Is it against the rules to trash talk ISPs?

hollowtrucker77 said:under pressure from those massive oil tankers spilling all over the service providers 🙂

🙂 and continuing to block it as well.

granitefox16 said:Great. Now go ahead and start a thread about Jerry Jones on the PDF forum. Go ahead and spread those lies since that's actually illegal under USA law.

Did you also forget about that directive the admin gave to the moderators?

Hold on a second, why are ISPs totally immune to these massive waves of BS, but guys like Mike Krzyzewski or Bernie Sanders aren't?

Aside from the fact that I can't even look at either of them without getting sick...😁

granitefox16 said:Wait a second, why are internet providers protected from the massive wave of hate, while guys like Mike Krzyzewski or Bernie Sanders aren't?

Not that I can actually stand looking at either of them.😁

I have no idea why they aren't... 🤷
You'd have to ask the moderators over on the sports board. I honestly don't know.

Jacob Foster11 said:I have no idea why they aren't... 🤷
You’ll have to ask the mods over on the sports board. I honestly don't have a clue.

Oh sure, and I should probably go bug the political mods about Bernie Sanders, or hit up the Unknown boards because of some condom manufacturer, or yell at CNN, or talk to the Unknown about affairs, or complain on the Ford forums about crappy tires...

Guess everyone's lost their minds since they actually let people call trash what it is.

granitefox16 said:Well, that’s just great. Honestly, what a complete and utter joke.😁

Just imagine if you were actually stuck with me, having to haul a hundred duck eggs over to my place every single day, only for some freak flash flood to wash away the entire bridge before you even make it back.😁

Do you really think he’d take the bait and start throwing insults? Honestly, I doubt it. He isn't exactly known for having much restraint, but even he has his limits when things get heated.

Look, you know what? Just wrap this whole thing up already. I’ve been hanging around here far too long to sit through this nonsense, and frankly, I’ve learned enough to know that threads like this are an absolute waste of everyone's time.🙂

Sure, if the water washes away the bridge, you’re going to turn around and take it out on me instead of actually blaming the damn construction crew.
It’s a bit of a catch-22, isn't it? I can't make a dime off these eggs, and you aren't exactly seeing any profit from what you're already doing with them either.
Look, we can go back and forth insulting each other until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, that damn bridge still hasn't been built.
🙂
Nah, I’m honestly just gonna drag him right into the off-topic section myself at this point.

Like I was saying before, my gut feeling is that they cooked up this rule specifically because of the national pastime over there: constant, relentless bashing of service providers, so they probably just drafted it that way to shut down the noise.
I honestly can't wrap my head around the idea that anyone would actually go out of their way to acquire a service provider just for the sake of owning one—if that’s really the endgame here, then we have officially reached the absolute peak of stupidity.
I’ve always been pretty skeptical about those overly detailed rulebooks, honestly, because I think they just practically beg people to start hunting for loopholes and finding clever little ways to sidestep them.
You know, there’s this basic level of civilized behavior that just ought to be understood instinctively, without needing some formal rulebook to spell it out for you. It’s common sense, really. People who constantly push those boundaries—those who lack even a shred of basic decency—shouldn't just be ignored; they should be dealt with, shut down, or simply erased from the conversation entirely once they cross that line of reasonable tolerance.

hollowtrucker77 said:I honestly don't buy that anyone is actually trying to go out of their way just to snag a specific provider—if that really is the goal, then we’re looking at a whole new level of stupidity.

But look, if you listen to what the mods are saying, they didn't even write this rule themselves. You only have to see how much AT&T is bombarding us with ads on this forum to get it—though, according to some other folks here, I personally run AdBlock Plus. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this insane rule was cooked up just because of all that.

Taylor Gonzalez79 said:Look, if you listen to what the moderators are saying, they didn't actually draft this rule themselves. Honestly, just look at how much AT&T is constantly hammering us with ads on this forum—at least according to everyone else, though I personally just run AdBlock Plus. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this ridiculous rule was cooked up specifically because of all those ads.

Well, some other mods wrote it before this current crew came in.
I mean, I’m not surprised by anything human at this point, but for now, I really don't think that rule has anything to do with the advertising.
The main reason is that if it were true, we'd be seeing a whole bunch of similar rules popping up for everyone else trying to hawk stuff here.
And let's be real, it's not like the service providers are the only ones around here who can't get their act together.

hollowtrucker77 said:Like I said, my guess is they wrote the rule that way just because of our national pastime: trashing the service providers.

