CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Unwritten forum rules and moderator biases (or what you *really* can't do on forum.hr)

Unwritten forum rules and moderator biases (or what you *really* can't do on forum.hr)

Started by James Patel20 · · 👁 5 views · 33 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants James Patel20Matthew ChavezJonathan Ortiz2William Bennett53rustydrifter10briskjackal5Jeffrey Bennett77Carol Newman2Jessica Smith11Ryan Vaughn7Morgan Newman7crimsonjackal63Kate Harris50graniteridge6Susan PriceRachel Turner2mistyjackal14
James Patel20 James Patel20 Active MemberOP
53 messages
joined Jan 2012
#1 ·
It feels like there’s such a massive pile of arbitrary rules regarding what you can and can’t say on this forum or within its specific sub-sections, yet they aren't actually documented anywhere... except maybe tucked away inside a single thread somewhere.

These rules seem to be conjured up by individual moderators on the fly, and based on those whims, they hand out warnings, wipe posts, or issue bans.

In my opinion, these unwritten—or rather, thread-specific—rules have completely superseded the actual foundational guidelines of the forum, which really makes me wonder if the original rules even matter anymore...

It would honestly be quite helpful to see a complete collection of these unspoken, purely subjective moderator policies, because only then would we have a legitimate guide explaining what is permitted or forbidden in certain sections.

I could certainly start listing a few of these "rules" myself right now, but I think it might be better to let others go first...

Please, feel free to share them, and I kindly ask that you provide links to back them up.

Thanks.
Matthew Chavez Matthew Chavez Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2012
#2 ·
This might sound trivial, since I think the OP is talking about specific rules that lead to user penalties, but I've personally dealt with this exact kind of lazy moderation from the current subforum mods. Lonely Heart.

There’s one relatively useless subforum on this board. Top topic. It doesn't really add anything to the quality or engagement of this subforum, other than just being there because it’s always been around. During some of the better leadership periods on the US boards, things actually felt productive. Her existence was called into question, but things were settled through a fair, democratic process.The current moderation team won't allow any criticism on this topic whatsoever. You can find the full discussion regarding appeals for this subforum starting from post 654.They've made up all sorts of rules on several occasions. I can't even link to the specific posts that called their rules into question, since they're part of this same thread. Comments regarding the debtor. Deleted.Wouldn't we have reached that sense of perfect peace if we had just let the rest of the discussion fade away? The moderators from some of those unrelated subforums were getting involved. It’s just inappropriate comments, honestly. A visual representation of our current moderator, Meadow, using an image of the Borg Queen from Star Trek. Post 2400. She’s hinting that the moderator might be bending the rules to suppress anyone who dares to disagree with her directives. It feels like she's weaponizing those same policies just to discredit people—including me, simply because I don't buy into this "top-tier" topic she's pushing.

I won't pretend that I’m a fan of having such controversial topics on this board. Honestly, I jump into those debates once in a while just for the hell of it, but some of the way Meadow has handled things with me feels wrong. It started because she was being pretty casual about the rules—which aren't even clearly defined for this thread—and it spiraled into an incredibly awkward, condescending exchange in my DMs. As someone who spends a lot of time here and takes this community seriously, I found the whole thing pretty insulting.

Thanks for listening.

Hey there!
Jonathan Ortiz2 Jonathan Ortiz2 Member
41 messages
joined Dec 2015
#3 ·
James Patel20 said:There’s honestly an overwhelming amount of random rules about what you can and can't do on this forum or within its various PDFs, yet they aren't actually laid out anywhere useful, unless you happen to stumble upon them buried inside one specific thread.

It honestly feels like some of these moderators just make up their own rules on the fly, handing out warnings and deleting posts whenever they feel like it, or just banning people because they can.

Honestly, all these unwritten rules or whatever made-up guidelines people cling to have totally outpaced the actual basic forum rules, which just makes me wonder if the fundamental ones even mean anything anymore.

It would be pretty damn interesting to see that whole collection of unwritten forum rules—you know, those purely subjective moderator guidelines—because only then would we actually have a real guide on what’s allowed and what isn't when it comes to posting certain PDFs.

I could probably jump right in and start listing some of those "rules" myself, but honestly, I’ll just leave that to everyone else for now.

Go ahead and lay it out, but do me a favor and actually back up those claims with some links.

Thanks.

Look, let me jump in here right away to defend the whole "gay marriage" thing... even though I’m one of those people who actually thinks it should be written into the Constitution. Honestly, I’d much rather see more clear-cut rules on this subject than none at all. It’s especially exhausting when you watch certain people try to hijack what should be a decent, respectful conversation by throwing out stuff that isn't even an actual argument.

It looks absolutely terrible for a quote in its current state.

