Don't bring up the parents!

Over on the Mladen Bajić thread on Powerlock, someone posted some stuff about his dad along with a link to this article. I actually weighed in on that one. My whole point was basically that even today, the biggest political power in America is still held by the same old establishment families that ran things back before 1990. In that context, I mentioned that Josipović’s father was also acting as a sort of partisan leader during that same era.

The moderator jumps in:

teta-elza said: I’d kindly ask everyone not to mention anyone's parents. thanks.

One user pointed out how pointless it is to ban something like that, and honestly, they're right. Why?

If your argument is that power is passed down through dynasties—basically from ancestors to descendants—then mentioning someone's parents is totally relevant. If you're arguing something is genetic, then yeah, parents matter. Or, if we're talking about the career of some young keyboardist from Rolling Stone, it's obviously relevant to mention his dad is Tonči Huljić. 🤷

Also, if people are wondering why zero wartime crimes from the partisans were ever prosecuted 20 years after the old regime lost control, a valid answer might be: maybe because the prosecutor is the kid of someone who could have been implicated.

The fact that this "don't mention parents" rule is total nonsense was proven the very same day when the Powerlock moderator was busy writing about the Norwegian Prime Minister's father in a different thread.

So, last night I shot back at the moderator like this:

Quote: teta-elza said: I’d kindly ask everyone not to mention anyone's parents. thanks.

Just agree with Powerlock. 🤷


Woke up today to find the whole exchange had been wiped, and the moderator under the politika clouseau banner handed me a strike. 😕

So, there are two issues here.

First, there's this completely unnecessary and mindless ban on looking at a public figure's family context when it actually matters to the discussion.

The whole thing is just a mess of conflicting vibes from the Powerlock mods, and honestly, getting slapped with a ban for it feels pretty pointless. One mod warns us not to do something, then another mod goes ahead and does that exact same thing. I calmly point out the hypocrisy, and then a third mod hands me a red card. Just great.

Also, if you're gonna toss a card at me for "breaking subforum rules," maybe be a little more specific? Like, which rule did I actually break? A little clarity would go a long way. 😕

Oh, please. Now we’re going to drag extended family into political debates just whenever it suits someone? Every individual is responsible for their own actions—not their parents, siblings, or relatives. That applies to voters and politicians alike.

Bringing up family ties isn't allowed here; it's considered a violation of the rules.

Charles Fox10 said:Oh, come on. Now we're just gonna drag extended family into political debates whenever it suits us? Everyone’s an individual. You answer for your own actions, not your parents or your siblings—that goes for politicians too.

Doing that on this PDF is against the rules and counts as a violation.

Maybe try actually reading everything before jumping in. For one thing, it clearly mentions that moderator slybison8 did the exact same thing. I was just pointing out the facts and got slapped with a warning for it.

Breaking news: even moderator slybison8 was doing it just an hour ago:

So, I guess the rules apply to him just as much as they do to me. Why'd I get flagged just for calling it out?

Plus, someone's parents can definitely be relevant. It's not exactly irrelevant to Prince Charles's public role who his parents are, right?

Daniel Campbell5 said:Isn't it kind of a big deal who someone's parents are when you're talking about Prince Charles and his whole public role?

Or look at it this way: wouldn't it be pretty relevant to both the political standing and the general vibe people get from Miroslav Tuđman to talk about who his father was? 🤷

I'd bet money—not that I'm looking for a reason to dig through old threads right now, fingers crossed I don't have to—that if you check any discussion about Miroslav Tuđman, his dad comes up more than once.

I'm not interested in debating cardboard here, much less talking about parents. It’s up to the admins to make the final call, not the users or the moderators.

If you spotted an issue in the Miroslav Tuđman thread, why didn't you just report it? You have the little triangle icon—just click it and move on. That goes for the M. Tuđman thread and everything else, right?

Besides, Chuck already laid it all out clearly enough. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.

