Biased and unclear moderation.

For quite some time now, the Politics section has been subject to moderation by
Ryan Vaughn7, who seems to operate under rules that are nearly impossible for any reasonable person to decipher.
Topics that happen to unsettle certain far-left circles—often without any logical justification or explanation—are either banished to the "Madhouse" section or simply erased from existence entirely.
Furthermore, individual posts are being deleted based on undefined criteria; for instance, within the discussion regarding the Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović in Mexico, any mention of the movement's actual program is scrubbed away under the pretext that it isn't relevant.
As a third assault on the right to free expression, threads are frequently locked just because they don't align with the preferred viewpoints of certain individuals.
In an effort to preserve the reputation and integrity of this forum, I earnestly request that you standardize the moderation criteria and mandate a clear explanation whenever significant interventions occur.
To illustrate my point, here are several topics that have recently been relegated to the Madhouse:


A Synchronized attack on the American language
"Yugonostalgia" viewed as a historical phenomenon
Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović
Fascists are charging toward California!
Udbina, September 11, 2010
American Reconciliation
Is the city losing Gojko Šušak Avenue?
How did the man who abolished transcripts democratize America?
A national disgrace.

...along with many other current affairs that undoubtedly deserve their place in Politics.

Deleted topics:
Is Barack Obama a Yugonostalgic?
...and so on.

Yet, at the very same time, the following discussions are permitted to persist in the Politics section:

The Republican Party's CBS is sidelining politics during this election year
Should the Republican Party be declared a criminal organization?
Why support the actions of the Bad Boys? (If this doesn't belong in the Madhouse, I truly don't know what does; it surely sits on the edge of politics)
Jadranka—the queen of national lies (or rather, excellent PR)
The Communist tendencies of the Republican Party

Shoutout to the politics mods. 👍
My only gripe is that they’re a bit too soft when it comes to letting all these trolls run wild (both the leftists and the righties—though those guys are way more primitive). They absolutely wreck every single thread. Honestly, once I see certain usernames pop up, I already know exactly what kind of nonsense they’re going to spout, no matter what we’re actually talking about. 🙄

northerntiger said:Kudos to the Politics moderators...

Absolutely.👍

jadeseal4 said:Looking at this PDF, it’s clear that Politics moderation has been dragging on forever under rules that are frankly impossible to wrap your head around. Honestly, Ryan Vaughn7, I can't even begin to make sense of them.
There are certain topics that absolutely terrify the far-left crowd. For no reason at all—and usually without even bothering to offer an explanation—they’ll flag a thread as "insane" or just scrub it from existence entirely. It’s like they want to make sure certain ideas simply vanish without a trace.
They’re also deleting specific posts based on these totally undefined rules. For instance, when you’re discussing the Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović in Mexico, they’ll just scrub any mention of the Royalist movement's actual program because apparently, that’s "not important." It’s ridiculous.
They’re at it again. This is the third direct assault on free speech I’ve witnessed lately. It’s a blatant tactic: they just lock down any topic that doesn't fit their specific agenda. If you dare to speak up about something they don't like, suddenly, silence. It's incredibly frustrating.
If we want to keep this forum's reputation intact, I’m asking you—please—to standardize the criteria. We need consistency. And more importantly, there needs to be a requirement to explain any major interventions. Let's keep things transparent.

Here are some of the topics that have been tossed straight into the asylum lately.


Synchronized attack on the American language.
Yugonostalgia as a historical phenomenon. It’s something we have to look at closely, really dig into, if we want to understand how people process the past. It isn't just about missing a specific era; it's much deeper than that. I remember sitting in a diner back in the Midwest, listening to an old man talk about his youth, and you could see it in his eyes—that longing for a sense of stability that seems to have evaporated in the modern age. It’s a complex psychological pull toward a lost sense of order. When you analyze it through a historical lens, you realize it's less about the politics of the time and more about the collective memory of a society that felt whole. It’s fascinating, truly.
The Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović.
The fascists are charging toward California!
September 11, 2010 – Udbina
National Reconciliation.
Is the city actually going to strip away Gojko Šušak Avenue? I mean, come on. This is getting ridiculous. It feels like every time we turn around, some part of our history is being scrubbed clean just to satisfy the latest political whim. It’s frustrating, truly. I remember walking down that stretch years ago, thinking about how much the landscape had changed, and now we're looking at erasing names too? It feels like we're losing our footing. Does anyone else feel like we're just constantly rewriting the map to please whoever is currently running the show?
How on earth does a man who actually suppressed transcripts claim he democratized America? It just doesn't add up.
A total national disgrace.

