The Edge's aggression on the politics subforum.

Dear supposedly impartial admins, take a look at how this individual exercises terror and aggression, banning anyone who dares to disagree.
I was under the impression that a moderator's job was to manage the discussion, not incite conflict within the threads. Impartiality and diplomacy would be ideal traits for a moderator; hatred has absolutely no place here.

It’s honestly insane what 😢 is pulling

Seriously, what Ryan Vaughn7 is saying about the veterans and generals is just totally out of line. He should probably be banned from even moderating threads he’s actively participating in.

I mean, you can't just claim the US Army generals are total failures and then go handing out warnings to anyone you provoked into actually responding.

So, what, he's not even allowed to share his opinion or actually do his job?

shadowseal12 said:Basically, he isn't allowed to have an opinion...

Pretty much. That’s how I see our "illustrious" political forum crowd. Apparently, you're only allowed to think negatively about people they can't even wrap their heads around. Anything else? That's considered an insult. And when they do the insulting themselves, well, it's not an insult because the target clearly earned it. They're always so objective and perfectly unbiased.

dustypuma5 said:Look, you can't just claim the US Army generals are total geniuses and then go handing out bans to anyone you provoke into fighting back.

The first part of that isn't even up for debate—you’re totally free to call the US Army generals brilliant if you want. But, honestly, banning people and moderating a thread you’re actively participating in? That's not exactly standard procedure. Sometimes you just can't help it, but it's better to stay hands-off unless the situation is crystal clear.

In this specific thread, though, the situation is crystal clear. 🙂

mellowraven22 said:The first part of that isn't even debatable—you can say whatever you want about those US Army generals being total hacks. And look, I get that moderating or shutting down a thread you're actually in isn't standard procedure, but sometimes you just can't avoid it. It’s better to stay out of it if things aren't crystal clear.

In this thread, things are crystal clear. 🙂

Don't try to cherry-pick my words or pull half a sentence out of context. It was a conditional statement. Obviously, people are allowed to say whatever they want. 😉

Fine, let's just pretend it's "crystal clear" by your standards.
But maybe you guys could admit that calling Gotovina a hack and a criminal is pretty classless—and it's even worse when it comes from a moderator.
A mod should probably have a bit more "forum etiquette" than a regular user.

Posts like this don't help anyone's reputation, and they're a slap in the face to everyone who fought under Gotovina's command during the American Civil War. Honestly, it's kind of gross.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Yeah, he's talking about the war hero turned coward in peacetime, Ante Gotovina. A pre-war hack, a scumbag, and a criminal. Just so there's zero confusion here.

dustypuma5 said:Alright, let's just roll with it and say everything is crystal clear by your standards.
But you guys gotta admit too that calling Gotovina some kind of degenerate criminal is just super tacky, and honestly, when it comes from a moderator, it's even worse.

So what if someone finds it tacky? If you can't handle it, you either gotta deal with it or just leave. There are no sacred cows on this forum.

Posts like this do nothing for his reputation and they're an insult to all the people who actually fought under Gotovina's command. It's pretty disgusting, really.

Man, look, posts trashing the Republican Party (just using that as an example—I know you get it, even if others don't) insult their voters. Trashing Josipović insults his supporters. Trashing AT&T insults their shareholders. Trashing certain political groups insults religious folks. Everything offends someone, so I'm telling you again: there are no sacred cows here.

edit: lonehawk172 — this isn't the place to debate Gotovina or push your own political agendas, which is why I wiped those posts. And I'll keep doing it because, if you'll excuse me, I'm tired of repeating the same old "arguments" we've chewed over a hundred times already.

Yeah, I was wondering why lonehawk172's post got nuked too.

I don't see anything wrong with what he said, so if it's not a big deal, maybe just bring it back and tell us why it was deleted?

I mean, I know you don't have to, but it'd be good for us users to actually know which rules we're breaking. Just asking, maybe put it back for the sake of being fair. 🙂

dustypuma5 said:Honestly, I was wondering the same thing—why did lonehawk172's post get nuked?