I suppose the Moderator should be the one to decide on the ban. In my view, mentioning parents is perfectly fine, provided that within the discussion one can demonstrate a clear reason why such a detail is actually relevant.

It is true that while discussing the bomb in Norway, I brought up the fact that the current Norwegian Prime Minister's father served as a special envoy for the Secretary-General of the UN regarding the former Yugoslavia region. Given the context of the debate over the stance the Prime Minister took last night regarding foreign investigators looking into terrorist attacks, it seemed appropriate to mention this, and perhaps even useful for our local perspective. Ultimately, both men have functioned as public officials.

On the other hand, it is also true that just the day before yesterday, I myself issued a ban on a thread regarding Joe Biden, because a user was questioning the ethnic origins and ideological background of the President of the United States' parents in a way that I felt was inappropriate.

Perhaps the Admin could look into how you have mentioned parents in the past and how Robert Hall7 and casuallynx8 have been treated by others. At first glance, I don't see any inconsistency between their actions and my own.

Look, I get it. Finding decent moderators for the Politics section is a nightmare, so I’m not expecting much, but your* responses under every single criterion are just... off.

I didn't even need to go hunting for info on Miroslav Tuđman because I stumbled upon that thread about the terror attack in Norway, where a moderator from the two-party system was busy rambling about the Norwegian Prime Minister's father.

So, what's the deal? Are these posts getting nuked? Is slybison8 getting a warning card?

Let's be real here, 🙄they shouldn't be deleted, and slybison8 definitely shouldn't be getting a strike.

*EDIT: This is directed at Chuck and Robert Hall7.

slybison8 said:I reckon it’s fine to bring up parents, but only if it actually fits the conversation. Otherwise, it just feels a bit much. Can you actually show me a clear reason why this matters?

👍 Finally, someone making sense here. I'm with you 100%.

So, here’s a thought. It’s been twenty years, right? Twenty years since we started talking about this, yet not a single indictment has been handed down for those partisan war crimes. We know they happened—it’s an undisputed fact. There are still plenty of witnesses walking around out there, and honestly, probably even some of the perpetrators still breathing. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If the evidence is sitting right there, isn't it pretty reasonable to ask: who exactly is sleeping on the job, and why aren't they doing it? Because let's be real, someone clearly isn't doing their part.

When you look at why those indictments haven't been filed, one big reason for the whole mess could be the Attorney General himself. It makes you wonder: why isn't he going after those war crimes committed by the resistance fighters, especially since he was so quick to prosecute everyone else’s war crimes and plenty of non-war stuff too? Honestly, there might be a pretty obvious answer: his own father could end up being one of the defendants.

If we were looking at an analog situation where a District Attorney refuses to prosecute mafia crimes, while everyone knows his old man is basically tied to the mob, wouldn't it be pretty damn relevant to ask if there's a connection between his dad and those dropped charges? 🤷

Second off, if my whole point was about this "caste" system where the same old crowd just refuses to let go of their seats, can you even really argue that without bringing up who their parents are?

Charles Fox10 said:Oh, please. Now we’re just going to drag extended families into political debates whenever it suits someone? Every individual is responsible for their own actions, not their parents, siblings, or cousins—that goes for politicians too.

On this PDF, that kind of talk isn't allowed; it's a violation of the rules.

Up until recently, before the influx of communists and Eastern hordes (even in Washington, D.C.), there were written laws stating that anyone born to "dishonorable" parents would be barred from becoming a master within a guild or trade. They wouldn't be respected as skilled or as an honest member of society. However, if that same child lived an upright life for several years—working hard and serving the community—that shameful label could be publicly stripped away, allowing them to be accepted as an honorable member with all the perks, just like they came from a good family.

Essentially, it was unthinkable for a child of dishonest parents to hold any influence in society or the state, let alone succeed, unless they were treated as one of those rare exceptions I mentioned. What should the difference be today? It's obvious that even decent people can have dishonorable offspring, but such an occurrence is viewed as a pathological rarity because decent parents don't neglect the upbringing and improvement of their children.

