Moderation is ruining the PDF policy

Discussing politics is becoming a futile exercise... Primarily because moderation has become utterly pointless, to put it mildly... Regarding the thread about Bush's "crusade," the moderator (Ryan Vaughn7) shut the whole thing down under the guise of "cleaning it up"—which in reality means wiping out entire pages without any legitimate justification... Deleting dozens, even hundreds, of constructive posts backed by actual evidence and links...

Furthermore, the moderator in question is actively steering the discussion toward what he seemingly deems the "correct" direction... A direction where one isn't allowed to speak negatively about Bush, despite the fact that Bush himself is the one who forced this topic of crosses upon us... Anything that doesn't align with his "moderator" stance—or rather, his personal opinion—gets purged as well... Politics is being transformed into "the Ryan Vaughn7 corner," and honestly, I suggest we just rename the entire PDF to reflect that...

What is the point of this forum? What is the purpose of presenting arguments if someone is just going to coldly delete them moments later? We forum users are being treated like little monkeys in a circus... I know the inevitable counterargument will be, "If you don't like it, don't write," but what is left of a forum then? Just a mass of trolls and clones all shouting into the same void... A significant portion of the quality contributors have already walked away from political discussions. The old Davos forum was shut down... It’s becoming increasingly rare to find any decent, high-quality enrollment...

The explanation for certain moderators' behavior might simply be that they are too lazy to do their jobs... And if they can't be bothered, they should step aside gracefully and let someone else take over... Seriously, I see no logic in continuing this senseless deletion of posts... I won't even get started on the arbitrary warnings and bans... I am warning you once more: this leads nowhere except to the death of this forum. If it doesn't kill it entirely, it will certainly force it into a single, narrow mindset dictated by moderators like Ryan Vaughn7...

One of my previous posts on this thread might not have been exactly on topic, but I’m pretty sure two other posts—which were totally on topic and perfectly polite—got nuked too.

I actually spent several years working in moderation for a different online community, and if I'm being honest, it feels like posts on the politics subforum are getting deleted a little too quickly here.

I haven't been around long enough to know the exact reason, but whatever the cause is, my gut feeling is that the job isn't being handled (quite) effectively. A forum is meant to be a place for exchanging ideas; you should delete things that are rude or off-topic, but I'm seeing the opposite happen—low-quality posts stay up: while writers actually get banned and on topic posts get wiped out.

I realize it takes more than just one (or maybe two) complaints before the rest of the mod team decides to review a colleague's performance—since people get attacked unfairly all the time—but hey, I've voiced my grievance. Once there are enough of us saying it, hopefully someone will realize there might actually be a real issue here.

That’s how it stands.

Personally, I don't keep track of which of my posts have been removed—nor do I particularly care. I really have nothing against the concept of moderation itself. I tend to live by a simple principle: everyone should just mind their own business. If we didn't, things would descend into absolute chaos, and I certainly have no interest in chaos.

However, it is impossible to ignore the blatant selectivity in how things are handled (I suppose Ryan Vaughn7 is definitely playing favorites, though I did have an instance one day with Sam Green73 where a perfectly well-supported topic was coldly shut down right at the start, along with an explanation that I was some sort of nostalgic relic of the old regime [sic!]). In circumstances like these, one truly begins to wonder what the owners actually want from this forum: is it meant to be just another tool for shouting down single-minded voices, or a genuine space for actual discussion?

Reply to everyone:
I headed out to run some errands yesterday morning and didn't get back until quite late at night. In the meantime, the thread regarding Bush's initiative about removing crosses from government buildings drifted off in five different directions. People started debating church funding (everything from Vatican agreements to church property exploitation and even baptism fees), historical church crimes (ranging from the Crusades and the Inquisition to Galileo and Darwin), and Bush himself (more transcripts and such). It’s a massive departure from the actual subject. Over the course of half a day, a few hundred posts like that piled up across several pages. For instance, if a user posted a reply Saturday morning and checked back in the evening expecting to follow the conversation, they’d need hours just to sift through the noise to find a response to their own post. I can tolerate a little off-topic chatter—maybe two or three participants veering off for a couple of posts—but when an entire thread gets flooded with nonsense for hours, there isn't much choice: either issue a warning or delete it.

Replying to goldenorca11: We keep warned posts visible so the person being penalized—and everyone else watching—can see exactly why the action was taken. As for off-topic posts, we delete them because otherwise, someone always latches onto them and drags the whole discussion down a rabbit hole.

