Moderation is ruining the PDF policy

@bluefalcon14:
I honestly think you should just go ahead and start your own forum, but it makes me wonder—who exactly are you going to argue and debate with once you do? 😁
(Because if every group of dissenters just starts their own platform... we'll be stuck in this endless loop forever.)

slybison8 said:As someone who has been drifting through this forum for over a decade and has seen just about everything—including being "auto-banned" once due to certain moderation styles—I can honestly say that the current moderation on the Politics board isn't actually all that bad. If anyone is skeptical, maybe they should try posting something on the Law board and pray to God for whatever might happen when Karin starts her moderation. Not to even mention how other forums operate.

All of us who, to some degree, hold "conservative" views should probably realize that we are guests among people who don't necessarily share our mindset. I suppose, however, there is enough room for meaningful conversation, and it seems that quality contributions from anyone are generally appreciated. In my view, there really isn't any reason to resort to personal attacks against any of the moderators.

High-quality discussion? You mean the kind where I am expected to agree that everything I write is spam, off-topic, or trolling? Just look at what Ryan Vaughn7 declared to be off-topic... If that is considered normal—and supposedly compliant with all the rules, including those of this forum—then I must be the biggest fool alive. Because truly, only a complete idiot would sign up to discuss matters in a place where they are judged to be dim-witted from the very start...

bluefalcon14 said:High-quality discussion? You mean the kind where I am expected to agree that everything I write is spam, off-topic, or trolling? Just look at what Ryan Vaughn7 declared to be off-topic... If that is considered normal—and supposedly compliant with all the rules, including those of this forum—then I must be the biggest fool alive. Because truly, only a complete idiot would sign up to discuss matters in a place where they are judged to be dim-witted from the very start...

I suppose I should just mention that things used to be much, much worse than they are now. Back then, there weren't even any warning cards; people would get banned on their very first mistake without any public explanation, and appealing those decisions felt almost impossible. So, I guess everything that you and Ryan Vaughn7 are saying should perhaps be viewed within a slightly broader context, and I might suggest that we all try to be a little less antagonistic toward one another. There will always be mistakes made, I think, but there is surely always a way to overcome them with a bit of grace and dignity.

slybison8 said:I suppose I should just mention that things used to be much, much worse than they are now. Back then, there weren't even any warning cards; people would get banned on their very first mistake without any public explanation, and appealing those decisions felt almost impossible. So, I guess everything that you and Ryan Vaughn7 are saying should perhaps be viewed within a slightly broader context, and I might suggest that we all try to be a little less antagonistic toward one another. There will always be mistakes made, I think, but there is surely always a way to overcome them with a bit of grace and dignity.

Your attempt to de-escalate things is a nice gesture, truly, but there are quite a few of us here with years of seniority on this forum who weren't born yesterday.

What Ryan Vaughn7 is doing is something that, by its very definition, makes "handling things with class" impossible, because he relies on the most petty, childish tactics. For instance, in a discussion I was actively participating in today, he quickly deleted a post where someone was simply presenting a perfectly legitimate counterargument.

It’s a textbook abuse of moderator authority. Fortunately, I happened to catch the post right before it vanished and managed to repost it.
And that is just one solitary example in a sea of identical situations.

Things were certainly tougher in the past, but they didn't suffer from these kinds of growing pains. This forum has definitely declined in quality. The real question, I guess, is just how far this degradation will go.

Ryan Vaughn7 said: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.

Alright, but why did you delete my enrollment post about the friendship between George W. Bush and Gaddafi, especially since Bush himself was the one who coined the term "talibanization"?

I mean, isn't it common knowledge how Libya funded terrorists, and isn't it also well known that Libya is a jamahiriya?

The whole point was discussing Bush's vision of a state without religion—specifically, without the Cross.

☕

Everything above seems fine (everyone should just save a copy of their own posts to their computer along with the TIMESTAMP when they hit send), and if a post disappears, just drop a question here.

A moderator is allowed to make a mistake, provided they can admit it and restore the content (I'm not exactly an expert on vBulletin—I've mostly worked with phpBB in the past)—but if it's proven a post was deleted without a valid reason, it needs to be fixed.

It would certainly be much nicer if we could all just see a history of our deleted posts (that way we wouldn't have to manually save everything to our hard drives just to check if something vanished), but hey, it is what it is. From my experience, a moderator might be replaced once enough complaints pile up. Right now, I can't say for sure if we're looking at bias, simple mistakes, or if there are just so many posts that the moderator is actually doing a solid job.