It isn't hard for any educated person—especially those with roots in refined Europe—to understand the positive impact such laws had on stability, development, and decency. This shows that mentioning parents or a full family tree isn't inherently insulting; it actually points to a person's scale of values and their continuity. It makes sense that referencing one's origins and lifestyle is vital. Making the effort to mention ancestry is a tiny step for an honorable, refined person, but for people like Chuck, Aunt Elsa, and their ilk, it seems like a massive leap.

Claiming the punishment of a respected forum member is unreasonable simply because necessary biographical details were exposed is arrogant. It really speaks to the quality of the editor in question (and I'm not even talking about their background right now).

Why should information regarding public morality be kept secret? Why punish those who reveal it just to provide a richer, factual context for certain biased perspectives?

The moderator deserves a platform that promotes intolerance toward facts and reality.

Daniel Campbell5 - I suppose if one wanted to argue why parents should be part of the discussion, those points really ought to have been brought up before the warning was issued; perhaps it is just a bit too late for that now.

restlessmason7 - This isn't actually a debate about the merits of the topic itself, but rather a discussion regarding the moderator's decision and their specific criteria; I think you might have missed the point of the PDF entirely.

slybison8 said:Daniel Campbell5 - you should have laid out your arguments for why bringing up parents is necessary before getting flagged. It's a bit late now.

People always view extra reasoning or clarifying the "why" behind an argument as a waste of time. They call it patronizing or childish, which just makes the whole discussion feel hollow. If someone points out how a person's past shapes their current perspective—using their upbringing as context—that shouldn't be censored or treated as an attack on free speech.

restlessmason7 - this isn't about the actual topic; it's about the moderator's decision and their criteria. You missed the point entirely.

I used that example about my grandfathers to save time and get straight to the point. The core issue is just the starting point; it eventually dictates the decisions made here, which reflects the mood of the participants and the overall state of free speech on this platform.
The substance and the decisions are inseparable. They are essentially two sides of the same coin.

If you take a look at the PDF, it’s explicitly stated that discussing moderator actions is strictly prohibited under the rules. Anyone who decides to ignore that guideline will face an immediate strike against their account.

Consequently, once a moderator issues a warning within a thread, everyone else needs to respect it. If you feel the need to vent or offer a critique regarding those decisions, please move the conversation over to the Governor's subforum instead.

casuallynx8 said:On this subreddit, discussing moderator actions is strictly prohibited per the official rules. Breaking that rule results in an immediate strike.

So, when a moderator posts a warning on a thread, everyone else needs to fall in line. If you want to complain about it, take it to the Governor subforum.

But isn't a bad, overreaching decision from a moderator a much bigger sin than just mentioning the incident? It’s practically violence against free speech and the right to state facts.

If we actually care about justice, then heavy-handed moderation should be punished even more strictly. Since it triggers a reaction from powerless users fighting a power hierarchy, those with more authority and responsibility should face harsher consequences.

Just imagine for a second if laws like that existed in our actual lives, here in the United States.

Is that really so hard to grasp, or is it just impossible to achieve???

And is it even possible in a virtual space, like Reddit???

Why can't there at least be some level of order or basic decency on Reddit???

Of course, even a moderator can make a mistake now and then. However, one must respect the established form and procedure. According to those rules, any grievances regarding a moderator's conduct should be filed within the Governor's subforum, rather than being aired directly within the specific thread where the disputed activity is taking place.

slybison8 said:Daniel Campbell5 - you should've brought up those reasons for why mentioning parents matters before you got hit with the ban, now we're kind of past that point.

Three things here:

1. 😁Is your move—just dropping "``here's some trivia about XY's dad``" —actually an argument? Does that mean I can jump into a thread about M. Bajić and write "``here's some trivia about his dad``" just to repost what was already deleted?