Replying to bluefalcon14: My favorite complaints are always from those who can't see the forest for the trees. Whether you're angry or not, you are one of the biggest spammers, chatters, and trolls on this forum. Regarding Bush, despite my interventions and claims of bias, look at the stats for the last three active threads about the President: the thread on crosses and the military currently sits at 1,386 posts, the thread on reasoned arguments against Bush has 1,603 posts, and the thread regarding the large protest against Bush has 2,741 posts. There are also several smaller ones ranging from 100 to 200 posts. Be a gentleman and read those 6,000 posts. Look at what was said and how it was handled. Then come back here and try to tell me this is a one-sided debate. I doubt you will.

Look, I used to be a moderator on one of those online forums, so maybe I can weigh in on how to handle this mess. We could either make it a massive mega-thread about George W. Bush's presidency, or just get permission to rename the topic so we can take this conversation in a few different directions.

@ Ryan Vaughn7

If I am supposedly one of the biggest spammers, chatterboxes, and trolls on this forum—then you are easily one of the greatest liars on this entire board... It is a shame I didn't archive my posts before you deleted them from that thread, just so we could see exactly what constitutes "spam," "chatter," or "trolling" in your eyes... But fine, let’s look at your own posts; it is glaringly obvious how you attempt to steer the conversation—or rather, how you try to pivot away from George W. Bush, even though the thread title is literally "George W. Bush: Remove all crosses from the military and police."

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Listen, people, the topic is whether or not crosses should be removed from state institutions in the United States.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Fine, I will try to pivot this question away from George W. Bush, because the mere fact that he started it—and the way he went about it—only serves to raise tensions and provoke intolerance.
So, in principle, should religious symbols, in this case Roman Catholic, be decorating the walls of rooms in state or public property?
First off, from my own experience, I think this phenomenon is the exception rather than the rule. I don't recall seeing many crosses on the walls of institutions I've visited. However, in principle, I believe they shouldn't be there at all. One reason lies in the Constitution: if the state mandates the separation of church and state, then state institutions should display state symbols and nothing else.
The second reason is that no one forbids individuals from expressing their faith—whether they carry that cross in their heart or wear it on a necklace if they feel the need to show it physically. To me, hanging a crucifix on a wall seems like pure posturing by certain individuals—a judge, a director, a commander—someone who desperately wants to demonstrate to everyone just how devout they are. As if doing so somehow makes them a better or more credible person.

Nowhere in the rules of moderation does it state that a moderator should be steering the discussion; it says they should "maintain an atmosphere conducive to constructive debate"... Through your specific style of moderation—deleting posts and practicing biased politics—you are the very one inciting the spamming, the chatting, and the trolling... Because why bother writing anything constructive when you're just going to delete it? Once you wipe out constructive posts, the users are left with nothing to do but spam, chat, and troll... If I ever did that, it was solely a reaction to the moderation and its habit of deleting constructive posts and threads...

I will ask again: why bother attempting to write something constructive when you are simply going to delete it?

I can only thank Ryan Vaughn7 for not handing out any red cards to me 🙂 thanks a million!

Maybe Anderlon should just put a crucifix on the forum 😁 then we’d see how people really react
Hehe, there's no God up here; it's just the moderators deciding everyone's fate 😉

Nicholas Gomez27 said:I can only thank Ryan Vaughn7 for not handing out any red cards to me 🙂 thanks a million!

Maybe Anderlon should just put a crucifix on the forum 😁 then we’d see how people really react
Hehe, there's no God up here; it's just the moderators deciding everyone's fate 😉

Thanks to Nicholas Gomez27 for stepping up to back my claims... He did it unintentionally, of course, but I suppose I owe him a thank you nonetheless...😉

Based on Nicholas Gomez27's post, it becomes quite evident how Ryan Vaughn7's moderation style is perceived—specifically, which direction his policies are heading. If I had been the one rambling on about Bush's "crusade" in that particular thread, I certainly wouldn't have escaped without a red card or a ban...

bluefalcon14 said:@ Ryan Vaughn7

If I am supposedly one of the biggest spammers, chatterboxes, and trolls on this forum—then you are easily one of the greatest liars on this entire board... It is a shame I didn't archive my posts before you deleted them from that thread, just so we could see exactly what constitutes "spam," "chatter," or "trolling" in your eyes... But fine, let’s look at your own posts; it is glaringly obvious how you attempt to steer the conversation—or rather, how you try to pivot away from George W. Bush, even though the thread title is literally "George W. Bush: Remove all crosses from the military and police."

