Moderation guidelines for the politics sub

Daniel Ward87 said:Honestly, it feels like a huge overreaction over a single warning. Like Brenda Sanders56 pointed out, mocking Krivosunik based on a facial "flaw" is one thing, but handing out a strike would happen to anyone, not just if they were talking about Franjo Harmon.

As for Josip Manjko and Burduš, that label says more about the author's character and their clearly negative take on Josip Manjko. Whether we're talking about real-world etiquette or internet rules, it’s just not cool to talk about people that way. Look, if Josip Manjko is a "Burduš" to some people, I don't want to be in a spot where I have to issue a strike for an opinion. I might delete a post, but issuing a formal strike—well, if we start doing that, then everyone gets a strike every time someone calls a politician a jerk or a loser. If that's how we're playing it, fine by me, but let's be clear about the precedent.🤷

Cody already got banned, so I don't see any reason to hand out extra strikes.🤷

Daniel Ward87

Fine then—I’ll start reporting every single post where someone uses terms like porcupine, squid, or lame locksmith. Sound good?
Let's see what kind of weak, half-baked arguments about "character assassination" you come up with then. 🙄
It's honestly pathetic that a moderator can interpret things in such a nonsensical way.

Charles Fox10 said:Burduš is actually a character from an old American comedy sketch back in the 1970s, played by Jovan Janjičijevič Janačko. He played a jazz musician playing the double bass. http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1358244
Or, more simply: Burduš is just some guy from a small town in the Midwest.

In my opinion, this level of communication is quite inappropriate.

Look, maybe calling someone Burduš can be taken as a harmless joke, but they go after guys like Stjepan Mason with much harsher slurs all the time. And of course, nobody ever gets banned for that.
So, when someone actually catches a red card for being called "crooked-mouthed," people are naturally going to lose it at the injustice.

As far as I'm concerned, every single politician should be fair game for bashing—no holds barred, no hesitation. 😳

Charles Jackson5 said:Look, maybe calling someone Burduš can be taken as a harmless joke, but they go after guys like Stjepan Mason with much harsher slurs all the time. And of course, nobody ever gets banned for that.
So, when someone actually catches a red card for being called "crooked-mouthed," people are naturally going to lose it at the injustice.

As far as I'm concerned, every single politician should be fair game for bashing—no holds barred, no hesitation. 😳

Honestly, if you ask me, they do plenty of dirty work on their own. They spend half their lives embarrassing themselves and tarnishing the very names their parents gave them.
We really don't need to turn this great Forum into a dumping ground for insults. This place works best when we actually use it to exchange ideas and have real discussions.

Charles Jackson5 said:Fine then—I’ll start reporting every single post where someone uses terms like porcupine, squid, or lame locksmith. Sound good?
Let's see what kind of weak, half-baked arguments about "character assassination" you come up with then. 🙄
It's honestly pathetic that a moderator can interpret things in such a nonsensical way.

Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍

Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍

Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.

Daniel Ward87

I only used that parallel to point out the lack of principle here. Double standards are the absolute worst thing in moderation. That’s it.
Personally, I actually praised you guys for being more lenient lately regarding things on the edge of Politika, and now I see nonsense being banned again.
Just let people vent—even if they push the limit a bit. Let them write what's bothering them; it makes everyone feel better.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍

Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.

Daniel Ward87

That wasn't some physical defect—it was just his facial structure giving him an unlikable expression during appearances. It's similar to how Mason was called a porcupine because of his eyebrows and hair.
Mocking a physical impairment would be something like Bandić's exhaustion or his facial drooping following a stroke. We shouldn't allow that, and I've actually stepped in twice even though I can't stand Bandić.
And as for "earning" certain labels... am I allowed to call Franjo Harmon a fascist or a war criminal?
By your logic, I assume I can.
And can I repeat it as often as others call Mason a traitor, or Tit the greatest criminal in the history of the North America?