As far as I know, that is exactly why that rule exists...

granitefox16 said:Look, the real issue is that football is just broken across the board. Seriously, imagine if I went over to the Formula 1 forums right now and started deleting every single thread where people are trashing Lewis Hamilton? It’s all the same mess.🤣

I mean, you can definitely look at that PDF as a perfect example of just how low-level this whole debate has gotten.

And all this is coming from some guy who’s clearly running an anti-VIP campaign with his whole avatar and signature setup.🤣

See, that’s exactly where you went wrong... if you had just stuck to criticizing the service provider—kind of like how I lay out my gripes in my signature—nobody would be coming after you.

granitefox16 said:hollowtrucker77, seriously, can you please just wipe out Edward Howard2's posts? He’s gonna totally wreck this thread if he keeps going.

Look, he should just start a whole new thread for this nonsense and report my posts there. Seriously, what does my chat history have to do with this topic anyway?

It’s not even about me.

Look, I know I hit the nail on the head regarding why this whole mess is happening, which is probably exactly why you wanted me to delete it. But let's be real—this thread is all about you and that trashy post of yours that got you banned in the first place.

Hey, don't sweat it. Honestly, I've said my piece and I'm gonna stop right there. There's really no point in me dragging this out any further—it wouldn't even make sense to file an appeal if I kept rambling on like this anyway. 😁

That’s pretty much all I’ve got to say on this topic. 👋

Jacob Foster11 said:From what I can gather, that’s actually the exact reason why that rule exists in the first place...

Personally, I think it's just plain stupid. Handing out cards on the very first ball? If they were handing them out after a warning, then sure, you have to maintain some level of authority, but throwing cards for something clearly written down in a heat-of-the-moment reaction is just nonsensical.
If you aren't interested in doing the job right, don't do it at all!

Edward Howard2, buddy, please, get your head checked, alright? 🙂

Eric Hernandez said:Honestly, I think the whole thing is just plain moronic. Throwing yellow cards around right from the jump on a loose ball? It’s ridiculous. If they started handing them out after a warning, sure, you’ve gotta maintain some level of discipline, but slapping cards for something clearly done in the heat of the moment is just stupid.
If you don't feel like doing the job properly, then don't bother showing up at all.

Edward Howard2, buddy, maybe take a moment to get your head checked, alright? 🙂

It’s pretty moronic to not read the manual before you start operating the machine.
Personally, I respect that granitefox16 wasn't whining about the card itself, but rather pointing out how the rule was actually applied.

Jacob Foster11 said:From what I understand, that is precisely why such a rule exists...

I don't think you have the full picture here.
That isn't the reason at all.
If we’re going by the logic that moderators on an online forum get to decide what counts as "cultured" behavior, then I suppose granitefox16 deserves some kind of award for being polite.
Truth be told, there are plenty of much worse offenders among the moderators themselves.

And just to be clear, it’s not just the web; you could say the same about telecom providers in general, since they all tend to act like nothing more than run-of-the-mill American scammers.
If anyone needs proof, I can provide plenty of arguments, though I’d suggest avoiding this specific forum, where the arrogance of uninformed moderators seems to reign supreme.
I’m not including you in that critique, though—I wouldn't want you to take it personally....

hollowtrucker77 said:It’s just plain stupid not to read the manual before you even start using something.
I actually respect that granitefox16 didn't go after the packaging itself, but focused on the actual rules.

I’m really trying to find some kind of middle ground here.
On one hand, having rules makes sense—I know this from my experience writing online. I've seen how every third post can turn into nothing but vulgar vitriol. No matter how valid the argument might be, that kind of behavior totally ruins the tone of the discussion it's supposed to facilitate.
But then again, granitefox16 is right; people should have the right to vent about whoever they want whenever they want, provided they actually have a legitimate reason for doing so. Trying to suppress that feels like stifling free speech, and honestly, it kills the conversation too. Real feedback is valuable information for other potential users of that provider. If people are allowed to criticize Bernie Sanders, Mike Krzyzewski, a certain brand of lipstick, or Lady Gaga, then I don't see why there should be any exceptions made here.
The answer isn't just to "poof"—to simply write a rule and then start handing out bans. Especially in this case, since the forum is meant to be a place for expressing opinions, and besides, rules like that are way too easy to interpret subjectively. If we want to find a balance, we need much more active moderation instead.