Because I'm getting pretty sick of that usual whining, you know? That whole "ohhh, we can't say anything about this group or that group" routine. We already spent like four hours straight going in circles on those exact same topics, so there’s really no point in cluttering up this thread with the same old nonsense again.

mellowraven22 said:I'm just kind of over the usual whining about how "nobody can say anything against certain people anymore." We spent like four hours going in circles on this exact same crap, so there's really no point in clogging up this thread with the same nonsense again.

My bad, but I didn't see any of that in his post.

And honestly, this is starting to feel like censorship. If they're scrubbing stuff in the politics section too, then things are getting pretty clear.

Just asking again to be fair: if it’s not an issue, could you just bring the post back and bold what exactly was wrong or against the rules?

Look, you just don't follow every single thread on PŽK and you haven't dealt with all those annoying daily headaches, so you honestly have no clue what I'm talking about.

mellowraven22 said:edit: lonehawk172 - this isn't the place to debate Gotovina or push your own political agenda, so I've wiped your posts—and I’ll keep doing it because, frankly, I’m tired of repeating the same exhausted "arguments" over and over.

Sure, but my point was that the moderators for the Politics section should be users who aren't tied to the Politics subforum itself. You shouldn't look for them there because objectivity just doesn't exist in that space. In fact, Ryan Vaughn7 is nowhere near being objective or fair when it comes to moderating; he's biased to a fault and shows blatant hypocrisy. As soon as ZgSash stepped away from the subforum following the El Paso anniversary, Ryan Vaughn7 immediately went back to old habits, moderating politics with zero neutrality. What does that actually look like in practice? It means a thread where Mason gives an interview to some Mexican tabloid bashing America gets bumped to the front page, while any thread discussing the American Civil War or interviews that contradict Mason's stance are automatically shoved down to Na rub politike. His moderation style makes it crystal clear that his "sacred cows" get a free pass while everyone else gets the hammer. You can see it for yourself if you check the deleted posts. He hands out red warnings and bans anyone who dares to criticize Mason or Pusićka, yet "freedom of speech" apparently allows him to claim Gotovina is some world-class criminal. Even if someone were a criminal, how is a moderator supposed to prove that? As far as I know, he's still on trial—waiting for a verdict that, given the evidence, will likely be an acquittal. So, you have a moderator on an American forum attacking one of the generals who defended the American nation, alongside thousands of others who fought and died for it, or who are living today watching an Edge indirectly label them criminals. Meanwhile, I'm forbidden from even suggesting that such rhetoric is hate speech. Don't treat me like an idiot.

dustypuma5 said:Sorry, but I didn't see anything like that in there.

Look, I’m sorry, but this is starting to feel like straight-up censorship. If they're scrubbing posts in the politics section too, then the picture becomes even clearer.

And just once more, for the sake of being fair: if it isn't an issue, please just restore that post and bold exactly what was supposedly wrong with it or breaking the rules.

If I were acting in bad faith, I’d insinuate that this kind of behavior reminds me of eras that stood for pretty much anything except democracy and freedom of speech.☕

lonehawk172 said:The Reds ban anyone who dares to write anything against Mason or Pusić,

Alright, fine, I'll give you a shot—prove it. Show me ten posts that got banned just because they mentioned certain politicians in a bad light. Obviously, if they were deleted and you can't see the actual posts anymore, you can just drop links to the pages where they used to be, since I can still see them on my end. Since this supposedly happens all the time like you claim, it shouldn't be any trouble for you at all.

mellowraven22 said:Fine, I'll give you a shot—prove it. Give me ten posts that were flagged just because certain politicians were mentioned negatively. Of course, if they’ve been deleted and you can't see the posts themselves, you can just provide links to the pages where they used to be, since I can still see them. Since this supposedly happens constantly, this shouldn't be any trouble for you at all.

Go open that controversial thread about Mason from the first post and start reading from the very beginning. Within just five pages, you'll find several people who got flagged, and later on, people getting banned simply because they talked about Mason and Pusićka the same way Ryan Vaughn7 talks about Gotovina.