This forum isn't a newcomer, and it won't vanish tomorrow. If this thread gets enough well-reasoned posts, the result is clear: people don't want their contributions wiped out if they are on topic and respectful. Of course, I ask the moderator for some patience; people whose posts were legitimately removed will probably wander in here too. If someone is being overly aggressive, there are always solutions. 😁 Moderation is necessary; the only question is whether the criteria are too strict or perhaps skewed the wrong way.

edit: I also want to ask fellow members not to report posts that were deleted for good reason. Reporting 100 posts that were rightfully removed actually does more harm than good. It’s enough to find about ten posts that were truly deleted without cause to identify a pattern (if one even exists). Also, let's remember that a moderator's job isn't easy. They shouldn't delete a post just because a user is being difficult, but only if the post isn't on topic or isn't civil (hate speech, etc.). This forum is actually a great thing; when you're frustrated, you can vent about whoever is getting on your nerves in that moment (even if that specific post ends up getting nuked eventually), but your other posts shouldn't—and must not—be deleted just because of one outburst.

goldenorca11 said:Everything above seems fine (everyone should just save a copy of their own posts to their computer along with the TIMESTAMP when they hit send), and if a post disappears, just drop a question here.

A moderator is allowed to make a mistake, provided they can admit it and restore the content (I'm not exactly an expert on vBulletin—I've mostly worked with phpBB in the past)—but if it's proven a post was deleted without a valid reason, it needs to be fixed.

It would certainly be much nicer if we could all just see a history of our deleted posts (that way we wouldn't have to manually save everything to our hard drives just to check if something vanished), but hey, it is what it is. From my experience, a moderator might be replaced once enough complaints pile up. Right now, I can't say for sure if we're looking at bias, simple mistakes, or if there are just so many posts that the moderator is actually doing a solid job.

This forum isn't a newcomer, and it won't vanish tomorrow. If this thread gets enough well-reasoned posts, the result is clear: people don't want their contributions wiped out if they are on topic and respectful. Of course, I ask the moderator for some patience; people whose posts were legitimately removed will probably wander in here too. If someone is being overly aggressive, there are always solutions. 😁 Moderation is necessary; the only question is whether the criteria are too strict or perhaps skewed the wrong way.

edit: I also want to ask fellow members not to report posts that were deleted for good reason. Reporting 100 posts that were rightfully removed actually does more harm than good. It’s enough to find about ten posts that were truly deleted without cause to identify a pattern (if one even exists). Also, let's remember that a moderator's job isn't easy. They shouldn't delete a post just because a user is being difficult, but only if the post isn't on topic or isn't civil (hate speech, etc.). This forum is actually a great thing; when you're frustrated, you can vent about whoever is getting on your nerves in that moment (even if that specific post ends up getting nuked eventually), but your other posts shouldn't—and must not—be deleted just because of one outburst.

The problem isn't that the criteria are too strict.
It’s more that they are inconsistent and, frankly, unprofessional. I mentioned one specific instance earlier as an example.

Generally speaking, I would actually advocate for the strictest possible standards. One insult or a single swear word? A month-long ban—no problem at all. I think the quality of our discussions would improve almost instantly if we did that.

However, the crucial part—the absolute dealbreaker—is that the rules must be applied consistently to everyone and remain relevant to the content. We shouldn't have moderators mixing their own personal biases or worldviews with the actual moderation guidelines.
And honestly, this has reached a rather concerning level lately.

It feels like the moderators have reached a point where they're practically walking on eggshells, essentially saying, "Look, I don't feel like dealing with your nonsense, so I'm just going to delete your post and ban you—what are you going to do about it?"
I experienced this very thing recently with Sam Green73. Out of nowhere, during a perfectly normal discussion, he coolly labeled me a nostalgic for the old regime—I have no idea why he felt entitled to categorize me like that—closed the thread, and handed me a red card. 😁

In my opinion, forget the topic itself; once you get a red card, what was being discussed becomes irrelevant. It's frustrating.
But this behavior is simply not serious.

Mark Nguyen6 said:The problem isn't that the criteria are too strict.
It’s more that they are inconsistent and, frankly, unprofessional. I mentioned one specific instance earlier as an example.

Generally speaking, I would actually advocate for the strictest possible standards. One insult or a single swear word? A month-long ban—no problem at all. I think the quality of our discussions would improve almost instantly if we did that.

However, the crucial part—the absolute dealbreaker—is that the rules must be applied consistently to everyone and remain relevant to the content. We shouldn't have moderators mixing their own personal biases or worldviews with the actual moderation guidelines.
And honestly, this has reached a rather concerning level lately.