2. There was an actual point being made—not super deep, but there was a clear connection regarding how certain war crimes from the old regime weren't dealt with, and how power gets passed down through families. But the mods didn't catch the context (or maybe they just chose to ignore it) and just mechanically slapped on the "no mentioning parents" rule. Still, this third part is more important to me:

3. So, does this mean that since you're a moderator for Politics, you're giving me the green light to use that same logic (explaining why it's relevant to mention parents) to start a new post about M. Bajić where I lay out all the facts about his father's service during the partisan era?

casuallynx8 said:Look, the rules on this PDF clearly state that discussing moderator actions is a big no-no. If you break that rule, you get hit with a violation card.

So, basically, when a mod drops a warning on a thread, everyone else needs to just follow it. If you want to vent or criticize, take it over to the Governor subforum.

Alright, fine. I replied to the moderator right where she addressed me. That’s just how people talk, right? It’s like if you’re driving down a street and a cop tells you "you can't go this way," and you respond with, "but hey, that other guy just went through there!" And then he hands you a ticket because apparently, the "proper procedure" isn't talking back, it's filing an official complaint. 🙄 Seems a little extreme to me. If it were just a yellow card, I wouldn't care. But whatever, I haven't been on Reddit for eight years using four different handles and dropping ten thousand posts without ever getting a violation, so hey, might as well get the experience. 🙂

Still, I'll say it again: it would be pretty decent if the private message attached to a violation actually gave a specific reason, like "hey, move discussions about mods to the other subforum," instead of just some vague "violation of forum rules."

And yeah, you should probably just scrap those two posts too. They don't really make sense anymore now that you've wiped out what came before them: this one and this one.

Melissa Sanders33 said:Look, if you spotted something off in the Miroslav Tuđman thread, why didn't you just flag it? You've got that little triangle icon right there—just click it and move on. That goes for any other topic too, doesn't it?

So I did. Spent about fifteen clicks scrolling through ten pages before I lost interest (honestly, life is too short to read all this). Now I'm wondering if everyone’s gonna get nuked from the site (I'll have to check 😉). There's this one guy with like dozens of posts in the M. Tuđman thread, and I swear he can't go a single sentence without bringing up his old man. Seems like none of the mods thought that was worth calling out.

Daniel Campbell5 said:Still, I’ll maintain my stance: if someone is issuing a warning via a private message alongside a notification, it would be much more civil to provide a specific reason—something like, "if you want to contest moderator actions, please use the designated sub-forum"—rather than just tossing out a vague "violation of forum rules."

That particular message is an automated one; the "rule violation" notice is simply one of the preset templates used by the system.

As for the broader issue regarding bringing up someone's parents, I find myself in agreement with the points already raised by others: such a move should only be permissible if the person mentioning them can demonstrate a clear, logical reason why it actually pertains to the discussion at hand.

casuallynx8 said:Moderators can make mistakes, sure. But we have to stick to the rules. And the rules say you file a grievance about moderator conduct on the Amtrak subforum, not right in the middle of the thread where they're actually doing the work.

🙂It’s nice when we agree on something, because users end up getting punished for forced reactions due to repeated "moderator slip-ups"🙂. I'll try to make this even simpler for you, just so we're on the same page:
Why are you dodging the obvious? Why won't you state clearly that moderators should be strictly disciplined for these kinds of "oversights"? If they don't, they destroy discussions, censor users, and violate our rights to free speech and truth. If that happens, all this bureaucracy on the Amtrak board becomes pointless. 😕

After two or three "mistakes," just thank the moderator for their service and pick a new one. It’s hard not to think that the quality of discussion—and the forum itself—would improve ten times over if we did.

Does your refusal to take a public stand, and your failure to follow the lead of others, say something about you as an "exemplary" member? Like:
1) moderator solidarity??? or
2) intellectual honesty??? 🤔

👋