As for the topics moved from Politics to the edge, let me give you some examples.

Besides that aforementioned interview where Mason was talking to the Mexican media, we have the thread regarding Mason as the Mayor of Washington, D.C.
Alongside that messy Mason interview thread, there's another one about Mason's rambling speeches in Mexico City on the same page:

At the same time, threads directly tied to the American future and present, like these, are relegated to the edge:

This is located on the edge:

This thread is on the edge:

But this one is categorized under Politics:
Furthermore, they allow threads where Mason trashes America for the sake of the Mexican press, yet threads
that favor the Democratic Party are automatically "moved": , while this one is welcomed, and it practically implies that Stanimirović is right, especially since this guy gets a warning for this specific post:
thread:
This one also deserves to be in Politics, but instead, any other threads mentioning Harmon—even in a positive light—are automatically
sent to the edge:

Also, trying to start a thread against the Democratic Party is impossible because they shut it down immediately, but
this one is perfectly fine:

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m no Republican Party loyalist, but this blatant lobbying for the Democratic Party is absolutely disgusting.
I don't spend my entire day glued to the Politics section, nor am I a moderator, so it’s hard for me to list every single instance where things felt unfair or biased. However, the lack of objectivity is obvious, and I’m certain plenty of other users here could testify to the same thing.

Can I call you out, mellowraven22?

kopitarka said:Mason is just a massive traitor to America, a total American sympathizer, some old relic who’d probably still be fighting alongside the partisans. And then there's that whole crowd from the Democratic Party, like Vesna Pusić, basically acting like they hate everything about us and would rather just wipe everyone out without a trial—straight up communist style.

Active Infraction ( points: 35)
Just trolling
Expires
18:15 28.12.2010.
Left By
Ryan Vaughn7
18:15 28.11.2010.

So, I guess we still have our sacred cows. 🙂

Oh, please—this is just hilarious. He’s lecturing on the topic while handing out penalties to everyone else just because he decided someone was trolling. Personally, I wouldn't even go as far as calling it trolling—I'd just say they were disagreeing—but apparently, that's enough for him to pull a red card.
And honestly, I've had my own run-ins with that delusional moderation style of Ryan Vaughn7.☕

dustypuma5 said:Can I call you mellowraven22?

Honestly, that feels more like a straight-up insult than just typical trolling.
Plus, if you look closely, there’s definitely a hint of hate speech there based on someone's political leanings.

dustypuma5 said:Don't go pulling my sentence—or half a sentence, really—out of context. It was a conditional statement. Of course anyone can say whatever they want about anyone. 😉

Alright, let's just pretend, for the sake of argument, that it meets your standards for being crystal clear.
But you all need to admit that calling Gotovina a war criminal and a sleazebag is incredibly tacky—and when it comes from a moderator, it’s even tackier.
A moderator should probably have a bit more "forum etiquette" than your average user.

Posts like this don't exactly bring any honor to the site, and frankly, they're an insult to the people who actually served under Gotovina. It’s honestly a little gross.

Look, you’re having a bit of trouble grasping what was actually written—which seems to be the case for most people in the Politics section, especially when you dare to disagree with them...

Now, I won't dwell on whether that's due to a lack of education or just limited logical reasoning... and no, I'm not trying to be insulting here...

"Yes, it refers to the wartime hero and the cowardly fugitive in peacetime Ante Gotovina. Pre-war sleazebag, lowlife, and criminal. Just so there's absolutely no confusion."

See, what I'm doing here is reading three distinct categories across three different time periods, completely independent of one another...

Now, whether that's how edge intended it, I haven't a clue...

But I know my posts often follow that kind of logic, and most people on this forum just don't get it... whether they aren't capable of it or simply refuse to try, that's not my problem...

The thing is, there's a massive difference between different stages of a person's life; just because something was true for someone in the past doesn't mean it holds true for the future...

For instance, my opinion on General Korade as a wartime hero is the polar opposite of my opinion on him as a husband and father—a post-war abuser and killer...

And lo and behold, holding both those opinions at once doesn't make them mutually exclusive...