

granitefalcon26 said:Oh, sure. Why stop there? We should just disqualify anyone who doesn't nod along with your specific worldview. Everyone knows exactly what constitutes hate speech, right? The penalty and the point deduction were completely justified.
Look, I’ve been handed a warning before too, but you don't see me coming in here to whine about it. I’m always going to stand up for the idea that everyone deserves a seat at the table to express their views. Rocky has that exact same right—just like you and me. And let's get one thing straight: Rocky isn't some lone wolf moderator jumping into debates; most of the mod team does the same thing.
You can call Collins an idiot, or try to label me with all sorts of nasty names, but don't think for a second that you're going to get away with it. You won't.☕
None of Rocky's mods have taken a hit unless they actually earned it.
Your whole goal seems to be pushing this forum toward total anarchy so you can insult people without any consequences. That's not how this works, and it's not going to fly. ☕

But plenty of people deserved them and didn't get them.

And that is exactly my point.

Zachary Torres81 said:And here’s my take:

Look, I ended up with 30 penalty points for breaking some subforum rules, but honestly, I’m not sweating it and I’ve got zero regrets.

I went ahead and pulled that warning, but seriously everyone, let's just take a collective breath. This thread is absolutely blowing up—it feels like there were nearly 500 posts dropped on it just yesterday alone—so naturally, we can't moderate every single thing instantly; things are going to slip through the cracks and mistakes are bound to happen. If you were out there throwing personal insults, being provocative, or just plain being rude, please don't even bother coming here to whine about your sanctions; instead, maybe try reporting the posts that are actually breaking the rules.

I’d just like to ask the admins to please change the thread title. Everyone is entitled to their own political views—that’s a personal matter. I’ve been on this forum for a long time, but I’ve never seen people attacking or insulting a moderator as much as they are targeting Rocky. Whether Rocky leans red, green, or yellow, that’s his right, just like anyone else here.
The current title just doesn't sit right with me.
As for moderation, it’s honestly unrealistic to expect everyone to be happy all the time. We can't expect moderators to be glued to the screen 24/7, reading every single stupid thing we post while maintaining a perfect stomach for it. Rocky just started moderating Rock World. By the way, does anyone know where powerlock went??
When you start a new job in the US, you usually get a three-month probationary period to find your footing. Why shouldn't Rocky have that same basic right? Those first three months would give us all a chance to get used to having him moderate Rock World. Objectively speaking, moderators are human beings, not machines. What one moderator sees as trolling or an insult, another might not see that way at all.

rustydrifter10 said:I pulled that card, but let’s all just take a collective breath here. This thread is absolutely exploding right now—it feels like there were like 500 posts dropped on this topic just yesterday alone. It’s physically impossible for us to moderate everything instantly; things are going to slip through the cracks, and yeah, someone might make a mistake. If you were out there throwing personal insults, being provocative, or just plain being rude, don't bother coming here to whine about your sanctions. Instead, maybe try reporting the posts that are actually breaking the rules.

Thanks, Nico. I'm on the same page with what was said.

granitefalcon26 said:I’d just like to ask the admins to reconsider the title of this thread. At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own political views; that's a private matter. I've been hanging around this forum for a long time, but I have never seen anyone targeted or insulted by moderators quite like Rocky. Whether Rocky leans red, green, or yellow, that’s his prerogative, just like anyone else here.
The thread title just doesn't fit.
As far as moderation goes, expecting total satisfaction from everyone is basically an illusion. We can't expect moderators to be glued to the screen 24/7, reading every single bit of nonsense we post while maintaining a perfect zen state. Rocky just started moderating Rock World. And seriously, where did Powerlock disappear to??
It's like when you start a new job at a big firm like Amazon or Google; you get a three-month probationary period to find your footing. Why shouldn't Rocky have that same basic courtesy? Those first three months would give us all time to get used to having him running the show here in Rock World. Objectively speaking, moderators are humans. They aren't machines. What one moderator sees as trolling or an insult, another might see as totally harmless.

Just my two cents. Maybe "Red" Rocky isn't because of his politics, but just because of the color of the card he's holding?

Because if we're splitting this thread into two warring camps, there's no way Rocky is "Red." He's firmly on the side of the current Ukrainian government. And a lot of people on that side are busy accusing Russia of trying to bring back the USSR.
So, if someone really needs to be labeled "Red," it's me (and I'm certainly not).

