Discussion policy - criteria

If we’re going by those same standards, I demand that over 70% of the warnings issued in response to troll posts be wiped from my record.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous!😠

I once got flagged because some guy was actually defending a convicted pedophile, claiming ten kids were lying. A CONVICTED PEDOPHILE. So, I told him he was a piece of trash or something to that effect, and I got banned for "insulting" someone.

Then, I get a warning because of some troll who claimed the cross only brought good things to America, even though I provided a link right above her showing how Zadar was destroyed by Crusaders. I told her she was either lying or just stupid, and that was labeled as an insult.

For God's sake, it's absolute chaos here! If a user happens to dislike a moderator, they're allowed to run them through the mud. What kind of crap is this?!?!?!

this is pure hypocrisy!

driftingdriver said:It’s because Constantinopol deliberately pushes these provocative topics, constantly trolling and playing dumb while dancing right on the edge of what's allowed, which inevitably leads others to pick fights and rack up warnings on his posts. And honestly, it just keeps happening. There was actually a noticeable uptick after that last topic you reported.

I reached out to the admin to request a permanent ban for him over on the Politics sub. He’s been permanently banned from Politics now.

Punishing other users in that specific topic is essentially pointless. If the topic wasn't designed to be incredibly biased with the sole intention of inciting and provoking people, those reactions wouldn't be happening in the first place.

I think you might be overestimating him; he isn't acting, that's just who he is.
Just so we're clear, I'm not attacking you personally. It's more that I don't think you've quite grasped Constantinopol's vibe. If I tried to put an actual number on his intellectual level, I’d probably get slapped with 500 points for being insulting.
So, think about it—is it really fair to ban someone from the site based on a lack of... well, let's call them "points"... hm?

I just can't get behind this decision to issue a permanent ban to Constantinopolov. Even if he was being provocative or starting controversial topics, they could have just given him

a light sanction instead. I mean, the guy has been on Reddit for five years and barely has any strikes against him. It doesn't feel right. He gets hit with a lifetime ban while there are way bigger instigators out there, and unlike

them, he’s never actually launched personal attacks at anyone. There isn't hate speech in his posts. Sure, he opened all sorts of random threads, but honestly, he was mostly the one being

insulted, yet he always stayed civil. I truly feel bad for him because there are plenty of people much worse than him.😢

Also, I’d like to ask the admins to reconsider the permanent ban for Constantinopolov, if that's even an option.

Drew Brooks8 said:I just can't get behind this decision to issue a permanent ban to Constantinopolov. Even if he was being provocative or starting controversial topics, they could have just given him

a light sanction instead. I mean, the guy has been on Reddit for five years and barely has any strikes against him. It doesn't feel right. He gets hit with a lifetime ban while there are way bigger instigators out there, and unlike

them, he’s never actually launched personal attacks at anyone. There isn't hate speech in his posts. Sure, he opened all sorts of random threads, but honestly, he was mostly the one being

insulted, yet he always stayed civil. I truly feel bad for him because there are plenty of people much worse than him.😢

Also, I’d like to ask the admins to reconsider the permanent ban for Constantinopolov, if that's even an option.

Drew Brooks8 said:I just can't get behind this decision to issue a permanent ban to Constantinopolov. Even if he was being provocative or starting controversial topics, they could have just given him

a light sanction instead. I mean, the guy has been on Reddit for five years and barely has any strikes against him. It doesn't feel right. He gets hit with a lifetime ban while there are way bigger instigators out there, and unlike

them, he’s never actually launched personal attacks at anyone. There isn't hate speech in his posts. Sure, he opened all sorts of random threads, but honestly, he was mostly the one being

insulted, yet he always stayed civil. I truly feel bad for him because there are plenty of people much worse than him.😢

Also, I’d like to ask the admins to reconsider the permanent ban for Constantinopolov, if that's even an option.

The guy is a professional at being insulting, and he doesn't even realize it...
Constantinople isn't a polite commenter; he’s incredibly two-faced and sycophantic, and at times, quite downright rude.
Like I said, he lacks substance, which he tries to make up for with sheer cunning......

