wanderingdriver17 said:Wand,
It’s pretty obvious you’ve got a massive grudge against Kerekes. You're just sitting there, waiting for any tiny excuse to drop the hammer and ban him...
The thing is, lately, you haven't really had a leg to stand on when you try to "cool things down." Your only real reason seems to be: he’s getting on my nerves!
Look, you clearly can't stand what he posts, but you can't just ban him whenever you feel like it just because you disagree.
At least, you shouldn't.
Surely you have enough self-control and patience for that...
Posting what you consider to be "nonsense," even if it's on-topic, isn't against the rules anywhere.
Since this has turned into such a subjective mess, I'd ask the admins to take a look at the warnings Wand handed out to Kerekes... and actually check the reasoning behind them.
I'll just give one recent and glaringly obvious example
I must admit, I am somewhat perplexed by the structure of this forum. We have the main subforum, and then we have specific sections dedicated to those who follow the "alternativa" lifestyle.
And yet, these "alternativa" types drift into every single thread, injecting nonsensical ideas that degrade the quality of discussion while simultaneously spreading theories about things I can't even identify.
I would characterize it as malice, hostility, and the manufacturing of imaginary internal and external enemies.
If you look through the entire history of Kerefek76's posts, his pattern becomes quite clear.
In every topic, he propagates conspiracy theories, creating these (entirely fictional) villains to serve as targets for negative emotions, despite having no basis in reality. This ranges from his claims in natural science and astronomy—where he argued Nibir would destroy us in 2012—to his current tendency to project similar conspiracies onto the Economy. The only appropriate venue for such talk is the alternativa section.
His targets are typically politicians, CEOs, bankers, specific nations, or occasionally individuals identified by name.
I have no objection to this eccentricity being expressed in its designated areas, but if we allow it to bleed into serious economic discussions, the dialogue loses all meaningful substance.
Furthermore, I respect any viewpoint, no matter how unconventional, provided the participant can defend it with logic.
For instance, if Kerefek were to argue for the hundredth time that 'bankers ruined the country,' but supported it with concrete data showing how flawed monetary policy led to poor macroeconomic outcomes (something that can actually be proven via statistics), I wouldn't say a word. In fact, I might commend him.
However, I have neither the patience nor the inclination for baseless nonsense. If we permit that here, we might as well rename this entire platform Garbage and Stupidity.
My sole intention has been to elevate the caliber of discussion in the Economy section, especially since fewer than 5% of active users there possess fundamental knowledge.
Whenever I participate in a thread, I do so with purpose, because I know what I am talking about—which is a distinction most users cannot claim, particularly in the Economy section.
To be clear, I am not acting as an educator or a babysitter; I am simply someone who has provided hundreds, if not thousands, of specific answers to technical questions in the Economy section. I have assisted people with entrepreneurship, accounting, tax law, and conducted informal seminars on the fundamentals of economics, macroeconomics, capital markets, cryptocurrencies, quantitative analysis, algorithmic trading, and programming in Python and R.
What other moderator spends their time working on their own personal profile?
On the more substantive threads, you might see ten or fifteen engaged participants, yet when the subject shifts to the Economy, figures like Warren Buffett, or global financial crises, it’s as if someone placed a magnet for fools in the middle of the room. Suddenly, hundreds of commenters appear, possessing almost no grasp of the subject matter, yet they maintain an unwavering certainty in everything they write.
It seems that if a topic is concrete, there is no interest; but if it is vague and nebulous, everyone rushes in.
As for the suggestion that I harbor animosity toward Kerefek—or anyone else personally—that is sheer nonsense.
My issue isn't with individuals, but rather with the garbage and stupidity they contribute.
On a few occasions, much like a blind hen occasionally stumbling upon a grain of corn, Kerefek has actually made a valid point, and I have conceded and even praised him for it.
However, the fact remains that since 2012, or perhaps even earlier, he has dedicated over 99% of his posts across all topics to conspiracy theories, which serves only to degrade the quality of every discussion—and that is, fundamentally, a problem for this community.
To summarize my position:
1) I stepped into this moderator role because people persistently urged and persuaded me to accept, not because I sought the position myself; after all, nobody actually wants to moderate the Economics section.
2) I accepted on the condition that I would actively work to elevate the standard of discourse—rather than being a passive observer—while simultaneously filtering out content that constitutes nothing but garbage and stupidity.
3) If the priority here is to allow everyone to say whatever they wish at the expense of destroying any actual substance, then we have had a fundamental misunderstanding.
4) And finally, though no less importantly: my friends, if you see no value in what I am doing, there is no issue. Not only will I step down as a moderator, but I will also cease to be a participant.
What is the purpose of striving for excellence if not only is that effort unrecognized, but it is also perceived as causing harm?
I view my participation here as a balance where I derive about 5% of the benefit from reading and writing, while providing 95% of the value to others through my contributions.
But looking at this thread and the private message I received, it appears our visions are not aligned.
Since my colleagues seem to be almost unanimously of the opposite opinion, I shall act accordingly.