Whatever, change the thread title or don't, it's all the same to me.

Regarding the mods, look, they are people. But a certain group of folks in this thread feels like the moderation isn't always hitting that sweet spot of impartiality. It's just human nature—when you're fired up about a topic, you tend to spot every single flaw in your opponent's argument while completely overlooking the same mistakes made by your own side. We might be totally off base, but this subforum exists specifically for debating this exact issue.

I already mentioned that I think it would be best if Rocky shared his opinions here without actually being the one holding the ban hammer. It's like the old saying: too many cooks in the kitchen.

PS: Yeah, seriously, where is Powerlock? He was practically born to moderate this specific thread.

Zachary Torres81 said:Look, I already mentioned that while I think Rocky should absolutely share his opinions on the subject, he shouldn't be the one moderating it. It’s just a matter of keeping the wolves away from the sheep, isn't it?

That’s total nonsense. Even though I disagree with Rocky on just about everything,
I certainly don't agree with his approach to impartial moderation either.
Are we really at a point where a handful of cloned profiles over on the Ukrainian thread are actually demanding
that a moderator jump into the fray to argue with a bunch of bots?!?
I can't speak for him, but personally, I'm not budging on this for any reason whatsoever;
no matter how much they grumble or throw a tantrum, a moderator isn't going to play along with trolls just because they want them to.

loneraven25 said:Pure nonsense. I don't agree with Rocky on much,
including his supposedly "unbiased" approach to moderation.
So now, because a handful of cloned profiles in the Ukrainian thread are demanding
that a moderator actually jump into an argument with a clone?!?
Look, I can't speak for him, but personally, I wouldn't fly to that circus for any reason under the sun;
no matter how much people grumble or throw a tantrum, you don't just manufacture clones to satisfy the audience's whims.

I think you’ve got me confused with someone else entirely. I’m trying here, really, but I don't see where I ever said I wanted Rocky to be cloned, nor do I actually believe I am one myself.
If I am, I guess I’ll have to have a very awkward conversation with my parents about it...
I don't feel angry, and if my posts make it look like I'm just sitting here grumbling, then there's clearly been a massive breakdown in communication somewhere, because being grumpy or just voting against the grain isn't my intention.🙂

Regarding that specific snippet of mine you quoted:

For example:

Imagine I'm a referee in a big game, and both teams playing are ones I have strong feelings about—one's my favorite, and the other is a team I just can't stand. Even though I want to be fair, I'm not entirely sure I could pull off true impartiality. So, what do I do? I hand the whistle to someone else, grab a seat in the stands, and just enjoy the match.

That's what I would do, but obviously, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow my playbook or think the exact same way.😉

What else were you actually suggesting, besides the idea that a moderator overseeing the PDF section of the world
shouldn't be using their own account to post within a thread that's part of that very same PDF?
Was that supposed to be some sort of groundbreaking new way to designate which moderator is allowed to touch which section,
or are you just trying to bar moderators from participating in discussions altogether?

Zachary Torres81 said:I think you might have me confused with someone else. I’m trying my best here, but I don't recall ever saying I wanted Rocky cloned, nor do I think I'm a clone myself.
If I am one, I definitely need to have a long talk with my parents...
I really don't feel angry, and if my posts make it seem like I'm just grumbling, then there's clearly been a misunderstanding. Being grumpy or biased isn't my intention at all.🙂

Regarding the part of my post you quoted:

For example:

Imagine I'm a referee in a football game. My favorite team is playing against a team I'm not particularly fond of. Even though I want to be fair, I'm not sure I could stay completely unbiased. In that case, I'd let someone else officiate so I could just sit in the stands and enjoy the game.

That’s what I would do, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to handle things the same way.😉

In other words, saying a moderator shouldn't participate in forum discussions at all is just nonsense. ☕
Moderators jump into discussions on all sorts of topics and subforums.
This whole uproar over Rocky could easily turn into an outcry against another moderator tomorrow. The moderators in the politics section also join debates, but they only flag posts that break the subforum rules. It has nothing to do with their personal opinions on the subject matter.