Jeremy Diaz9 said:The guy is a professional at being insulting, and he doesn't even realize it...
Constantinople isn't a polite commenter; he’s incredibly two-faced and sycophantic, and at times, quite downright rude.
Like I said, he lacks substance, which he tries to make up for with sheer cunning......

An "expert" at insults? Please. There are so many rude people posting here every single day, and unlike him, they actually have some actual content behind their posts. I won't even try to dive into his headspace. He’s seemed two-faced to me before, too, but is that really enough for a permanent ban? We all have our flaws. This guy maybe opens the most threads on politics, but will he actually lose that PDF with this permanent ban?🤷

Drew Brooks8 said:An "expert" at insults? Please. There are so many rude people posting here every single day, and unlike him, they actually have some actual content behind their posts. I won't even try to dive into his headspace. He’s seemed two-faced to me before, too, but is that really enough for a permanent ban? We all have our flaws. This guy maybe opens the most threads on politics, but will he actually lose that PDF with this permanent ban?🤷

Do you think that PDF will actually lose quality now that he's gone? 🤣😂

Jeremy Diaz9 said:Do you think that PDF will actually lose quality now that he's gone? 🤣😂

Come on, don't exaggerate.🙄 Every single topic he opens ends up with over 300 posts, so were we all just losing our minds by jumping into his threads?

- He finally has the chance to express his "creativity" on other subreddits. We’ll just have to see how much longer the other mods can stomach him. Every possible measure was taken beforehand, wasn't it? He was warned more than a few times. But of course, once you leave him alone, he just gets emboldened and starts that whole trolling dance again. Today, though, enough was enough.

It’s honestly a joke that Constantinopolov got slapped with a permanent ban on Politics, while all the actual trolls and provocateurs are left running wild without any consequences.

I find it inherently unfair. He’s constantly provoking people with his signatures, using them as a way to promote his sexual orientation. It’s bound to grate on someone's nerves. Personally, I don't even bother reading his posts or responding to them; he hasn't said anything remotely intelligent or constructive. He is ambiguous and two-faced, so why waste breath on a debate? It's just like that banned user who re-registered under "dreknaštapiću"—completely useless, yet incredibly provocative.
It’s true that the rules aren't applied equally to everyone, but what can you do? That's life.
Besides, the motivation to write a post eventually fades. By the time you actually open a topic and hit send, the site moves so fast you could practically walk to the grocery store and back.

Aaron Lee97 said:I find it inherently unfair. He’s constantly provoking people with his signatures, using them as a way to promote his sexual orientation. It’s bound to grate on someone's nerves. Personally, I don't even bother reading his posts or responding to them; he hasn't said anything remotely intelligent or constructive. He is ambiguous and two-faced, so why waste breath on a debate? It's just like that banned user who re-registered under "dreknaštapiću"—completely useless, yet incredibly provocative.
It’s true that the rules aren't applied equally to everyone, but what can you do? That's life.
Besides, the motivation to write a post eventually fades. By the time you actually open a topic and hit send, the site moves so fast you could practically walk to the grocery store and back.

I think I’d make a distinction here...
There are certain users who are chronically banned, and honestly, you have to laugh at the absolute nonsense they manage to post.
That includes the guy using that ridiculous handle, plus those two geniuses from the science department—I can't recall their exact usernames off the top of my head, but their "contributions" have basically become legendary in the all-time greatest hits threads on Reddit....
I would never actually issue them a permanent ban.
They take a few days off, give the community a good laugh, and then they come back to stir the pot again for a bit.
In a way, they’re like the forum's mascots.
Without them, the place wouldn't feel quite the same...
Constantin is a different story entirely; he’s just an irritating spammer and a troll.
There isn't anything remotely charming about his posts.....

I find myself in complete agreement with driftingdriver regarding the decision to close the topic about banning the cross. Honestly, the whole thread felt incredibly trollish and purely meant to provoke. I suppose I’m mostly curious about how the author attempted to link a sacred religious symbol to the emblem of a failed ideology in the first place. It makes me wonder—if we allowed a discussion on banning the cross, should we have expected follow-up threads calling for a ban on the Star of David or perhaps even the crescent and star? 🙄🙄

As for Constantin, I must say I was somewhat surprised he managed to stay active for this long without being banned. His topics were quite openly inflammatory and designed to incite a reaction. There were several moments where I felt my own patience wearing thin, and I had to catch myself just to keep from typing something out of turn... 😁

swiftscout8 said:There is no such thing as a "reasoned debate" regarding the symbolism of the cross. Period. 🙂
A loud minority isn't going to silence a massive majority. We saw enough of that back in America.
And if you don't like how things work here, go live in an agnostic country... oops, turns out those don't exist.