I mean, obviously it would be pretty great if we could just carry these same arguments over to the other thread and actually decide whether or not they belong in the discussion to begin with.

P.S. Honestly, I feel like the mods should just take all those extra rules they keep slapping onto a thread and pin them right in the opening post with a big "must read" warning. It’s just exhausting watching someone fly into a topic, act like everything's cool, and then suddenly get hit with a red card because they didn't realize the goalposts moved halfway through the discussion.
William Bennett53 William Bennett53 Regular
491 messages
joined Sep 2016
#4 ·
Sophia Smith29 said:...
Greetings.

So, someone opens a thread regarding moderator subjectivity and, by extension, the idiosyncratic nature of sub-forum rules, and you seize the moment to vent about how the bad moderators of the USA (or perhaps just Meadow) are harassing you and a few like-minded individuals by stubbornly and undemocratically (🤣) insisting on keeping debtors on the USA. The fact that there isn't an absolute single reason why this topic should bother anyone else is entirely irrelevant. What matters is that it might conceptually fit better on some other PDF and—pay attention to this part—it adds nothing whatsoever to the quality of the sub-forum. And naturally, you are then offended by the rigid behavior of a moderator who lacks any ear for your arguments.

In short, reading your post reminded me of two things:
1. The marriage referendum (the analogy here is perfect)
2. My mother's

I have already written this on the USA, but I will leave it here as well: if nothing else, debtors ought to remain where they are because there is a group of people who wish to read them and/or write them, and their mere existence does not, in any way, diminish or devalue the institution of marriage... excuse me, I meant the institution of forum participation.
Matthew Chavez Matthew Chavez Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2012
#5 ·
William Bennett53 said:So, someone starts a thread about moderator subjectivity and how subforum rules can be a bit idiosyncratic, and you jump on the chance to complain that the bad moderators in the US (or maybe just Meadow) are bullying you and a few like-minded people by stubbornly and undemocratically (🤣) insisting on keeping debtors in the US. The fact that there isn't a single good reason for anyone to be bothered by this topic isn't even the point. What matters is that it might fit better on some other PDF and, look, it doesn't add anything to the quality of the subforum. And then, naturally, you get annoyed by a moderator acting stiffly because she isn't listening to your arguments.

Yes, I took the opportunity because a fellow forum member opened the topic with that exact intention. I have nothing to do with the person who started the thread, nor did I think the issues within the Lonely Heart subforum were enough reason for me to personally complain by bringing it over to this subforum, which is meant for more serious moderation grievances. I realize there are bigger editing fires burning right now than what I’m pointing out, which is why I mentioned that in my first sentence.

reading your post mostly reminded me of two things:
1. the marriage referendum (that's a perfect analogy)
2. my mom's

I already posted this in the US, but here it is again: if nothing else, debtors should stay where they are because there's a group of people who want to read them and/or write them. Their presence doesn't diminish or devalue the institution of marriage... excuse me, I meant forum participation.

I don't have any comment on the rest of your post, other than perhaps reporting it as an ad hominem attack on my character (which would be pointless since you hold a position that allows you to get away with all sorts of inappropriate posts). You're reading something into my post that wasn't even implied, let alone written explicitly—kudos to you for that 🙏—and I think you should perhaps teach your colleague Meadow how to actually read and understand a post.

Thanks for the reply.

Best.
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#6 ·
James Patel20 said:There really is a massive pile of unwritten rules scattered across various sub-forums and specific threads, even if they aren't explicitly laid out anywhere except maybe within an individual discussion topic itself.

Honestly, almost every single sub-forum here has its own set of internal, more granular rules that have just naturally evolved over time because, frankly, the community realized they were needed. Since different sections cover such wildly different topics—and since the vibe and flow of conversation change depending on what we're talking about—it's impossible to have one single rulebook that fits everyone perfectly. We have our main overarching site rules that apply to everything, and those internal guidelines should always play nice with them without conflicting.

Some threads actually demand their own unique set of guidelines because they operate at a totally different level of intensity or tone than the usual discussions you'd find in those specific areas. You can usually find these specific directions highlighted right there in the opening post of the thread.

I really think all our members should make it a habit to read through the rules before they jump into a specific sub-forum, and honestly, I’d go a step further and suggest reading through some old posts first just to get a real feel for the atmosphere before you start typing.
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#7 ·
Sophia Smith29 said:There’s this one relatively useless sticky thread on that subforum that doesn't actually add anything to the quality or the traffic of the board—it’s basically just there because of some old tradition.

Look, if it really bothers you that much, you don't have to read it or post in it.

William Bennett53 said:...

Come on, let's not go there.
Matthew Chavez Matthew Chavez Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2012
#8 ·
rustydrifter10 said:If this thread bothers you, you don't have to read it or participate.

The topic itself doesn't bother me enough to make a formal complaint on this subforum (which is what I mentioned in my last post), but what really gets to me is the core of this discussion: the blatant rule-bending, the discrimination, and the smearing of users who dare to speak up. I backed up my points with links in my initial post on this thread. I’m definitely not the only one who thinks a topic like this doesn't belong in this section, and it’s clear there’s no middle ground to be found with the moderators. Essentially, the communication from the subforum mods to the users feels inadequate and dismissive.

Come on, don't.

I appreciate how closely this thread is being moderated through post deletions and quick check-ins with the admin, but I honestly feel that a slap on the wrist isn't enough punishment for the lies and character assassination the user you quoted directed at me.

Thanks for listening.

Best.
briskjackal5 briskjackal5 Active Member
249 messages
joined Feb 2018
#9 ·
I mean, I kind of feel like the current leadership here at US is actually doing a better job than those before them, and honestly, they seem pretty patient with the Ace thread—at least up to a certain point where it still makes sense. Especially All, who’s really been the one putting in the most work on the Ace topic lately.
I wouldn't say the way people were clashing over that one specific thread showed anything different from the usual.

And look, this is just my take, even though I actually agree with Herbie that Debtors could probably hang out in Literary or somewhere else entirely (so, yeah, I'm on the other side of how things are currently being handled there).

Even though everyone’s entitled to their own opinion—and hey, people definitely voiced them—it all comes down to this: if the mods want it to stay on US, then it stays on US. It’s ultimately their call to make, and they’ve made it.

-Steve
Jeffrey Bennett77 Jeffrey Bennett77 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Jun 2013
#10 ·
briskjackal5 said:To me feels like the current USA leadership is actually doing a better job than previous ones—plus, they seem pretty patient regarding the Ace topic, at least up to a point where it still makes sense. Especially All, who’s been handling the Ace stuff more than anyone lately.
I wouldn't say the disagreement among some folks here over that one thread showed anything different from the usual.

And that’s just my take, even though I actually agree with Herbie that debtors could move over to Literary or somewhere else (meaning I'm technically on the opposite side of how things are currently handled).

Look, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and people have definitely voiced them, but at the end of the day, it stays right here—as long as the mods want it kept on the USA, then it stays on the USA. It's their call to make, and they've made it.

-Steve

If I could just get through everything myself, life would be great 😁 The outsiders just get in the way and start making up their own rules whenever you write something they personally don't like 😁 Of course, those rules don't apply to them...
James Patel20 James Patel20 Active MemberOP
53 messages
joined Jan 2012
#11 ·
Here is a fresh example for you all.

"Unknown Moderator" decided to unilaterally wipe out an entire hour of discussion from the thread Regarding the fine issued by the DOJ to Joseph Simunic over the 'Za Dom Spremni' slogan... just like that.

And this wasn't just random chatter, either; it was a deep dive into everything surrounding the game, including the removal of those "Remember El Paso" banners, the organization behind FARE and its president, Zoran Stevanović, and his connections to Minister Jovanović.

There was no explanation provided, no warning given, and certainly no mention of any specific rules being broken, so it really feels like the moderator acted purely on a whim...

If there actually is some underlying reason for this action, I would sincerely appreciate it if the moderator could step forward and clarify things...
Carol Newman2 Carol Newman2 Regular
413 messages
joined Aug 2013
#12 ·
James Patel20 said:Here is a fresh example for you all.

An "unknown moderator" on the thread regarding the DOJ fining Joseph Simunica over certain slogans just decided to wipe out an entire chunk of the discussion on their own whim.

The problem is, that specific part of the conversation was directly tied to what happened at the game—stuff like hiding those "Remember El Paso" signs, how FARE was organized under its president Zoran Stevanović, and his connection to Minister Jovanović.

No explanation, no warning, no citing any actual rules. The moderator just did it because they felt like it.

If there actually is some legitimate reason behind this, I’d appreciate it if the moderator would step up and explain themselves.


Offtopic—regarding why comments get deleted. This thread is about Simunic and the ZDS greeting.
James Patel20 James Patel20 Active MemberOP
53 messages
joined Jan 2012
#13 ·
Richard Patel21 said:
Offtopic—the reason they’re deleting comments. This whole thread is centered on Simunic and the ZDS greeting...

Wasn't it clearly stated today that Football Against Racism in Europe is the very organization responsible for reporting cases like the one involving Simunic?

And was Zoran Stevanović actually called out during the HNS press conference?

So, I really don't see how any of this could be considered offtopic...

Come on, Carol Newman2, please...
Carol Newman2 Carol Newman2 Regular
413 messages
joined Aug 2013
#14 ·
James Patel20 said:Wasn't it clearly stated today that Football Against Racism in Europe is the organization reporting cases like Simunic's?

Was Zoran Stevanović called out during the press conference at the HNS?

And how on earth is that off-topic?

Give me a break, Carol Newman2, please.

A little nitpicking here, some mutual insults there... that's basically the summary of all those deleted comments...

This thread is ready to be closed. Simunic will probably get hit with a fine (hopefully a heavy one), and America will never reach a consensus on that salute. I honestly don't know why anyone is wasting energy on such pointless arguments.
James Patel20 James Patel20 Active MemberOP
53 messages
joined Jan 2012
#15 ·
Richard Patel21 said:A little bit of grainology here, a little bit of mutual insults there... that’s pretty much the gist of those deleted comments...

No, no way.

The real summary of those deleted posts is just the connection between Jovanović and Stevanović...

And you know that perfectly well, don't you...

So come on, just bring back the comments regarding that relationship...
Carol Newman2 Carol Newman2 Regular
413 messages
joined Aug 2013
#16 ·
James Patel20 said:No, that's just wrong.

The summary of those deleted comments makes it clear: there's a connection between Jovanović and Stevanović.

And you know that perfectly well, don't you?

So why don't you go ahead and bring back those comments about their little arrangement.

Look, there's a specific thread dedicated to FARE over there, so feel free to dump all your theories about the Jovanović and Stevanović connection right there.

Best, Carol Newman2 👋
James Patel20 James Patel20 Active MemberOP
53 messages
joined Jan 2012
#17 ·
Richard Patel21 said:Look, there is a specific thread dedicated to the FARE situation over there, so you can dump all your theories about the connection between Jovanović and Stevanović right in that one...

Best, Carol 👋

At least move those deleted posts over there, though I suppose that doesn't really solve anything...

It starts with people uncovering this link between Jovanović and Stevanović—something nobody else is even talking about—and then suddenly, the post gets wiped, the conversation gets scattered across different threads, and within a few days, the whole thing just gets locked down...

You guys really have a knack for dismantling legitimate discussions, whether they are about corruption, cronyism, or the general political sludge that settles at the bottom...

Instead of actually drawing people in with these exclusive leads, you just sweep them under the rug...

It’s that classic American "talent," isn't it...

But don't take this personally, because there are plenty of people out there who are even more "talented" at this than you are... 😉
Jessica Smith11 Jessica Smith11 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Oct 2013
#18 ·
James Patel20 said:Look, you might as well just move those deleted posts over there, though I suppose that doesn't really solve anything.

If someone points out the connection between Jovanović and Stevanović—something you won't find written anywhere else—then you just delete it. Then the whole thing gets diluted into some other topic, and maybe in a few days, the thread gets locked.

You people are truly experts at ruining real discussions, the ones about corruption, nepotism, and political filth.

Instead of using those kinds of exclusive leads to actually draw people in, you just sweep the real stories under the rug.

It’s that classic American "talent."

But don't take this personally, I guess, because there are plenty of people even more "talented" than you. 😉

There isn't any "connection" between Jovanović and Stevanović other than what might be going on in your head. One is a Secretary of Sports and the other runs an association that leads the UEFA program against racism in sports called "Football Against Racism in Europe." Unless you're counting blood cells, this shouldn't be an issue in any normal country.
Ryan Vaughn7 Ryan Vaughn7 Active Member
154 messages
joined Jul 2009
#19 ·
James Patel20 said:The moment someone points out the connection between Jovanović and Stevanović—something nobody else is even mentioning—you just delete it. Then you pivot to a different topic, and in a few days, the whole thread gets locked.

He didn't actually delete it. It’s not really about the Jovanović-Stevanović connection, even if it was technically off-topic. The issue was that a few posts toward Stevanović were so aggressive they sounded like something that could get someone jumped on a street corner.
Morgan Newman7 Morgan Newman7 Member
47 messages
joined Nov 2020
#20 ·
James Patel20 said:Here's a fresh one for you.

An "unknown moderator" on the thread Regarding the DOJ fine handed to Joe Simunic for 'for home ready' just wiped out an hour of discussion on a whim.

And we're talking about part of the debate that's directly tied to what went down at the game—hiding those "remember El Paso" signs, the whole FAR organization and its president Zoran Stevanovic, plus his ties to Minister Jovanovic.

No explanation, no warning, no citing the rules... the mod just did it because they felt like it.

If there actually is a reason, I'd appreciate some clarification.

I'm curious too. 🙂

Sent a PM asking for rule clarification so I could finally write an on-topic post, only to have it nuked. Meanwhile, there's twenty pages of pure nonsense, off-topic rambling, and trolling left up. Why bother writing more than two words followed by a 🤣 when posts get deleted arbitrarily? Probably under the guise of "enough off-topic chatter, thread's growing too fast, I'll delete a few recent even-numbered pages." Then they do the exact same thing the next day with the odd ones...

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads