Protests in Warsaw.

hollowtrucker77 said:Keeping the conversation on track is what moderators are actually paid for, I guess.

but really?
copy/paste rules☕

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Action, reaction... who started it first... blah blah blah... we already read 150 pages of that nonsense during the riots at the stadium. There was absolutely no need to read it all over again in Warsaw. To make a long story short, I was the one who initiated this, and it ended exactly how it should have. It’s just part of my job as a moderator, as Taylor Gonzalez79 so eloquently put it. This thread is finally in a good place now.

I suppose there isn't any other perspective to consider besides yours, is there? This whole thread is just pure madness.

hollowtrucker77 said:Keeping the conversation on track is what moderators are actually paid for, I guess.

Sure, that's fine. But you can't tell me a mod has the right to pull a total 180 on a thread, making the original post completely irrelevant to the actual discussion (which is exactly what happened here)

Anonymous said:Look, we aren't even talking about moderation... but maybe you're too young to actually grasp what's being said here?
We're talking about steering the conversation in the right direction...
I’m going to ask once more for an answer to what I already posed:
Could you not have just started your own thread instead of hijacking this one, which clearly established its own direction from the very first post?
Or is your "job" just stirring the pot and causing drama?... because managing and locking threads to oversee a conversation is a completely different thing. (Keep in mind, they aren't the same.)
....Is it really that hard to give me a straight answer?

One part of my role is making sure we don't have duplicate topics on the soccer forum; if they pop up, I merge them. Closing threads when necessary and general moderation are both part of the gig. Anything else you're curious about?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:One part of my role is making sure we don't have duplicate topics on the soccer forum; if they pop up, I merge them. Closing threads when necessary and general moderation are both part of the gig. Anything else you're curious about?

Are you working for some outside agency?
Based on that answer, I'm thinking...
Because I didn't even ask you that. I asked whether your actual job is moderation (deleting threads, merging them, renaming things when needed, monitoring participants for being rude or offensive, etc.) or if your job is just steering the conversation in whatever direction you want and banning anyone who disagrees with you... and let's be honest, everyone knows "trolling" and "spamming" can be interpreted however someone wants to see them...
Can I get a straight answer? It would be nice this time.☕

Betty Myers14 said:I suppose there isn't any other perspective to consider besides yours, is there? This whole thread is just pure madness.

We're pushing nearly 300 posts since the last Clinton left. Now you can see roughly what everyone is actually talking about—come on in and join the conversation.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:We're pushing nearly 300 posts since the last Clinton left. Now you can see roughly what everyone is actually talking about—come on in and join the conversation.

🤣

Just like you said: your job is to make sure the thread doesn't turn into a troll fest....
But any post that deviates from the news or the original post that started the thread counts as trolling🙂)

In this specific case, the topic is her very first post... and no matter how ridiculous it might seem to you guys, if the thread isn't locked, that initial post is the only benchmark for the whole discussion. Basically, the thread *is* the first post...
So why did everyone who stuck to that original post get banned, while these trolls you just praised for posting over 300 times are still running wild?

Anonymous said:Are you working for some outside agency?
Based on that answer, I'm thinking...
Because I didn't even ask you that. I asked whether your actual job is moderation (deleting threads, merging them, renaming things when needed, monitoring participants for being rude or offensive, etc.) or if your job is just steering the conversation in whatever direction you want and banning anyone who disagrees with you... and let's be honest, everyone knows "trolling" and "spamming" can be interpreted however someone wants to see them...
Can I get a straight answer? It would be nice this time.☕

It’s about violating the rules, not having a different opinion. Besides, I haven't actually banned many people. If you don't count your Clinton-style antics, it's only been two or three folks, and they all already had strikes against them from before.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Sure, that's fine. But you can't tell me a mod has the right to pull a total 180 on a thread, making the original post completely irrelevant to the actual discussion (which is exactly what happened here)

Look, if you want to excuse it, maybe, but two or three people kept aggressively trying to pivot everything toward fan behavior and those events from May 1st, 2010—doing it so effectively that most of the regulars on the politics board just started dodging the thread altogether...

And the best part? Over on the soccer forum, in the thread about fans, there’s clearly a little group of users coordinating to derail the whole discussion about Warsaw...

One guy even actually said—and I quote—“Whatever, the thread's ruined, I'm going to bed"...

So much for wanting an actual debate or contributing something meaningful... you guys went out of your way to plant landmines, and then you're surprised when they go off...

Now you're all crying about it...

Something interests me about how this works... Santana and the guys in that massive fight automatically scored 100 points just because they drew a parallel to what went down at the local stadium. Then you have Vojky, the supermoderator, coming in and making a comparison between Warsaw and the situation in Dresden, even copying over a whole text about those events in Germany where building a bridge was blocked because of some damn beavers. So, drawing comparisons to an event in Germany is fine, but comparing things to the stadium is out of bounds? Or is it just about who is doing the comparing? If the rules were actually applied equally to everyone, Vojky should have gotten 100 points—aka a ban—for that post.

Meanwhile, most of the warnings on the Warsaw thread happened because people were just repeating the exact same clichés that trolls like Adler and Tactum were getting away with weeks ago on the stadium thread. Either posts get flagged when it's obvious someone isn't being sincere and is just mocking others, or we leave the guy alone who actually holds those views toward protesters and fans, simply because he's too dim to understand irony, so we don't bother hitting him with a warning...

Adam Collins4 said:Look, if you want to excuse it, maybe, but two or three people kept aggressively trying to pivot everything toward fan behavior and those events from May 1st, 2010—doing it so effectively that most of the regulars on the politics board just started dodging the thread altogether...

And the best part? Over on the soccer forum, in the thread about fans, there’s clearly a little group of users coordinating to derail the whole discussion about Warsaw...

One guy even actually said—and I quote—“Whatever, the thread's ruined, I'm going to bed"...

So much for wanting an actual debate or contributing something meaningful... you guys went out of your way to plant landmines, and then you're surprised when they go off...

Now you're all crying about it...

It wasn't about debating the fans; it was about drawing a line between two different events. Some of you aren't getting it, but the whole point of this thread was to compare them. Instead, certain people twisted it into some nonsense about urban planning or whatever...

PS. That Clinton stuff was just a joke; no need to repeat it sixteen times. There are a few people—actually, most of them—who got banned even though they had nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said:It’s called irony... look it up...
The person getting mocked is usually the one who doesn't get what irony actually is....

And what did you think would happen after banning people from the soccer forum for no reason?....that they wouldn't start cloning accounts?
Google "action = reaction"...
☕

I missed this one earlier. Look, between you and me, I'm probably not the guy who needs to hit up Google just to tell the difference between those two literary devices.

I’m honestly just stuck on one specific detail here. Why on earth did certain people get slapped with a 29-point penalty just to dodge a ban? Isn't that basically the definition of inconsistent criteria and blatant bias?

Wait, why can't you fans just accept that neither the politics moderators nor the admins wanted or allowed the thread to go where the author intended? It is their prerogative, and you should have accepted it.

shadowpilot8 said:Wait, why can't you fans just accept that neither the politics moderators nor the admins wanted or allowed the thread to go where the author intended? It is their prerogative, and you should have accepted it.

If that were true, they should've just locked the thread or edited the OP, right? Instead, they just banned people for staying on topic when the mods clearly didn't like the direction.

As I recall, granitefox16 posted a warning about this.

yeah, a heads-up about staying on topic

Picture this: someone rolls in, totally clueless about how things work here, reads the opening post, replies to it, and immediately gets banned. Just because they responded to the intro. Kind of a weird paradox, honestly.

shadowpilot8 said:As I recall, granitefox16 posted a warning about this.

Besides, he was pretty polite about it.

Nice way to ask people not to draw parallels on a thread that was literally created for that exact purpose. What, you want a trophy and a certificate now?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I missed this one earlier. Look, between you and me, I'm probably not the guy who needs to hit up Google just to tell the difference between those two literary devices.

I wouldn't say that... because you seem to take any post comparing things to the local stadium—basically pointing out similarities—as a personal insult to you and everyone else on this board. It's like some drunk guy at a tavern decided he was going to mess with you all...

Let's be real here and compare the timing of that "tavern agreement" to the unnecessary banning of users....
The "agreement," as you guys call it, happened on a public thread; anyone could have seen it. So what actually came of it? A couple of people just grabbed a bunch of Clinton supporters and had some fun?.. A conspiracy?.. Where?
How many of us were posting under our own handles? Maybe a few more than just those two or three....

Honestly, I couldn't care less about politics or your opinions... but out of pure solidarity, I jumped in and left a few comments on that thread too....

People using nicknames who are paranoid enough to see "conspiracies" and "unrest" being stirred up by fans from some PDF file seriously need to go see a doctor.... even the ones who think they "prevented" a conspiracy or unrest.... because none of that was ever actually happening....

And again, it's action equals reaction.... everything that went down happened because of biased moderation... and the way threads were twisted when they could have just easily closed them if they actually violated any of the forum rules....