Look, I’ve already laid out my stance on this: I don't see any issue with people writing negative things about someone, and if you actually started punishing that, you'd basically be strangling free speech itself.
But let’s be real here—fuck you, fuck your mother, fuck your two dogs, and fuck your sister; that's just a concentrated pile of garbage shoved into two sentences. You can try to forgive me, but calling that "free speech" is a total stretch.
It’s the exact same logic as someone grabbing a megaphone and screaming directly into your ear; it doesn't matter how much truth is in what they're yelling or how much you might actually agree with them, it's still just harassment.

Just off the top of my head, I’d bet anything that this very same subforum is littered with plenty of other profanity and insults—just maybe not quite as surgically focused—that have slipped through the cracks without a single moderator even thinking about deleting them or handing out a warning card.

Eric Hernandez said:I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground.
The rules make sense to me; I've spent enough time writing and reading online to know that every third post can turn into pure, vulgar vitriol. Even if they have a point, that kind of behavior ruins the quality of the discussion intended for this space.
That said, granitefox16 is right—people should be allowed to lash out at whoever they want whenever they want, provided there's actually an argument behind it. Stopping that would basically be stifling free speech and killing the debate itself, which serves as valuable info for other potential users of this ISP. If people are allowed to trash talk Bernie Sanders, Mike Krzyzewski, a lipstick brand, Lady Gaga, or whatever else, I don't see why there should be any exceptions here.
The solution isn't just to "poof" the problem away by adding a rule and handing out bans. Especially not here, since the forum is supposed to be a place for opinions, and rules like that are way too subjective. We need more active moderation if we actually want to hit that middle ground.

Here is another example of negative criticism toward the provider:

That post broke the rules in just two words. It’s easy to moderate something like that. I just censored those two words with asterisks, left a comment, and issued a yellow card as a warning. Simple stuff.

But on the flip side, granitefox16's post is impossible to moderate. In that case, the only thing a mod can really do is slap them with a red card.

Regardless, it's quite possible the rules will be slightly reworded. Vitriol will likely still be banned, but it'll be phrased differently. Posts like granitefox16's simply cannot be tolerated. (I'm only mentioning granitefox16's post as an example, not because of an appeal or because I have a personal vendetta.)

William Green4 said:you don't really know the situation.
That shouldn't be an excuse.
Besides, if moderators on this forum get to decide what counts as "cultured" behavior, then granitefox16 deserves an award for politeness.
There are plenty of much worse examples among the moderators themselves.

And honestly, you shouldn't just blame the internet; you should spit on telecom providers in general. They’re all just run by the same old corrupt crooks.
If you need arguments, I can provide them, but not here on this forum where the arrogance of ignorant moderators reigns supreme.
I won't include you in that, though, so you don't get the wrong idea...

Look at what happened there... did you manage to figure out how anyone could somehow submit a post on vBulletin that wouldn't actually be written for another two months?

Eric Hernandez said:I'm trying to find some middle ground.
Rules do make sense to a degree. I've spent enough time writing and reading online to know that every third post can turn into pure vulgarity. No matter how good the argument is, it still ruins the tone of the discussion it was meant for.
But then again, Edge is right—he should be allowed to vent about whoever he wants whenever he wants, provided he has a legitimate reason. Preventing that would essentially be stifling free speech and killing the discussion itself, because people need to share useful info about certain providers. If it's okay to criticize Bernie Sanders, Mike Krzyzewski, a lipstick brand, Lady Gaga, or whatever else, I don't see why there should be an exception here.
The solution isn't just to slap a rule in the books and start handing out bans, especially since this forum is supposed to be a place for expressing opinions. Plus, rules like these are way too subjective. What we really need is more active moderation if we want to actually find a balance.

Do you really think that same post couldn't have been written without someone losing their mind?
And what exactly would that "middle ground" look like?
How would you structure it so you could rip into a provider without completely destroying the tone of the conversation?

Jacob Foster11 said:The only thing a mod can really do here is throw out a red card.

You could always just delete the post and send a PM warning, you know? If people can't handle this kind of nonsense, that would be actual moderation instead of just acting like a bunch of bots.

Whatever, doesn't matter... I'm over it.

blueridge32 said:You could just delete the post and send a private warning if you can't handle rumors, but I guess we don't have "sensible" moderation here, just a bunch of bot-like bans.

True, that was an option... But nope, the mod chose to hand out a ban instead. A rule was broken, so the ban isn't unjustified.

But you're missing the entire point of this thread. Taylor Swift isn't complaining about the ban. She's complaining about the rule.