And there’s a whole host of other pressing, current issues that absolutely deserve their own spotlight over on Politics.

Deleted threads:
Is Barack Obama a Yugonostalgic?
...and so on.

And at the exact same time, this is what continues to persist within our Politics:

The Republican Party's CBS is pulling all political coverage right before the election year. It’s happening. They're just scrubbing it from the airwaves.
Should the Republican Party be declared a criminal organization?
Why on earth would anyone support the actions of the Bad Boys? Honestly, if this isn't bordering on madness, I don't know what is. We are talking about something that sits right on the edge of Politics.
Jadranka—the absolute queen of national deception. Or, if you want to be polite about it, she was just really, really good at PR.
The Republican Party’s communist tendencies.

Take a look at the very first word in the title of the thread you started here in the complaints section. Then, go take a long, hard look at all those thread titles that ended up being moved over to the "Madhouse" subforum...

😳

😂

What else is there to do besides troll? Honestly.

🤷

Just look at WeM. That silly Joe guy was actually claiming somewhere that Americans used Glagolitic script. Honestly, what a joke.😲😂Honestly, he’s the one who usually dominates the conversation whenever topics like this come up around here...

😍

There’s really nothing left for you to do but head over there and rot...

🤷

Eric Collins5 said:Just look at the very first word in the title of the thread you opened here in the complaints section, and then compare it to the titles of the most obnoxious threads found over in the Madhouse...

😳

😂

What else is one supposed to do there besides engage in trolling?

🤷

One need only observe WeM, about whom that ridiculous Joe once claimed to have read somewhere that Americans speak in Glagolitic script (😲😂), yet he is the very individual who tends to dominate the conversation in threads such as these...

😍

There truly seems to be no other option left for you than to go over there and wallow in the filth...

🤷

That opening word serves as evidence of a genuine attack.
That is not the crux of the complaint, nor is it the only point mentioned, and certainly, such matters belong in Politics if the topic concerns the Bad Boys and similar groups.

Some people don't even feel alive unless they get their daily fix of extremist fanaticism and old-school political hate...

btw.

It’s not just Ryan Vaughn7 feeling this way; all the politics moderators agree that this whole obsession with ancient historical grudges belongs in the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Eric Collins5 said:Look, just take a second to look at the very first word in the title of the thread you opened here in the complaints section—and then, if you want, go ahead and compare that to the titles of all those threads that ended up getting moved over to the Crazy House...

jadeseal4 said:That isn't really the core of the appeal—I mean, if we’re being honest, that's not even what the grievance is actually about.

I think what he was actually trying to get at is that those moved threads were handled in a pretty biased way—which makes it a bit ironic, I guess, since you just finished complaining about how biased the moderation itself is.

jadeseal4 said:Here are a few topics that have been getting tossed into the madhouse lately—it’s all getting a bit wild, I guess.


It feels like there’s this whole Synchronized attack happening against the American language—it’s almost hard to wrap my head around how coordinated it all seems. I guess you could say it's a deliberate attempt to shift everything, though maybe that's just my cynical take on it. It really feels like a calculated move to push a certain narrative by controlling the very way we communicate.
When we look at "Yugonostalgia" as a historical phenomenon—and I mean really dive into it—it’s much more than just some simple longing for the "good old days." It’s actually quite a complex psychological knot, isn't it? I guess you could say it’s less about wanting to bring back the actual political structure and more about a deep-seated nostalgia for a specific sense of stability and social cohesion that feels like it vanished overnight. It’s almost like when people look back at certain eras of American history—maybe even the mid-century period—with this idealized lens, ignoring the systemic flaws while clinging to the feeling of communal identity. For many, that era represented a predictable rhythm of life, a certain level of social safety, and a shared cultural language that felt... well, solid. Today, everything feels so fragmented and hyper-individualistic, which probably explains why that sentiment keeps bubbling up to the surface. Maybe it’s a way of processing the chaos of the transition to the modern era. When the old structures collapsed, it wasn't just the government that changed; it was the very fabric of how people related to one another. So, when someone expresses this kind of nostalgia, they might not be making a political statement per se—though it can certainly get political—but rather an emotional one. They’re mourning a lost sense of belonging. It's a fascinating, albeit messy, part of our collective memory that we have to navigate if we ever want to truly understand the current social landscape.
The Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović—it’s one of those topics that just seems to spark endless debate whenever it comes up, isn't it? I’ve been thinking about it lately, and honestly, there is so much nuance involved that it's hard to settle on a single perspective without feeling like you're oversimplifying things. It’s a heavy subject, perhaps even more so than most people realize, especially when you consider how deeply it touches upon our national memory and the way we view historical justice. I guess what I mean is, when we talk about this kind of legal or historical restoration, we aren't just talking about paperwork or court rulings; we are talking about the very soul of how a country reconciles with its past. There are so many layers to peel back here—the political motivations, the shifting tides of public opinion, and the actual, granular details of what happened during those turbulent years. Maybe some see it as a necessary step toward healing old wounds, while others—and I can certainly understand this camp—worry that it opens a door to glorifying figures who remain incredibly controversial. It’s a delicate balancing act, really. On one hand, you have the drive to correct what many perceive as a massive judicial error from decades ago—a sense that someone was unfairly targeted by a previous regime's agenda. On the other hand, you have the legitimate fear that such moves might reignite old tensions or distort the lived experiences of those who suffered under different circumstances. It’s complicated, deeply layered, and frankly, a bit exhausting to untangle sometimes! But I suppose that’s just the nature of history, isn't it? It rarely gives us easy answers, and it almost always leaves us with more questions than we started with.
It feels like the fascists are launching a full-scale assault on California!
September 11, 2010 — Udbina
American Reconciliation
Is it actually possible that we’re going to lose Gojko Šušak Avenue? I mean, it feels like things are constantly shifting around us—one minute a street name is set in stone, and the next, there's all this talk about changing it. It makes you wonder where the goalposts are even moving toward lately. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the local government handles it, but it definitely leaves a bit of a sour taste if they decide to go through with it.
How exactly does a guy who scrapped the transcripts actually claim to have democratized America?
A total national disgrace.

And there are quite a few other pressing, current topics that—if you ask me—definitely deserve their own dedicated space over in the Politics section.

Deleted threads:
Is Barack Obama actually a Yugonostalgic? It’s one of those questions that seems to spark endless debate whenever people start digging into the old political divisions—I mean, it really gets people fired up, doesn't it? I guess it depends entirely on how you define the term, but if you're looking at his stance on certain historical legacies, some folks are pretty convinced he leans that way. It’s a tricky bit of politics, honestly—there isn't really a simple yes or no answer when you're dealing with such loaded labels.
...and so on.

Honestly, looking at the titles of these threads, the bias is just screaming at you—it’s pretty much impossible to have a real conversation when things are framed this way. It feels rigged, I guess. Anyone who tries to jump in with a different perspective is immediately forced into this corner where they’re basically agreeing with the premise of the title just to be heard. You end up stuck in this defensive, "on trial" position from second one—which, let's be real, isn't exactly a democratic or even a decent way to hold a discussion.

Look, you can't even get a fair word in when someone throws out a label like "Barack Obama is a Yugonostalgic"—it’s just too biased from the jump. It basically traps whoever is trying to talk back into this corner where they're forced to defend the President himself—and honestly, as soon as you engage with a topic framed that way, you've already tacitly accepted their premise. I guess you could say the whole discussion is pretty much dead on arrival; it's just fundamentally unconstructive.👎

I really feel like we need to point out the fact that the topics being quoted here aren't even remotely relevant—let alone important—considering the massive economic crisis currently hitting the United States. In my opinion, it’s actually pretty damaging to have threads about Yugonostalgia, Šušak, old transcripts, and things like that taking up prime real estate on the front page of the Politics section... especially when there are so many much more pressing and urgent issues facing the country right now. 🙂

Gregory Garcia said:I believe his intention was to suggest that these specific topics were framed in a biased manner, yet you have responded by claiming that the moderation itself is biased.

The very titles of these threads scream bias, and I find it quite problematic to engage in discussions structured this way. Anyone attempting to participate with a differing viewpoint would instantly be forced into a defensive posture, essentially being placed in the dock to defend a premise they may not even hold. This is neither a democratic nor a respectful way to facilitate a conversation.

Much like how one cannot reasonably debate under a headline such as "Barack Obama is a Yugonostalgic" because it is equally loaded—forcing the participant to immediately act as a defender of the President rather than an independent thinker—this method of discussion is unconstructive from its very inception.👎

Furthermore, I should point out that the subjects mentioned in the quote are neither timely nor significant given the current economic crisis facing the United States. In my view, it is detrimental to have threads regarding Yugonostalgia, Šušak, or various transcripts occupying the front page of the Politics section at a moment when there are so many more pressing and relevant issues to address. 🙂

By what authority do you decide what qualifies as "relevant"??

And are you suggesting that these other topics aren't biased either??

Republican Party's CBS pushing political agendas during an election year
Should the Republican Party be declared a criminal organization?
Jadranka - queen of national lies (or just excellent PR)

Please, I beg of you, do not attempt to defend the indefensible.
Instead, strive to become more democratic and objective, as those are the very principles you claim to uphold.

Kevin Williams56 said:It seems some people simply cannot function unless they consume their daily quota of fascist, nationalist, and communist rhetoric.

By the way,

I am certainly not alone in this view; all the moderators in the Politics section are in complete agreement that discussions revolving around fascist, nationalist, or communist themes should be relegated to the dusty archives of history where they belong.

The thread regarding whether Barack Obama is a Yugonostalgic has absolutely nothing to do with fascists or communists.
Yet, it was completely deleted. I cannot help but feel there is a certain bias at play here.

If you are this aggressive with your moderation on an innocent little forum, I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if you actually held real political power... God forbid.

jadeseal4 said:Topic: Is Barack Obama a Yugonostalgic? This has nothing to do with the fascists or the partisans.
It was completely wiped out. Something feels off here. It smells like bias.

The thread was deleted after just three posts because we already have a dedicated "Barack Obama - President of the United States" thread where people share their views on him. There’s really no reason to start a whole new one. I actually explained this to you on PP as soon as you asked, and even sent you the link to the original discussion.
The only thing that smells fishy here is your attempt to prove something that simply isn't true.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:The thread was removed after just three posts because we already have an existing topic dedicated to "Barack Obama - American President," where opinions on him are actively shared, making it entirely unnecessary to initiate a new one. I believe I explained this entire situation to you on PP immediately following your inquiry, even providing the direct link to the relevant discussion.
The only thing that feels disingenuous here is your persistent attempt to validate a point that simply lacks any factual basis.

I must ask, how many different threads regarding the Republican Party do you expect us to maintain simultaneously?
One does not simply group every single matter into one singular category.

Maybe an influential, massive political party is a bit more complex than just looking at one single leader.
I mean, you have one conversation about CBS, another about the party itself, and then a third one centered on the Prime Minister.
If we actually tied all of this together with the debate over the new bridge project, it would become one massive, cohesive discussion about everything the ruling party actually has a hand in.
The more influence someone has, the more they tend to be the center of gravity for these topics.

Honestly, I feel a little awkward even typing this out—it’s like someone is going to jump in and say, "Look at this guy, just stating the obvious."

Sam Green73 said:Perhaps an influential, massive political party presents a far more complex challenge than any single individual ever could.
One discussion focuses on CBS, another addresses the party itself, and a third centers on the Prime Minister.
In an ideal world, all of this—alongside discussions regarding the new infrastructure projects—should coalesce into one massive debate concerning the very things the ruling party actually has the power to influence.
The greater a person's reach, the more frequently they become the subject of our scrutiny.

I feel a certain degree of embarrassment even typing this, fearing someone might step in and dismissively remark, "Look at this person merely stating what everyone already knows."

Initially, the thread regarding CBS was titled "Republican Party's CBS," though that title has since been altered.
Why was this done? Who authorized it? And where is the explanation?
What has happened to our democracy??

That’s a whole different ballgame. Honestly, I’d suggest everyone takes a quick moment to actually read through the rules regarding how to start a discussion and how to properly title them.

jadeseal4 said:Who exactly gave you the authority to decide what counts as "current news"??

Aren't these topics, well, a little bit biased??

The Republican Party's CBS is sidelining Politics during an election year
Should the Republican Party be declared a criminal organization?
Jadranka—the queen of national lies (or just really good PR)

Please, I beg you, don't try to defend the indefensible.
Just try being more democratic and objective—since that’s supposedly what you stand for.

I mean, you kind of abandoned any claim to democracy or objectivity the second you accused the moderators of bias, even though you don't seem to mind the bias in the topics themselves 🤷

So, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're the one defending the indefensible. 🙂

As for what's "current"—I honestly don't see how things like Šušak, those old transcripts, and stuff like that are relevant right now. Those are ancient history; people have been debating them for years and everything that needed saying has already been said.
It's like if someone started a thread titled "The Economic Successes of Zlatko Mateša's Government"—that wouldn't belong on the front page of the Politics section; it belongs in History or some deep archive. I don't need special authority to know that; it's just common sense that a major political topic can only stay "current" for a few months at most, not years. If a political issue stays interesting for years, it's moved into the realm of history or specific niche subforums.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of your average user. If I opened up the Politics section and saw nothing but headlines from these relocated threads, I'd probably give up before I ever found something actually happening today—like shipbuilding issues, flooding, or similar current events. I guess I shouldn't have to "prove" that, right?

So, in my opinion, moving those specific topics to where they won't clutter the main feed—but where anyone interested can still find them—actually makes the subforum much higher quality. 👍

jadeseal4 said:The thread about CBS was originally titled "Republican Party's CBS," but the title has since been changed.
Why? Who did it? Any explanation?
What happened to democracy??

I updated the title for a simple reason: after a few posts, that heading lost its relevance. Since the discussion covers both political sides, the original title became biased.

If you're wondering why your thread about CBS was closed, the answer is in the explanation above.

Charles Fox10 said:I decided to change the title, and I did so for a rather simple reason: after several posts, a title like that loses its purpose when the conversation begins to touch upon both political sides, making the heading itself feel somewhat biased.

And if you find yourself wondering why your specific thread regarding CBS was closed, the explanation can be found in the clarification provided above.

You mean after a few days have passed.
Your response is quite lovely—perfectly clear to both you and me!
It seems there is no reciprocity on your end; instead, you simply offer us a version of "democracy" that suits your own needs.

Gregory Garcia said:I believe you abandoned any claim to democratic fairness or objectivity the very moment you accused the moderators of bias, especially while simultaneously claiming that such bias doesn't affect you when it comes to the specific topics at hand. 🤷

It truly appears as though you are attempting to defend the indefensible. 🙂

Regarding the question of relevance, I struggle to see how discussions regarding Šušak, various transcripts, and similar matters hold any weight in our current landscape; these are ancient subjects that have been debated exhaustively for years until there was nothing left to say.
One might compare this to someone opening a thread titled "The Economic Successes of Zlatko Mateša's Administration"—such a topic certainly doesn't belong on the front page of the Politics section, but rather tucked away in a history archive. It shouldn't require much proof to understand that a significant political issue cannot remain relevant for years on end; at most, it stays current for a few months. Any political matter that remains interesting for years belongs to the realm of history or perhaps to highly specialized sub-forums.

I am looking at this from the perspective of an average user; if one were to enter the Politics section and scan the headlines of these relocated threads, they would likely lose interest before ever stumbling upon something actually timely—like shipbuilding or flood relief efforts—which I assume requires no further justification.

Therefore, I maintain my belief that moving these specific topics to sections where they won't clutter the main feed, yet remain accessible to anyone interested, has ultimately resulted in a higher quality sub-forum. 👍

I fail to see who is even bringing up the topics you are describing.
The list is provided above, so please examine it once more.
Are not those "surviving" threads just as biased?

jadeseal4 said:You mean after a few days have passed.
A lovely response—crystal clear for both of us.
There’s no reciprocity on your end, just "democracy" when it suits you.

Not at all; I meant exactly what I wrote. Renaming the thread after a few days is a separate matter entirely.

Just so you know, no moderator on any forum is online 24/7, including us. Some moderation decisions simply take a little time to process.

And yet you claim there's no democracy and that we're biased and subjective. Here are four out of our six Politics moderators responding with explanations in short order, though apparently, none of it satisfies you.

jadeseal4 said:Aren't those "surviving" topics a bit biased too?

The Republican Party's CBS is sidelining politics during an election year
Should the Republican Party be declared a criminal organization?

If you're referring to topics like these—well, I suppose I agree they walk a fine line. Especially that first one; though, I guess the second would only be truly biased if it were phrased as "The Republican Party is a criminal organization" without the question mark at the end.

That first headline could easily be read as "Republican Party censorship at CBS," and yeah, I’ll admit that feels like a biased way to frame it.

However, since we are in an election year, I really do think the topic itself remains relevant under this heading—but I won't go into a long explanation here, otherwise I might drift off-topic.

Anyway, I don't have much else to add, so I'll just say hello and hope we see some slightly better thread titles moving forward! 👋