Charles Jackson5 said:I only used that parallel to point out the lack of principle here. Double standards are the absolute worst thing in moderation. That’s it.
Personally, I actually praised you guys for being more lenient lately regarding things on the edge of Politika, and now I see nonsense being banned again.
Just let people vent—even if they push the limit a bit. Let them write what's bothering them; it makes everyone feel better.

That wasn't some physical defect—it was just his facial structure giving him an unlikable expression during appearances. It's similar to how Mason was called a porcupine because of his eyebrows and hair.
Mocking a physical impairment would be something like Bandić's exhaustion or his facial drooping following a stroke. We shouldn't allow that, and I've actually stepped in twice even though I can't stand Bandić.
And as for "earning" certain labels... am I allowed to call Franjo Harmon a fascist or a war criminal?
By your logic, I assume I can.
And can I repeat it as often as others call Mason a traitor, or Tit the greatest criminal in the history of the North America?

Did you just join the Politics section yesterday or something? 😕 Do you have any idea how many times I've had to hand out warnings to respected, mature, grown-up members of the Politics forum who got flagged just for calling Franjo Harmon a criminal or a villain? Too many. And do you know why? Because they were getting banned for it. Their excuse was always, "Oh, Daniel Ward87 is just censoring opinions..."🙄 We even had a whole debate thread—started by Johnny B. DL—about which specific words count as insults, and it ended badly because what one person calls an opinion, another calls a provocation. Personally, I thought we should hand out warnings for those words, but a fellow moderator decided that would be like trying to legislate speech on a micro scale, so I backed off. Honestly, he was right. Since then, I've been cleaning up those kinds of posts, and that's why the Politics section is a better place now.

Calling Harmon Krivosunik or Mason a porcupine is, in my book, a violation of our forum rules. Now, calling Franjo Harmon a fascist or a war criminal—well, there are certainly people who would characterize his presidency that way. But at the end of the day, that says more about the person writing it than it does about Franjo Harmon himself.

As far as I'm concerned, you keep using your flowery adjectives, and I'll just keep deleting those posts. Whether they're framed as "opinions" or not, those types of comments don't belong here on Politics.

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, here’s my deal: I promise I’ll delete posts like that, but I won't hand out bans for them. Honestly, we can just agree that those kinds of posts are insulting and way below the standard of conversation here, which means they already break our general Forum rules. At the same time, calling public figures thieves, jerks, or anything else isn't exactly good etiquette. So, bottom line—anyone who slaps an "epithet" on a public figure gets a strike for violating the site rules. People are free to think someone like Čačić is a crook or a shady operator, but if you actually type it out, you're getting a ban. Like I said, I'm totally fine with that.
Whatever...👍

Look, there’s a massive difference between calling Stjepan Mason a "fatcat" and making fun of Franjo Harmon’s physical stature. Mocking someone for a disability they can't control is a much lower blow than criticizing a politician's lifestyle choices. Mason basically earned his reputation through his own actions, whereas attacking a physical trait like that is just plain wrong.

Daniel Ward87

No problem. That’s what you call zero tolerance. 👍
If it's applied consistently, there's no issue at all. 👍👍

EDIT: Let me repeat, it isn't the same thing to call Jimmy Carter "fat" or use specific racial slurs, versus mocking a physical attribute like we did with Ronald Reagan. The latter is more like mocking someone with a physical disability, and in my view, that's a much heavier violation because it's something a person can't control.Jimmy Carter basically earned his reputation for being heavy through his own actions, which isn't about any physical defect.

His mouth, however it looked, isn't a disability
. It's just a physical trait (just like how we call people Long, Buddy, Chuck, Blondie, Red, etc., based on similar traits). It shouldn't be protected by "good taste" rules the same way mocking a person in a wheelchair would be. Using your logic, calling the Porcupine a joke because of the former president's facial hair would be considered mocking a disability 🙄. If we compare that to Frank, then that’s also mocking a "disability," yet it's clearly much milder than calling someone fat. 🙂
I can only comment on the bolded part with a few rolls of the dice, so here
🙄 🙄. And let's be clear, I'm not particularly impressed by any US presidents; I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the criteria.🙄

Best, 🙂