It feels like the moderators have reached a point where they're practically walking on eggshells, essentially saying, "Look, I don't feel like dealing with your nonsense, so I'm just going to delete your post and ban you—what are you going to do about it?"
I experienced this very thing recently with Sam Green73. Out of nowhere, during a perfectly normal discussion, he coolly labeled me a nostalgic for the old regime—I have no idea why he felt entitled to categorize me like that—closed the thread, and handed me a red card. 😁

In my opinion, forget the topic itself; once you get a red card, what was being discussed becomes irrelevant. It's frustrating.
But this behavior is simply not serious.

I couldn't agree more. No moderator should ever be making personal judgments about users. Discussions should stay focused strictly on what was actually written. You can issue a warning or a ban if there's a legitimate reason based on the content, but judging or condemning someone's character? That's totally out of line!

Better a grave than a slave,
Better a loser than a relic of the past! 👍

Mark Nguyen6 said:The problem isn't that the criteria are too strict.
It’s more that they are inconsistent and, frankly, unprofessional. I mentioned one specific instance earlier as an example.

Generally speaking, I would actually advocate for the strictest possible standards. One insult or a single swear word? A month-long ban—no problem at all. I think the quality of our discussions would improve almost instantly if we did that.

However, the crucial part—the absolute dealbreaker—is that the rules must be applied consistently to everyone and remain relevant to the content. We shouldn't have moderators mixing their own personal biases or worldviews with the actual moderation guidelines.
And honestly, this has reached a rather concerning level lately.

It feels like the moderators have reached a point where they're practically walking on eggshells, essentially saying, "Look, I don't feel like dealing with your nonsense, so I'm just going to delete your post and ban you—what are you going to do about it?"
I experienced this very thing recently with Sam Green73. Out of nowhere, during a perfectly normal discussion, he coolly labeled me a nostalgic for the old regime—I have no idea why he felt entitled to categorize me like that—closed the thread, and handed me a red card. 😁

In my opinion, forget the topic itself; once you get a red card, what was being discussed becomes irrelevant. It's frustrating.
But this behavior is simply not serious.

👍...you've got my vote in the next election

Daniel Ward87

MH, don't you think you're getting a little obsessed with George W. Bush?

Even on a thread about lilacs blooming, you still find a way to drag Bush into it...

Mark Nguyen6 said:The problem isn't that the criteria are too strict.
It’s more that they are inconsistent and, frankly, unprofessional. I mentioned one specific instance earlier as an example.

Generally speaking, I would actually advocate for the strictest possible standards. One insult or a single swear word? A month-long ban—no problem at all. I think the quality of our discussions would improve almost instantly if we did that.

However, the crucial part—the absolute dealbreaker—is that the rules must be applied consistently to everyone and remain relevant to the content. We shouldn't have moderators mixing their own personal biases or worldviews with the actual moderation guidelines.
And honestly, this has reached a rather concerning level lately.

It feels like the moderators have reached a point where they're practically walking on eggshells, essentially saying, "Look, I don't feel like dealing with your nonsense, so I'm just going to delete your post and ban you—what are you going to do about it?"
I experienced this very thing recently with Sam Green73. Out of nowhere, during a perfectly normal discussion, he coolly labeled me a nostalgic for the old regime—I have no idea why he felt entitled to categorize me like that—closed the thread, and handed me a red card. 😁

In my opinion, forget the topic itself; once you get a red card, what was being discussed becomes irrelevant. It's frustrating.
But this behavior is simply not serious.

The whole topic was about the Communist Party of the old America back in 1941, so yeah, technically it was "nostalgic."
I really hope you don't find yourself getting lumped in with that kind of stuff.

Sam Green73 said:The whole topic was about the Communist Party of the old America back in 1941, so yeah, technically it was "nostalgic."
I really hope you don't find yourself getting lumped in with that kind of stuff.

Honestly, it doesn't even occur to me to get into a heated argument with you. As I mentioned before, getting bogged down in the minutiae is absolutely unnecessary. I have zero doubt that you'll find some way to justify yourself on a technicality.

Even so, your little outbursts still linger—things like, "whoever wants to bicker, go ahead, because I can just tell the moderators to shut it down," and things of that nature. I just haven't quite grasped where you felt the bickering was coming from. Not to mention the whole nostalgia thing (it seems to me you aren't strictly a hardliner, though I suppose that term is a bit vague anyway).

That being said, I really have no intention of steering this discussion toward grievances regarding that specific incident or his analyses. Whatever happened, happened.
It’s merely one example among many, I suppose. It has simply become a pattern of behavior for you all. And regardless, it just undermines the reputation and the quality of the *New York Times*.

granitefox16 said:MH, don't you think you're getting a little obsessed with George W. Bush?

Even on a thread about lilacs blooming, you still find a way to drag Bush into it...

Well... and probably because Bush himself commented on those lilacs... There isn't a single occasion where Bush doesn't weigh in... Since I know you're such a passionate "football fan," I won't be wrong if I compare Bush to Ćiro... sorry Ćiro... 😁

The reality is simple: Bush, much like Ćiro, can't function without the media spotlight... He constantly maneuvers to stay in the headlines... And since he insists on being front and center, he should learn to take the heat from his critics. There’s nothing controversial about that—Bush invited all this scrutiny upon himself...

As much as my own obsession might be attacking Masić, you seem to have an almost pathological fixation on defending every single one of his screw-ups... It’s fine—this is a forum, after all—but the issue arises when the moderation takes sides and starts obsessively deleting posts just because they criticize the President... That is precisely why this thread exists...

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It doesn't matter; the whole thing will just sort itself out through this thread eventually. It'll happen however it happens. Goodnight.

Oh, please. If you find such immense pleasure in handing out bans and scrubbing my posts...
(I’m talking about that whole bit regarding Bush's buddy Svamiđija—your little comment about advising him to align his spirit, body, and photo wallpaper, and then my question as to why Bush doesn't just hang a "Gorilla in the Fog" movie poster on his office wall)
...then honestly, I can't even wrap my head around you.

Go ahead, throw another ban my way—I'm sure you'll dig up some random post to justify it—so you won't have to endure reading my stuff for at least three whole days.

😍

Without a doubt, the single biggest provocateur and the absolute destroyer of PDF politics is Sam Green73

He spends his time convincing himself—and anyone else willing to listen—that his entire mission is to pacify PDF politics, when in reality, it’s nothing more than a convenient excuse to settle scores with anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Everything you do boils down to labeling people, deleting threads without any logical basis, and swapping or removing posts... it’s pure chaos, serving no purpose other than to create total disorder.

What’s actually hilarious here: he just wipes his posts clean and disappears, all while keeping a paranoid eye on how many critics get banned.

I have reported two posts to moderation for violating the rules... The author goes by Judolino... I am quoting his exact words below...

The core message is exactly what Jesus—that guy who looks like a Judge without the makeup—said:
Render unto God the things that are God's, and unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
In plain English: just suck it up and deal with it. Give everything to the priest and the capitalist, live in poverty, and once you kick the bucket, you get to head off to the Paradiso wellness center.
A damn healthy message, if you ask me.

It always amuses me when a female creature defends the church so zealously.
Does it not bother you that you were created from a rib?
Or the fact that the Reverend (not to mention the big shots like cardinals, archbishops, and the Pope) can't even be referred to in the feminine gender?
Or that the Bible treats women like livestock?
I assume you don't have a husband—otherwise, he’d be thrashing you like a pig in a cabbage patch for wasting your time on the internet...

Here is the link proving these posts actually existed.

These posts aren't just simple trolling; they are blatant insults directed at forum members and their religious beliefs... Or more accurately, typical hate speech aimed at Catholics... However, moderation has deleted these posts, yet as far as I can see, the author, Judolino, hasn't even been banned...

I can't help but wonder what would happen to me if I had written something similar... I would likely face a permanent ban, because frankly, such hate speech might deserve one... Yet Judolino has clearly gotten away with it, which leads me to the logical conclusion that moderation is being biased once again...

I would appreciate an explanation...

Here I go again, forced to respond...

Who was it that took my thread "who who robs here" and decided to tack on "residence fee" to the title?

Perhaps the intention behind this addition was noble—truly—but all it actually achieved was oversimplifying the entire discussion. This topic is significantly broader than just some "residence fee," a point I made quite explicitly in my introduction...

That title didn't even come close to hinting at what we're actually talking about here.
Look, you can pick whatever title you want, but it actually needs to reflect the subject matter.
This is a discussion forum, not some sensationalist tabloid trying to sell copies with clickbait headlines that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual story.

Sam Green73 said:That title didn't even come close to hinting at what we're actually talking about here.
Look, you can pick whatever title you want, but it actually needs to reflect the subject matter.
This is a discussion forum, not some sensationalist tabloid trying to sell copies with clickbait headlines that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual story.

But now, this kind of title has steered the entire discussion solely toward the residence fee... which was absolutely not my intention—as I have already explained, the scope of this topic is much broader than that.