CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › The Resonator injustice

The Resonator injustice

Started by Megan Ruiz13 · · 👁 3 views · 35 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Megan Ruiz13amberwalker4wiredangler5Sean Cooper65Sam Green73Daniel Ward87Kate Harris50hiddenmoose16Joseph Peterson6
Megan Ruiz13 Megan Ruiz13 Active MemberOP
79 messages
joined Apr 2016
#1 ·
Sean Cooper65, don't go there. We all overstep or break a rule at some point—sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident. It happens, and it's just part of life.
It’s also normal for mods to go overboard every now and then.

I agree the mod is being biased here and playing referee a bit too hard, which is why we're even having this discussion.

But we need to listen to their side and hear their explanation, while hoping they’ll actually take ours seriously.

At the end of the day, the admins and moderators have the final say. That's just how it works, and I'm fine with that.

If we just start trolling them, they won't listen to a word we say.
I’m sure one of the admins will read through all of this—our critiques, our complaints, and our suggestions—and make an official statement here.
Megan Ruiz13 Megan Ruiz13 Active MemberOP
79 messages
joined Apr 2016
#2 ·
Sean Cooper65 said:🙄

Aggressive moderation... that would mean both sides get hit hard, not just one side..

You know exactly what's going on here, but whatever..

Yeah, let the admins take a look. We already asked them, so let's just wait and see how they decide... that's our stance. There's always another side with their own explanation.

I don't see any reason why Sam Green73 wouldn't accept our view and change his approach if they respect us. If not, we stop posting there. Fine. It won't be interesting anymore anyway. 😁
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active Member
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#3 ·
Gary Anderson38 said:Yeah, let's just wait for the admins to look at it. We asked them, now we wait. Whatever they decide, goes. That's our stance. There's always another side to things and their explanation matters too.

I don't see why they wouldn't accept our view and change how they handle things. If they don't, then we stop posting there and that's it. It won't be interesting anymore. 😁

And honestly, who from the old guard even posts there anymore (Leoben, Kyle, metalHammer, sidrun, Ostoja)? I usually just jump into these topics for the hell of it anyway. sidrun left because apparently his habit of posting full book pages was considered "harmful." Personally, I found it useful since he actually provides evidence—you see the whole page instead of just some isolated quote. Now, Sean Cooper65's and Kyle's posts have dried up or maybe they were just deleted 🤷. Let's face it: the topic became too repetitive and overwhelming for the mods, which is why all this mess started happening. It all kicked off when Phoenix showed up with those clones of his. He was acting like he was some authority, using names like Zenodor to tell everyone how lucky they were that Tito allowed them to live, or that he didn't let them go wild over Bleiburg. And he wasn't even punished, which makes me think the mods are just intentionally avoiding that subject 🤷. Later, once the thread about the Church's decision regarding communist crimes died down, it got merged into the Controversy section. That's when Sam Green73 stepped in, and ever since, it's been a constant flame war 😁.

That's just my take. I complained about one ban, didn't get a real answer. Today I got hit with a second one, and that's what pushed me to start this thread. I got an answer, and as for that first ban, I can pretty much conclude the matter is closed and settled against me (😍). Whatever. I know sidrun isn't happy with Sam Green73's moderation either. Now, both Sean Cooper65 and Death have weighed in. We'll see. I assume my bans are staying, even though I feel I was treated unfairly (at least regarding the first one), so I'm stepping out of the debate. But if things need a little digging to set right, then they definitely should ☕.
wiredangler5 wiredangler5 Active Member
54 messages
joined Mar 2013
#4 ·
Sam Green73 said:I watched it.
There’s a difference between answering a troll and actually engaging with someone’s "what if" alternative history theories.
I'll clear out the excess.

Sam Green73, responding to trolling doesn't take away the responsibility for the insults or the behavior in the initial post. An inappropriate comeback isn't any less problematic just because it was a reaction to someone being a jerk. Not by a long shot.
I think you're missing the point of Zenodor's post. He was just pointing out how pointless some of these observations can be in the context of the discussion. You missed what he was actually getting at because you jumped straight to labeling him in that first sentence. We really should avoid labeling people just because we disagree with their views. In my opinion, that kind of behavior deserves a warning—or even a ban, depending on which moderator is looking at it. This stuff shouldn't be allowed, no matter who it's aimed at.