Nowhere in the rules of moderation does it state that a moderator should be steering the discussion; it says they should "maintain an atmosphere conducive to constructive debate"... Through your specific style of moderation—deleting posts and practicing biased politics—you are the very one inciting the spamming, the chatting, and the trolling... Because why bother writing anything constructive when you're just going to delete it? Once you wipe out constructive posts, the users are left with nothing to do but spam, chat, and troll... If I ever did that, it was solely a reaction to the moderation and its habit of deleting constructive posts and threads...

I will ask again: why bother attempting to write something constructive when you are simply going to delete it?

Luckily, I have them saved, and so do the admins. So, here are some of those deleted "constructive" posts from the thread (copied in full):

- "No, actually, George W. Bush is a psychiatrist by trade..."

- "In the office of the 'President of the Americans in Canada,' Zeljko Komšić, there's still a picture of Marshall hanging up... Honestly, it's no wonder George W. Bush makes the statements he does, given that Amir and Budo sit in his cabinet..."

- "And who are you supposed to be... Bush's chauffeur... OK, now I get the whole thing about sucking up from behind... I guess you both are in that position... And what am I supposed to do now... Be envious of you because you're sucking? You're honestly hilarious... Better if you just shut up... Shut up and keep sucking..."

- "Look who's putting you in office... Through which 'church' did you pass to get to the state teat... You suck, you suck the American teat, and then you come here and dump on all of us...

- "Don't you realize, man, that you're my servant, not the other way around... And so you will, if the American people decide so, carry the cross on your back rather than just hanging it on a wall... If you don't like that, then leave the state teat alone and go suck something else..."

- "Come on, stop whining... It was precisely people like Bush and similar newly-minted Catholics who were reserved the front rows in churches back in the 90s..."

- "It really is interesting how everything Bush says is sacred to some people here... I suggest they start a church called 'Saint Stipe the sinless'... Use a sunflower or a weather vane as the symbol... Stipe has certainly changed hats enough times already... All he's missing is the bishop's mitre..."

- "The Western North American banana republic... I think that might be Bush's next big proposal... Though the name 'American' sounds a bit too extremist... Well, once Bush brings that idea forward, I can't wait to meet up here again with my old friends who will be saying 'Bush is a legend!' once more..."

- "Nobody disputes that scientists practice science, it's just that they do it within their own laboratories... Not like this, where they rob, poison, and kill us with GMO food and lab-grown viruses..."

- "I just wonder why people don't bring up Russell when we talk about Marshall... But fine... I shouldn't be surprised..."

- "In Canada, that means... Even many Canadians don't say American, they say 'Canadian Catholic'..."

- "What can I do if you just won't see it... Political blindness is an old disease among Americans... Like a gorilla in the fog..."

Nicholas Gomez27 said:I can only thank Ryan Vaughn7 for not handing out any red cards to me 🙂 thanks a million!

Maybe Anderlon should just put a crucifix on the forum 😁 then we’d see how people really react
Hehe, there's no God up here; it's just the moderators deciding everyone's fate 😉

You're welcome. Though, I'm not sure I can say it twice. You see, people complain so much about deletions that issuing a warning or a ban always feels like the better second choice. It's probably for the best. At least then I won't have to go through the hassle of copying and pasting deleted posts just to prove to the trolls that they actually were trolling.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Luckily, I have them saved, and so do the admins. So, here are some of those deleted "constructive" posts from the thread (copied in full):

- "No, actually, George W. Bush is a psychiatrist by trade..."

- "In the office of the 'President of the Americans in Canada,' Zeljko Komšić, there's still a picture of Marshall hanging up... Honestly, it's no wonder George W. Bush makes the statements he does, given that Amir and Budo sit in his cabinet..."

- "And who are you supposed to be... Bush's chauffeur... OK, now I get the whole thing about sucking up from behind... I guess you both are in that position... And what am I supposed to do now... Be envious of you because you're sucking? You're honestly hilarious... Better if you just shut up... Shut up and keep sucking..."

- "Look who's putting you in office... Through which 'church' did you pass to get to the state teat... You suck, you suck the American teat, and then you come here and dump on all of us...

- "Don't you realize, man, that you're my servant, not the other way around... And so you will, if the American people decide so, carry the cross on your back rather than just hanging it on a wall... If you don't like that, then leave the state teat alone and go suck something else..."

- "Come on, stop whining... It was precisely people like Bush and similar newly-minted Catholics who were reserved the front rows in churches back in the 90s..."

- "It really is interesting how everything Bush says is sacred to some people here... I suggest they start a church called 'Saint Stipe the sinless'... Use a sunflower or a weather vane as the symbol... Stipe has certainly changed hats enough times already... All he's missing is the bishop's mitre..."

- "The Western North American banana republic... I think that might be Bush's next big proposal... Though the name 'American' sounds a bit too extremist... Well, once Bush brings that idea forward, I can't wait to meet up here again with my old friends who will be saying 'Bush is a legend!' once more..."

- "Nobody disputes that scientists practice science, it's just that they do it within their own laboratories... Not like this, where they rob, poison, and kill us with GMO food and lab-grown viruses..."

- "I just wonder why people don't bring up Russell when we talk about Marshall... But fine... I shouldn't be surprised..."

- "In Canada, that means... Even many Canadians don't say American, they say 'Canadian Catholic'..."

- "What can I do if you just won't see it... Political blindness is an old disease among Americans... Like a gorilla in the fog..."

Yes, and what is so controversial about that? What's controversial is that I actually possess a sense of humor, unlike you...

Why didn't you also quote the deleted post containing the link to Bush's oath? Where the President clearly swore by saying, "So help me God"... Yet now it appears he intends to remove crosses with God's help...

Why, in general, didn't you quote the posts that my responses were referring to? So that people can see what actual spamming and trolling looks like...

bluefalcon14 said:Yes, and what is so controversial about that? What's controversial is that I actually possess a sense of humor, unlike you...

Why didn't you also quote the deleted post containing the link to Bush's oath? Where the President clearly swore by saying, "So help me God"... Yet now it appears he intends to remove crosses with God's help...

Why, in general, didn't you quote the posts that my responses were referring to? So that people can see what actual spamming and trolling looks like...

Oh sure, I was absolutely weeping. Truly. But hey, I can just stop posting altogether if that's what you want; no biggie. Though I suspect you'll just end up whining from the banned corner anyway. Even if this forum is worth next to nothing in points, you're so good at gaming the system that you'll rack them up in no time.
Then again, there is that silly little possibility where you actually stop trolling and just stick to the topic. It's your call. Make your choice.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Oh sure, I was absolutely weeping. Truly. But hey, I can just stop posting altogether if that's what you want; no biggie. Though I suspect you'll just end up whining from the banned corner anyway. Even if this forum is worth next to nothing in points, you're so good at gaming the system that you'll rack them up in no time.
Then again, there is that silly little possibility where you actually stop trolling and just stick to the topic. It's your call. Make your choice.

Ha ha... dosita, once again demonstrating how "hilarious" you are...

The reality is that not a single quote you provided above is off-topic regarding "George W. Bush: Remove all crosses from the military and police"... especially when you consider the sheer amount of trolling I had to respond to... And since, as I mentioned, you failed to quote the actual posts I was replying to, others might not even see the full picture...

The issue here is that "the topic" only exists when it aligns with your preferences... Anything that contradicts your personal views is immediately labeled as trolling, spamming, or off-topic nonsense...

Furthermore, you're conveniently ignoring the other constructive posts you didn't mention... Take, for instance, the one about Bush's oath... What exactly is controversial about deleting a post that quotes the American President's oath—specifically his words, "so help me God"...

Instead of answering my question, you resort to threats... Once again, proving just how witty you are... Ha Ha...

@Ryan Vaughn7

No one is disputing the fact that there are always more than enough ways to justify yourself. That isn't really the issue here, and we shouldn't act foolish by pretending otherwise.

But if you actually have the time and the patience—and I mean really look at what people are writing, how they're writing it, then take a hard look at your own style, and finally consider the actual impact of your words—you might want to ask yourself what the purpose of this forum even is.

Simply put, your bias screams from every single post you make.

Now, let’s be clear: I don't have anything against your stance—not at all. In fact, I find it quite interesting to engage and debate (even more sharply if necessary). But things reach a point of absurdity when you abuse your moderator powers just to push your own agenda. And that is something you do regularly—ranging from the most blatant methods to the most subtle ones.

Honestly, I don't care anymore... I've been on this forum far too long to let it get under my skin... but it is just ridiculous how you pretend to be some kind of angel when you are anything but.

PS.
If you find it too difficult to manage threads with 1,000 posts or handle the upkeep, then maybe you should just step down from your moderator role. You can't exactly expect us to feel sorry for you.

bluefalcon14 said:Ha ha... dosita, once again demonstrating how "hilarious" you are...

The reality is that not a single quote you provided above is off-topic regarding "George W. Bush: Remove all crosses from the military and police"... especially when you consider the sheer amount of trolling I had to respond to... And since, as I mentioned, you failed to quote the actual posts I was replying to, others might not even see the full picture...

The issue here is that "the topic" only exists when it aligns with your preferences... Anything that contradicts your personal views is immediately labeled as trolling, spamming, or off-topic nonsense...

Furthermore, you're conveniently ignoring the other constructive posts you didn't mention... Take, for instance, the one about Bush's oath... What exactly is controversial about deleting a post that quotes the American President's oath—specifically his words, "so help me God"...

Instead of answering my question, you resort to threats... Once again, proving just how witty you are... Ha Ha...

And why even bother responding to trolls? Nobody's forcing your hand. Those posts are gone now, along with yours. Honestly, they probably wouldn't have even existed if you had just ignored them.
One last thing: my response simply outlines your options—deletion, a warning, or sticking to the rules. Take it however you want.

Mark Nguyen6 said:@Ryan Vaughn7

No one is disputing the fact that there are always more than enough ways to justify yourself. That isn't really the issue here, and we shouldn't act foolish by pretending otherwise.

But if you actually have the time and the patience—and I mean really look at what people are writing, how they're writing it, then take a hard look at your own style, and finally consider the actual impact of your words—you might want to ask yourself what the purpose of this forum even is.

Simply put, your bias screams from every single post you make.

Now, let’s be clear: I don't have anything against your stance—not at all. In fact, I find it quite interesting to engage and debate (even more sharply if necessary). But things reach a point of absurdity when you abuse your moderator powers just to push your own agenda. And that is something you do regularly—ranging from the most blatant methods to the most subtle ones.

Honestly, I don't care anymore... I've been on this forum far too long to let it get under my skin... but it is just ridiculous how you pretend to be some kind of angel when you are anything but.

PS.
If you find it too difficult to manage threads with 1,000 posts or handle the upkeep, then maybe you should just step down from your moderator role. You can't exactly expect us to feel sorry for you.

Fine, I will. I'll read through a million posts—mine and everyone else's—sit down, and give some serious thought to the purpose of this place. Truly. I'm feeling a bit lost lately anyway.
PS. I'm not whining. And frankly, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it. I'm just responding to the constant complaining from people who can't handle a little bit of cleanup or a warning. It's mostly a waste of my time, but I try my best to be decent.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Fine, I will. I'll read through a million posts—mine and everyone else's—sit down, and give some serious thought to the purpose of this place. Truly. I'm feeling a bit lost lately anyway.
PS. I'm not whining. And frankly, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it. I'm just responding to the constant complaining from people who can't handle a little bit of cleanup or a warning. It's mostly a waste of my time, but I try my best to be decent.

That is exactly what I am talking to you about.

Mark Nguyen6 said:That is exactly what I am talking to you about.

Complaining?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:And why even bother responding to trolls? Nobody's forcing your hand. Those posts are gone now, along with yours. Honestly, they probably wouldn't have even existed if you had just ignored them.
One last thing: my response simply outlines your options—deletion, a warning, or sticking to the rules. Take it however you want.

You aren't actually following the rules... By deleting reasoned posts simply because they don't suit your narrative, you are practically inviting people to troll...

Remember when you deleted my post where I was merely quoting your own entries? I did that specifically to highlight your inconsistency—it’s a classic forum tactic when a "writer" ends up contradicting himself... Clearly, that didn't sit well with you, so you kept deleting it... Then, when I finally addressed you directly, you slapped me with a warning... Here is the link..

http://forum.com/showthread.php?p=21771466#post21771466

So, let me be clear: pointless deletion—especially of constructive posts—only fuels trolling... When you wipe out a post from someone who actually put in the effort to find an argument, a link, or a source, you are obviously going to provoke anger... And the next entry won't be considered "effort"—it will be labeled a "troll."

There is no malice here... No anger... I am simply issuing a warning... In good faith...

bluefalcon14 said:You aren't actually following the rules... By deleting reasoned posts simply because they don't suit your narrative, you are practically inviting people to troll...

Remember when you deleted my post where I was merely quoting your own entries? I did that specifically to highlight your inconsistency—it’s a classic forum tactic when a "writer" ends up contradicting himself... Clearly, that didn't sit well with you, so you kept deleting it... Then, when I finally addressed you directly, you slapped me with a warning... Here is the link..

http://forum.com/showthread.php?p=21771466#post21771466

So, let me be clear: pointless deletion—especially of constructive posts—only fuels trolling... When you wipe out a post from someone who actually put in the effort to find an argument, a link, or a source, you are obviously going to provoke anger... And the next entry won't be considered "effort"—it will be labeled a "troll."

There is no malice here... No anger... I am simply issuing a warning... In good faith...

I already explained why those posts were removed. I laid out the reasons and provided plenty of examples. Honestly, I have no intention of dragging this out with you given how subjective you're being.

As for the post you linked, you were banned after what felt like five warnings about discussing moderation on this specific sub-forum. Which, as it turns out, you eventually realized.

Take care.