Twice now my posts have been flagged as nonsense. At this rate, I’m actually going to start getting worried about what's happening here.😁

Once again, it seems I’ve been misinterpreted as saying someone shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion, or worse, that they need to be cloned just to join in.
Apparently, I’m just not being clear enough in my writing.🤷

Let's go back to my analogy about the referee and the game.

If a professional NFL referee decides he doesn't want to officiate and chooses to sit in the stands and watch the game instead, does that man stop being a referee by trade? Is he suddenly some kind of clone of the guy who was supposed to be on the field? Or is he still a referee, he's just not officiating at that moment?

Now, someone suggested that Rocky should make a clone of himself just so they could toss that clone onto an ignore list. That wasn't me, obviously—I don't even use ignore lists, and if I did, Rocky wouldn't exactly be at the top of the pile anyway.

The whole point of this thread is Rocky's moderation style; I provided an example of a situation that felt unfair to me, and my post got pulled (thanks Nick). But honestly, I wouldn't have batted an eye if I'd been penalized, provided that Gipper (whose post I was actually quoting) got hit with the same thing.

Mistakes happen, and frankly, the whole purpose of a forum like this is to point those mistakes out when they occur.

Who am I to play gatekeeper and decide who gets to post on this board? I was simply offering some insights and ideas on how we might minimize issues within this thread, yet somehow it looks like I'm taking sides against someone.

I should probably clarify: if someone is feeling salty or constantly complaining, that person isn't me.😛

This entire discussion has been infected by a Ukrainian theme. It’s become two polarized camps where you're either with us or against us, leaving almost zero room for any actual constructive dialogue.

So, look, guys, from both sides—no thanks.

So, we’re back to handing out red cards to anyone posting videos that clearly show the new government in Ukraine trampling all over basic human rights? Makes sense. I mean, I’d probably be blushing too if I were busy defending physical violence and calling it "democracy."

Total disgrace for this forum. 😉

I honestly don't know how anyone manages to stay sane without a little bit of excitement or some kind of ritual to keep things interesting, you know? It’s like when I was living out in Austin back in the day, we used to have these massive bonfire gatherings that just felt so primal and necessary to shake off the weekday grind. There's something about that flickering light and the heat hitting your face that just resets your entire brain. It’s less about the fire itself and more about that feeling of gathering around something powerful to just... exist for a second. Anyway, I was just thinking about how much we all need those moments of pure, unadulterpped energy to feel alive! kaže:
Man, I can't believe they're handing out red cards again to anyone posting videos that clearly show how badly human rights are being trampled by the new government over in Ukraine. It’s like, come on, the footage speaks for itself! But honestly, I guess I get why they're doing it—I’d probably be blushing with shame too if I were out here trying to defend physical violence and calling it "democracy."

Honestly, it’s kind of a joke what this forum has turned into lately. 😉

Wait, did you seriously just get flagged? Like, a full-on warning? Man, I really hope you actually know why that happened to you. Seriously, take a second to go back and look at the thread title and the very first post in this section. It’s all right there. One of our big rules is that you can't just drop random links into a conversation without adding a quick little blurb or some context to explain what they are. It's super annoying for everyone else when we just see a URL floating around with zero explanation, so the mods have to step in. Just keep it chill and follow the guidelines next time!

Man, it feels like we’re explaining the exact same thing for the hundredth time, but people just refuse to listen, and then everyone starts pointing fingers at the moderators like they're the ones causing all the drama...

Right under my warning—the one that’s sticking out like a sore thumb in blue text—some guy rolls up and just dumps a Washington Post link like he's some kind of genius. This was after he’d already been slapped with a few warnings for doing the exact same thing... so honestly, you try being smart about how you explain the rules to certain people. But hey, I guess it's all my fault because I'm just "goldenowl73," the big bad guy who supposedly defends physical violence. 🙄

I’m not trying to start a fight with the mods here—I’m not Sisyphus—but this rule about punishing "one-liners" just because they include a link is total nonsense. It makes zero sense to penalize someone for a short post containing a link while letting everyone else post one-liners without links as part of standard forum culture.

Take these two back-to-back posts, for example:

People have been posting stuff like this since this site launched, and nobody ever gave it a second thought. This is just how people talk on an online forum, and honestly, I doubt more than a handful of people even care.

The real issue is this obsessive, strict enforcement regarding links, especially in the thread about Ukraine. If I dare say so, it feels like the rules are being weaponized to favor one side of the debate over the other. If either of those two posts had happened to include a link to an article or a YouTube clip, the mods would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. There’s no logic to it, IMO.

Look, either ban one-liners entirely across politics and the whole site, or stop nitpicking and quit punishing people for adding a link when the statement and the video actually serve as a response to another user.

swiftstag66 said:Look, I’m really not trying to start a fight with the mod team here—I'm definitely not Sisyphus—but I honestly feel like this rule about punishing "one-liners" just because they include a link is totally unsustainable. It feels pretty arbitrary to penalize someone for a quick comment paired with a link while letting people drop one-liners without links pass as just part of the usual forum culture.

To give you an idea, check out these two consecutive posts:

Both of these have been happening since this place launched, and nobody ever batted an eye before. Honestly, that’s just how people talk on internet boards, and if you ask me, the number of people actually bothered by it is tiny.

But here's the real kicker: this hyper-strict enforcement regarding "link dumping" is being pushed way too hard in the thread about Ukraine, and if I may be so bold, it feels like it's being applied selectively to favor one side of the debate over the other. If either of those two posts had happened to include a link to some news article or, heaven forbid, a YouTube clip, they would've been slapped with a ban immediately. There’s just no consistency or logic to it, IMO.

Bottom line: either ban one-liners across the board—whether it's in Politics or the general lounge—or stop nitpicking and quit punishing short comments that include a link, especially when both the statement and the video are clearly meant to answer another user's point.

It isn't actually about the one-liners, it's about the links...

Think about it when someone writes something like:

Check out what this guy is saying...

And then someone else replies:

Nah, it's nothing http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-so-do-parents

They just keep stacking links like that... often in foreign languages without any translation, and in the Ukraine threads, people even love sticking Russian or Ukrainian links in there...

By the way, that exact user you quoted just got hit with a ban for posting a link without any context. So much for "fairness" in this debate...

Is this the right way to drop links?

News out of Ukraine:
www.nytimes.com/goldenowl73/1174934/
www.cnn.com/red-goldenowl73-927850
😍

> Posting links without a brief explanation or translation goes against the rules here

1) Maybe the forum administration could take a moment to consider how necessary it actually is to shove editorial requirements right in front of the users.

Nowadays, most links are basically self-documenting—meaning the link itself includes a description or a title.

A full link with a description shows up in the status bar, and you can even increase how much of the URL is displayed in vB; check out this PHP code:
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum...-of-url-length
(It’s clear that even modern vB uses these kinds of links, including the PDF filename and the thread title)

2) Alternatively, they could just add a rule:
... Links aren't a substitute for actual text. When you post a link, you should briefly explain what's behind it...
The exception would be self-explanatory American links.

3) Or they could just form a specific user group called "Editors" (who would also handle creating FAQ-Topics)

4) Or, if something is truly vital, put it (in red letters) in the header of every single thread page, rather than just telling people to 'occasionally read the first post.'
Handing out points or bans is insulting, as is penalizing people for using the internet the way anyone normally does—which means scanning text instead of reading every single word.

Regarding the opening post here

To keep things simple: if it's an image, just say "image." If it's a video, write "video." If there's text, provide a summary or a key quote along with a necessary translation.

So now you're trying to convince us this is impossible and that the cartoons are unjustified? Really?

> So how exactly are bans unjustified?? Are you actually serious??

You let just about anything slide, yet you can't seem to grasp that you aren't allowed to insult people. How long is it going to take for you to realize you're being offensive???
There are grown adults and serious people here—who do you think you are, handing out bans like that?!? Have some shame, Charles Fox10! Go take your nonsense out on your own kids instead!!!
You've completely ruined another thread for me!

It feels like we’re really splitting hairs here now...
The moderators started this new thread, issued warnings about the rules regarding characters, and even put a reminder in the subject line itself to check the guidelines every so often. If the rule is—as it is on most American forums—that a link shouldn't serve as a substitute for actual content, then a link isn't a substitute for content. This is an online forum; surely it shouldn't be such a monumental task to write a few sentences explaining what the link contains and why it actually matters to the discussion.

Adam Moore33, this simply isn't up to the standard required for this PDF.