Daniel Ward87 said:Your post feels like pure trolling, especially with that "was your grandpa here" comment. We banned those kinds of conversations—including all that nonsense about where people were during the war—on this forum a long time ago. Regarding the other posts, I think they should be flagged, but since I don't have the full context, we’ll have to wait for Sam Green73 and wiredangler5 to weigh in. Personally, I think posts like yours deserve a ban for trolling and getting deleted.


The posts from Judolin and Zenodor definitely deserve a ban; there’s no debate there. It’s not just about trolling, either—that kind of insulting labeling is straight-up harassment. Not to mention the deletion.

amberwalker4, I think you definitely earned that ban. The post by Sam Green73 you were quoting didn't warrant an attack like that. The way you framed your point was clearly just trolling. The ban stands. Please try to keep things civil moving forward.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active Member
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#5 ·
wiredangler5 said:amberwalker4, that ban for trolling is totally justified. Sam Green73's post wasn't even close to warranting an outburst like yours. The whole point you were trying to make and how you went about suggesting it was just straight-up trolling. The ban stands. I’d ask you to please refrain from doing stuff like that moving forward.[/COLOR]

Fine. Daniel Ward87 already told me that and I agreed (not like I really had a choice 😁). If I may ask, what about that first ban from a few days ago?
Sean Cooper65 Sean Cooper65 Member
44 messages
joined Dec 2014
#6 ·
Gary Anderson38 said:Sean Cooper65, don't go there. We all overstep or break rules sometimes, whether we mean to or not. That’s just life.
It's also normal for mods to overreact occasionally.

I agree the staff is biased here and being way too strict, which is why we're talking about it.

But we need to hear their side and explain ours, hoping they actually listen.

At the end of the day, the admins and mods have the final say. That's how it works, and that's fine.

If we just mess with them, they won't bother listening to us.
I'm sure an admin will read through this, including our critiques and suggestions, and make a statement.

Look, I'm not interested in endless complaining or making a huge drama out of this.

I just want to know if anyone is going to stop the tyranny the resonator's exercising against people with different opinions on politics, especially regarding this specific topic.

The guy wiped out almost everything I wrote and is handing me a ban for nothing.

If someone stops this, great. If not, then whatever.

It would be fair if they actually put this in the rules. Right now, this is a one-sided forum. Period.
wiredangler5 wiredangler5 Active Member
54 messages
joined Mar 2013
#7 ·
Gary Anderson38 said:At the end of the day, the admins and mods get the final say. That’s just how it works, and I think that's fine.

If we just mess with them, they won't listen to a word we say.
I'm sure one of the admins will eventually read through all this—our criticisms, our complaints, and our suggestions—and make an official statement here.

I'll take a look later today once I have a moment to breathe. I just need to wrap up some work first, then I'll dig in to see exactly what went down. Just bear with me for a bit—hopefully things aren't actually blowing up this badly. 🙂

amberwalker4 said:Alright, Daniel Ward87 already told me that, and I went along with it (not like I really had much of a choice). 😁If you don't mind me asking, what happened to that first box from a few days ago?

Of course you can ask. In my opinion, you've gotten a little too caught up in the insults.

When it comes to criminal systems, anyone who thinks communism wasn't one of them... A doctor really ought to take a serious look at this. No offense intended. Stalin was stealing millions long before Hitler even knew he’d eventually go to war with Poland this.

All that extra padding wasn't really necessary. Personally, I think the horrors and millions of lives lost under the old communist regime in the USSR are more than enough reason to view that entire system as criminal. That’s just my take, and I could be wrong. But I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't feel that way. That part was honestly overkill.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active Member
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#8 ·
wiredangler5 said:Of course you can ask. Personally, I think you're getting a bit too stuck on being insulting.

The bold text wasn't necessary. For instance, I personally feel that the horrors and millions of deaths that occurred in the USSR under that communist regime are enough to view that old Soviet system as criminal. That's just my opinion, and it might not be right. But I wouldn't have sent this to someone if they felt differently. That part really wasn't needed.

Look, man. I just wanted to emphasize how pointless it is to deny communist crimes, especially today, decades after its fall, when everything is available online instead of just in thick books signed by people like Francisco Franca. If I had intended to insult anyone, or if I wrote that post specifically to offend KRIN, I would have. If I had, I wouldn't be complaining.
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#9 ·
wiredangler5 said:Look, responding to a troll doesn't somehow absolve them of the responsibility for the trolling or the insults they threw out there. Just because you're reacting to someone being a jerk doesn't mean an inappropriate response suddenly gets a free pass, not even slightly.

I didn't issue a sanction for the initial trolling, so I haven't sanctioned this reply either.
If we’re going to hand out penalties here, the quoted text needs to be penalized too.