Hold on just a second!!!

Who do you think you are, deciding which taboos we can touch with such an authoritative tone?? It’s very rare for anything on Reddit to actually get under my skin, but this is truly crossing the line!!!

Where do you get the right to dictate what can and cannot be subjected to criticism??

If the discussion stays within the bounds of civilized and cultural dialogue, where do you get the nerve to even suggest certain topics are forbidden?? Under what rules, and by what sane logic???

By that same logic, a Jew could claim you aren't allowed to criticize Israel, a Muslim could say you can't criticize Muhammad or the mujahideen, and a communist could insist that Marx, Engels, and Lenin remain beyond reproach... where would that leave this site? We might as well just talk about the weather—unless someone like you decides to put a taboo on criticizing fog or snow.

It's a disaster; this is hands down one of the worst things I have ever encountered on Reddit!!

👎

- You swear by the sanctity of free speech, yet here you are, caught in the paradox of trying to silence someone else's perspective! So, does my colleague actually have the right to express her views? Or does she not? She isn't dictating terms here; she is simply stating her position.

Roger Robinson682 said:I find myself in complete agreement with driftingdriver regarding the decision to close the topic about banning the cross. Honestly, the whole thread felt incredibly trollish and purely meant to provoke. I suppose I’m mostly curious about how the author attempted to link a sacred religious symbol to the emblem of a failed ideology in the first place. It makes me wonder—if we allowed a discussion on banning the cross, should we have expected follow-up threads calling for a ban on the Star of David or perhaps even the crescent and star? 🙄🙄

As for Constantin, I must say I was somewhat surprised he managed to stay active for this long without being banned. His topics were quite openly inflammatory and designed to incite a reaction. There were several moments where I felt my own patience wearing thin, and I had to catch myself just to keep from typing something out of turn... 😁

🙄 🙄 😁

I don't really get why everyone is so shocked. 🤷 I’d love for someone to give me a coherent explanation of how the cross, the McDonald's logo, and the five-pointed star are actually different.
Why shouldn't people discuss the symbolism of the cross? Are we going to pull out every dictionary of symbols from bookstores and libraries? Why couldn't someone view the cross as a symbol of evil? There are arguments for that, and there are arguments against it.
And then those points come up in discussions. For instance, on Reddit. They aren't being suppressed just because "90% of Americans are Catholic." : catholic :

Constantinopol posted the topic in the wrong subforum, but formally speaking, he didn't break any forum rules. Of course, moderators have the discretionary power to remove a user. But, given the sheer amount of trolling and "provocative" 😁 😁 topics that haven't been sanctioned, Constantinopol is being totally benign here. Even if his premises might be a bit silly, that doesn't justify the insults being thrown at him, nor does it justify a ban.

driftingdriver said:- You swear by the sanctity of free speech, yet here you are, caught in the paradox of trying to silence someone else's perspective! So, does my colleague actually have the right to express her views? Or does she not? She isn't dictating terms here; she is simply stating her position.

I have to admit, I’m not quite sure what this comment is actually getting at.

I stumbled upon this topic by total accident, and honestly, I’m just left speechless. Isn't the whole point of a place like Reddit to give everyone a chance to actually speak their minds?
Is this even happening in reality? Because I feel like I've wandered into some high-stakes Congressional hearing where every political faction is just clawing at each other for dominance and power.
Every single group is just pulling in their own direction. It’s like watching a bunch of toddlers in a sandbox, really. "My topic is better!" "My ban was totally unfair!" "This mod is trash, but that one is fair, and this guy is biased!"
It makes me wonder, what is the actual goal here? Is it to drive away all the interesting users, or is it to maintain a specific standard that—for me personally—is incredibly vital?
Do you guys ever even stop to consider the impact a single debate or a specific user can have on someone just reading along?

The truth is, you’re all acting like megalomaniacs. Between your rigid stances and your egos, it’s just a constant race to see who can outdo whom, fueled by petty jealousy; you're all acting like prima donnas! You aren't behaving like intelligent people who are actually here to foster dialogue or reflect on a specific topic, whether that suits the minority or the majority.
Are you all even capable of setting aside your little personal vendettas and letting different talents contribute to the conversation instead of just killing the discussion entirely?
You’ve banned so many fascinating users already. If you keep this up, you're going to empty this place of any actual adults and be left with nothing but teenagers who don't have a shred of the experience or knowledge that some of these seasoned users possess.
Bottom line: go ahead and ban Constantinopol, and I will proceed to flood every single page with my trolling, ranging from politics to random ads.

When you banned Phoenix, I stayed quiet and minded my own business. But now? Now you've completely crossed the line.

hollowtrucker77 said:driftingdriver, I have to say, I strongly disagree with you on this one!!
Insulting people just isn't okay, no matter what the context might be.
I honestly have no idea who or what this "Constantinople" character is supposed to be, but frankly, the posts being linked here are absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel.
Sure, a topic can be framed in a biased way or even set up by trolls, but we simply cannot—and should not—allow personal attacks to slide.
If anything, we've seen threads like this before where the users actually used their brains to steer the conversation back toward something sensible.

👍 I guess, if you want to moderate properly, you really need to understand what a forum actually is.

driftingdriver said:- This isn't actually the first time this has happened. Constantinopol has opened plenty of other threads just like this one. In the past, others were handed bans because of him—including some I personally handed out. He always found a way to wiggle out of trouble, didn't he? Well, he’s finally reached his limit, and he won't be able to participate in any more politics here.
- I have no issue with whoever wants to hand out bans on this topic, but I refuse to punish people who were simply provoked by a troll. The only reason this thread is still visible is because of this specific complaint. I decided to delete it after the discussion here concluded; otherwise, instead of just this complaint, the entire topic would have been wiped clean.
- If any of the supermods or admins wants to issue a ban, go ahead, but if you don't, the entire topic will be deleted by the end of the day.

When you really look at the big picture, driftingdriver, I guess the only real issue is that you aren't actually fulfilling your duties as a mod. Instead of managing the topics you can't handle, you just... delete them. 🤷
Those people claiming they were "provoked" are actually the ones breaking the Reddit rules. Even if his topics seem provocative, Constantinopol isn't doing anything wrong.
Could someone please explain the "provocative" nature of Constantinopolov's topic one more time? I'm a bit lost. 🙂
I’m asking the other mods, admins, or whoever is listening—please, can you comment on this decision not to sanction such blatant insults? And, if they’re up for it, maybe explain why someone who refuses to issue a warning for gross disrespect is still holding down a moderator position. 🤷

Tyler Grant76 said:🙄 🙄 😁

I don't really get why everyone is so shocked. 🤷 I’d love for someone to give me a coherent explanation of how the cross, the McDonald's logo, and the five-pointed star are actually different.
Why shouldn't people discuss the symbolism of the cross? Are we going to pull out every dictionary of symbols from bookstores and libraries? Why couldn't someone view the cross as a symbol of evil? There are arguments for that, and there are arguments against it.
And then those points come up in discussions. For instance, on Reddit. They aren't being suppressed just because "90% of Americans are Catholic." : catholic :

Constantinopol posted the topic in the wrong subforum, but formally speaking, he didn't break any forum rules. Of course, moderators have the discretionary power to remove a user. But, given the sheer amount of trolling and "provocative" 😁 😁 topics that haven't been sanctioned, Constantinopol is being totally benign here. Even if his premises might be a bit silly, that doesn't justify the insults being thrown at him, nor does it justify a ban.

- Everything regarding the "Cross..." topic was already explained earlier in this thread, so please, do try to catch up and read it.
- It wasn't Constantinopol who started the "Cross" thread; it was Kevin Mitchell.
- Look, mods do have that discretionary right to step in—especially after ten pages of people getting flagged for the exact same nonsense, or when someone keeps opening provocative threads that just bait others into getting flagged by constantly picking fights. I actually exercised that right myself, and I have my reasons for doing so.