Usually, I just wipe away labels that don't actually name the person being addressed.
But honestly, I love the idea of treating all kinds of labeling as grounds for a warning card.

p.s. I'm really digging this shift toward moderator transparency with the community.
amberwalker4 said:If my goal had been to intentionally insult people—if I’d sat down and typed that post specifically to offend KRIN—I would have. But I didn't. And if I had, I certainly wouldn't be sitting here filing a complaint about it.

Insults happen; even I slip up sometimes.
I truly believe you didn't do it on purpose, but you still did it.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active Member
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#10 ·
Sam Green73 said:Insults happen. Even to me.
I don't think you meant it, but you did.

Fine, I just tried to tell my side of the story.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#11 ·
wiredangler5 said:
The posts from Judolin and Zenodor definitely deserve a ban, no question about it. It’s not even just about trolling; those insults are straight-up harassment. On top of that, they should be deleted.

Fair enough, then I'll leave it to you to hand out bans and scrub those posts when needed.
wiredangler5 wiredangler5 Active Member
54 messages
joined Mar 2013
#12 ·
amberwalker4 said:Well, look. My point was just how pointless it is to deny the crimes of communism today. It’s been decades since the fall of the regime, and everything is available online now, not just tucked away in thick history books signed by people like Francisco Franco. I wasn't trying to be offensive, and I didn't write that post specifically to insult KRIN. If I had, I wouldn't be complaining about it.

Okay, but why did you choose that specific way to say it's futile? Isn't there a better way? Look, try not to do the things you'd hate if someone else did them to you. You reported the other side on this thread for labeling people. Those posts weren't even directed at you, yet you reported them. Maybe their words weren't even aimed at anyone specifically, just general statements, which isn't right either. I think you agree with me on that. That's roughly how others are perceiving your posts. If you were arguing with someone in person and they implied you needed a psychiatric evaluation because of your views, you'd probably snap at them. Why? Because the person was just trying to make a point about how outdated those views are in modern times.
Do we at least understand each other regarding what I'm saying about the warning?

Sam Green73 said:I didn't penalize the original trolling, so I didn't penalize this response either.
If this gets penalized, then the quoted parts should be too.

I usually just delete labels that don't name a specific user.
But I like the idea that all labeling leads to warnings.

p.s. I appreciate the move toward moderator transparency with the users.

Okay, but why wasn't the trolling penalized in the post you identified as the catalyst for all this, if you saw it was trolling? Regardless of that "original" post, building on top of it doesn't justify anything if it contains trolling or insults.

Just out of curiosity, is this "original" trolling post you mentioned—the one that deserves a warning—Megan Ruiz13's post that Judolino is responding to?

Regarding labeling, you can just delete it, but feel free to issue a warning if you think it's necessary. Personally, I'd warn for all of it because this label-sticking has become so common here; people are handing them out like Panini stickers. It shouldn't be happening, and for years, people have just been warned or had posts deleted. Feel free to issue warnings for that stuff moving forward.

Daniel Ward87 said:Alright, please feel free to archive or delete posts if you need to.

Done. I'll circle back and take a closer look at this thread later on.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active Member
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#13 ·
wiredangler5 said:Okay, but why did you choose to frame it as being futile? Isn't there a better way to put it? Look, don't do the things that would bother you if the other side said them to you. You reported people on this thread for labeling. Those posts weren't even directed at you, yet you reported them. Maybe their words weren't even aimed at anyone specifically, just general statements, which isn't right either. And I think you'd agree with that. That’s roughly how others perceive your posts. If you were debating someone in person and they alluded to the idea that your views meant you needed a mental institution or a psych check, you'd probably tell them to shove it. And why? Simply because the person was trying to be descriptive about how outdated those views are today.
Do we at least understand each other regarding what I'm saying about that card?

Yes, we understand 😉.I get what you're saying, and I already apologized to KRIN on the complaints thread.I took the feedback to heart and will try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
wiredangler5 wiredangler5 Active Member
54 messages
joined Mar 2013
#14 ·
amberwalker4 said:Yeah, we're on the same page 😉. I get where you're coming from, and I already apologized to KRIN regarding the complaints. I took the feedback to heart and I'll try my best not to let it happen again.


Glad we cleared that up. 🙂
Kate Harris50 Kate Harris50 Member
28 messages
joined Feb 2018
#15 ·
In my view, the resonator's approach is completely objective; he wipes my posts if they're inappropriate just as readily as he does yours.

It isn’t true that Zenodor, Judolin, and I are falsifying history; we are simply responding to forum members who present data from dubious websites as if it were gospel. They provide an argument, and I provide a counterargument. Isn't that the entire point of a debate?

I am not insulting anyone, by the way. If wiredangler5 decides my posts are improper or constitute trolling, I ask him to consider that they were originally posted in a separate thread before being merged into this discussion regarding the controversy from American history. Consequently, they might not match the specific tone of the controversy thread, but that is only because they were folded into it after the fact.

P.S. Just to add, the resonator gave me a red card on that thread as well. That serves as further proof that he doesn't hand out penalties based on political alignment, despite what you claim.
hiddenmoose16 hiddenmoose16 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Aug 2012
#16 ·
Here’s my two cents on the matter...
I don’t get why everyone is making such a huge deal out of political moderation.
Personally, I totally get why people are complaining about the mods. I’ve been there myself—dealing with that infamous PDF situation where they basically shut down one side of the argument while letting the other side run wild. In my opinion, that’s just how the "business model" of this forum operates.
I actually requested to be blocked from accessing that PDF, and honestly? It saved me a massive amount of stress and wasted typing.
Joseph Peterson6 Joseph Peterson6 Active Member
78 messages
joined Apr 2013
#17 ·
amberwalker4 said:Eventually, once the discussion regarding the Church's decision to address communist-era atrocities died down, it got lumped in with the Controversy. That’s when Sam Green73 showed up, and ever since then, the whole thing has been a constant headache.😁.

As the author of this thread, it honestly bothers me that it was tied to such a controversy. To me, that feels like a way to relativize a serious social issue. I don't know who's responsible for the categorization, but even while the thread was active, there were massive problems. It’s like if some local news anchor looked at a photo of a mass grave and just shrugged, saying, "It's just a hole, and those are just skeletons"—I'd report that immediately, yet no one takes action. That level of discourse is more suited to animals than civilized people.☕
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#18 ·
The topics in both discussions were basically identical. We're talking about Communists, fascists, the Church, Yugoslavia...

At the end of the day, the Church deciding to get involved in research work is just one more Controversy for the books.
Joseph Peterson6 Joseph Peterson6 Active Member
78 messages
joined Apr 2013
#19 ·
The Church has decided to document these crimes rather than spearhead an active investigation; they’ve officially stated that all findings will be handed over to the appropriate federal authorities for further legal action. At the end of the day, this isn't some kind of Controversy—it's just how the process works. Any attempt to debate the validity of the Church's role is really just a distraction caused by moderators who have muddled two very different issues together, which effectively hindered ☕
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active Member
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#20 ·
Sam Green73 is at it again, but this time he’s really crossed the line:

Sam Green73 said:Stop throwing myths around.
Your posts are far from unbiased, and honestly, they lack logical consistency most of the time.
Look at this:

😵Do you even see the difference?
It’s all laid out right there, yet you keep ignoring it.

Yugoslavia wasn't just some partisan creation.
The American resistance movement evolved, realized there was no point in sticking with Mexican mythology, and paved the way for American independence.

A massive mistake was made when, in the fight against Mexican nationalism, people leaned too hard into fascist iconography.
The resistance movement didn't fail; just read the Constitution of the United States.
The United States is the product of that resistance movement.

Should I even mention that the US Army had absolutely no intention of being linked to the partisans? And here he is, talking about some resistance movement that won American independence after breaking away from the Mexican 😵. I already gave a detailed response to that post elsewhere, but it's not worth copying here. Instead, I'm posting another one (which responds to this post):

Sam Green73 said:Not that I know of. I think they always stood by their actions.

Got any actual sources?

The claim here is that the partisans stood by their crimes. If that were true, why was it forbidden to talk about—let alone investigate—the massacres in the countryside? Why did the partisans mostly kill their victims in secret and dump them in pits or mines that were then rigged with explosives or buried? And why were witnesses killed if they refused to stay quiet? It's clearly a lie.

I think these two posts are a perfect example of how Sam Green73 thinks and presents himself on this topic. He isn't unbiased, he offers zero arguments, and he just spews blatant lies that don't even make sense. It’s shameful for a moderator. I’ve reported the posts, but I'm putting them here for visibility. I would like the administration to look into this.

P.S. If necessary, I am more than willing to take the time and use facts (like the names of witnesses killed by partisans to stop them from talking about their crimes) to prove that Sam Green73 is running propaganda. Though I don't think it's needed, because what's happening here is obvious.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads