I'm your Moderator, and there are no other Moderators besides me

So, I’ve finally had enough 😁
I’m asking someone to please rein in the hysteria from the moderator slybison8, and I really think the discussions they participate in should start being moderated properly.
In a recent thread about San Francisco, the moderator slybison8 basically allowed insults, trolling, and anyone holding an opinion different from their own—including people who actually agree with them—to be targeted with all sorts of unprovoked, baseless names. And when asked to fix it? They just doubled down with more insults.
A few days ago, hollowtrucker77 and I were having a discussion on the main board about how slybison8 communicates in other threads, hoping that you, as the admin, might actually step in and do something about it. But since slybison8 just keeps acting out against anyone who disagrees, I guess I'll just move the conversation over here. Honestly.

For instance,

my own post—which I'm only bringing up to show that PL is quoting me:

and then I get this response: (it starts off with "you're making things up and twisting words, as usual" 🤷),

just so the grand finale, in response to yet another objection ends up being this:

Do I really need to go on?

hollowtrucker77 said:It’s all up to you, really,
and like I said before, I’m going to hand this over to my colleague, just so there isn't any perception that I personally have a grudge against you or that I'm being anything less than completely objective here.

You haven't got a clue. Falling behind, I guess. Objective or not? I guess even this whole "washing hands" routine feels pretty symbolic. 😬 It’s all pretty straightforward, really. And since the medium we're using here leaves a basically permanent paper trail, I guess anyone should be able to dig up posts like this without much trouble. I guess I should probably clarify my position on this. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but looking at how things have unfolded, it feels like we're seeing a bit of a pattern here. It’s hard to say for certain without more data, but there seems to be a certain level of instability that shouldn't be ignored. I mean, if you look at what happened previously with the privatization process, it really sets a precedent, doesn't it? It makes me wonder if we're just repeating the same old mistakes under a different name. I don't want to sound overly cynical, but I think we need to stay vigilant. Just my two cents, anyway....which he's trying to justify with this. I guess I should probably address what Zach Gomez2 said earlier about the whole situation. Honestly, looking back at how things were handled, it feels like there was just way too much paranoia involved. Maybe we were all being a bit too reactive, but it’s hard to say. It’s just one of those things where everything felt a bit disorganized, I suppose. 🤣 🤣

Let's take a moment to look back at this, Tyler Grant76:

It seems the entire focus of this discussion has been centered on personal provocation and targeting me as an individual since March 2010, all because of my political views. I suppose today's incident isn't really anything new when it comes to how you express your intolerance toward me.

And just so we are perfectly clear: Yes, you claimed that the garage in Warsaw would be reserved exclusively for buyers of Horvatinčićev apartments. That turned out to be incorrect, much like today's assertion that Kerum is planning to sell the hotel to the Hilton corporation. In reality, the fact is that Kerum is being forced by the terms under which he purchased the hotel from the Privatization Fund to sign a franchise agreement with a foreign chain. I don't believe you are uninformed. So, I guess all I am left to conclude is that you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

Furthermore, I wonder what any of this has to do with moderation? I have never issued you a single penalty for simply disagreeing with me—even though there is a school of thought suggesting one can be penalized for violating rules while arguing with a Moderator, I generally don't follow that approach. Regarding today's thread where we clashed, I wasn't acting as a Moderator; I was merely participating in a discussion. The fact that my status as a Moderator "bothers" you is strictly your own issue, and I don't wish to dwell on it. It is unfortunate, I suppose, that you allow your own frustrations and intolerance to impact third parties who have nothing to do with any of this.

Just a small contribution from my side—I have no intention of hijacking the primary purpose of this thread, so if I drift into generalities in the title, bear with me. Since you all decided on the other thread that Powerlock has every right to his own opinions as a forum member (or a "Forumer," in his preferred terminology), and that such views don't interfere with his moderation duties, I feel compelled to remind everyone once more: having an opinion is one thing, but influencing the direction of a discussion by permitting sub-par discourse is quite another (though I suspect my previous posts failed to convey that distinction clearly enough). In that particular example, it isn’t that one shouldn't be allowed to claim homosexuality is a disorder or a deviation; rather, it is that a moderator's decision cannot be to allow anyone walking through these digital halls who insists "homosexuality is a disorder"—without providing any actual reasoning—to simply hide behind their "right to an opinion." Because, let me repeat, that isn't an opinion. It's just noise.

That is one matter; here is another. Regarding the recent ways in which Powerlock’s stances (which are, admittedly, better reasoned than what he was attempting to shield in the aforementioned examples) might influence moderation, consider the timeline of when and why the original thread regarding General Brodarac was closed (was it deemed irrelevant? outdated? pushed out of scope?) and when it was subsequently reopened. It was shuttered at 9:58 AM on the day of General Brodarac's death, only to be reopened much later at 2:37 PM that same day following a comment from a user. A six-hour silence? (And please, I mean no disrespect to the tragic nature of the situation or the legitimate questions surrounding the circumstances of his passing: those factors could not possibly justify closing a thread concerning allegations of war crimes in Sisak only to redirect the conversation toward entirely different content and tone.) Suddenly, a nonsensical instruction appeared on the thread: "Please refrain from mentioning the late General Brodarac..." (and to add insult to injury, they wrote "General," but let's move past that). Only then did someone mention that there were actually two other suspects involved and that the thread exists as a standalone entity (effectively admitting that for at least six hours, the moderation was being driven by personal bias):

Thread Closed
Thread Reopened

These are merely illustrative examples; if you look at the thread concerning Brodarčev's death itself, you can see a series of exchanges (and deleted posts) that specifically critique such moderator steering.

It was honestly uncomfortable to watch people struggle to explain that these two things—and these two distinct threads—cannot be treated as one and the same.

slybison8 said:Let's take a moment to look back at this, Tyler Grant76:

It seems the entire focus of this discussion has been centered on personal provocation and targeting me as an individual since March 2010, all because of my political views. I suppose today's incident isn't really anything new when it comes to how you express your intolerance toward me.

And just so we are perfectly clear: Yes, you claimed that the garage in Warsaw would be reserved exclusively for buyers of Horvatinčićev apartments. That turned out to be incorrect, much like today's assertion that Kerum is planning to sell the hotel to the Hilton corporation. In reality, the fact is that Kerum is being forced by the terms under which he purchased the hotel from the Privatization Fund to sign a franchise agreement with a foreign chain. I don't believe you are uninformed. So, I guess all I am left to conclude is that you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

Furthermore, I wonder what any of this has to do with moderation? I have never issued you a single penalty for simply disagreeing with me—even though there is a school of thought suggesting one can be penalized for violating rules while arguing with a Moderator, I generally don't follow that approach. Regarding today's thread where we clashed, I wasn't acting as a Moderator; I was merely participating in a discussion. The fact that my status as a Moderator "bothers" you is strictly your own issue, and I don't wish to dwell on it. It is unfortunate, I suppose, that you allow your own frustrations and intolerance to impact third parties who have nothing to do with any of this.

Are you kidding me? 🤣 Well, I actually started that thread using a quote from you. From something you wrote on the forum. It wasn't some fabrication or made-up scenario like you’re trying to pin on me. 🤷 You definitely gave the topic enough fuel, but honestly, no matter how you spin it, you're irrelevant here—you're just representing one specific viewpoint.

So, basically, this whole thread is just a targeted attempt to provoke and harass me personally because of my political views back in March 2010. Today's little incident isn't anything new; it's just more of your usual intolerance toward me.

That's nonsense. I'm just asking you to follow the forum rules.

And let's be perfectly clear: Yes, you claimed the garage in Warsaw would be reserved exclusively for customers of Horvatinčićev apartments.

Irrelevant. But since we're being clear—I didn't. I was commenting on the permit and the development plan, which states exactly that—the spaces are for center users, specifically defined by number. I don't feel like digging up the development plan again right now, but I've looked at it at least five times already. You can Google it yourself if you want. You can find it. I didn't claim anything else; all my posts regarding Warsaw are right there for you to read.

That turned out to be incorrect, much like today's claim that Kerum is planning to sell the hotel to Hilton. In reality, the fact is that Kerum is forced by the terms under which he bought the hotel from the Privatization Fund to sign a franchise agreement with a foreign chain. I know you aren't uninformed. So what am I left to conclude other than that you're just planting false ideas?

This is ridiculous. Over the last few years, I've read and listened to so many of Kerum's statements regarding the Marjan Hotel that I know exactly what I'm talking about, and most of those statements are available online for you too. Honestly, I think I'm the one who should be calling you out for planting ideas when you start rambling about "American ownership."🤷
Anyway, it's your job—both as a user and as a Moderator—to argue your points rather than just whining and jumping to arbitrary conclusions.

And what does any of this have to do with moderation? I've never given you a single warning or penalty just because we disagree—even though there's a school of thought that you should be penalized for breaking discussion rules even when arguing with a moderator, I don't really subscribe to that view. On today's topic, where I clashed with you, I wasn't acting as a moderator; I was just having a discussion. If my status as a Moderator "gets under your skin," that is entirely your own issue, and I have no intention of dealing with it. I'm sorry, though, that you allow yourself to take your personal issues and intolerance out on third parties who have absolutely nothing to do with this.

I’m honestly about to lose it 😁 😁 Just say you feel forced into being a moderator. I guess... look, I expect a moderator to actually follow the forum rules, whether they're posting their own stuff or dealing with everyone else's. That's really all.
If we're going to push this to the limit—and I think we should, because I certainly want to—then your entire response right here is enough reason for you to be moderated rather than doing the moderating.

Tyler Grant76 said:Are you kidding me? 🤣 Well, I actually started that thread using a quote from you. From something you wrote on the forum. It wasn't some fabrication or made-up scenario like you’re trying to pin on me. 🤷 You definitely gave the topic enough fuel, but honestly, no matter how you spin it, you're irrelevant here—you're just representing one specific viewpoint.

So, basically, this whole thread is just a targeted attempt to provoke and harass me personally because of my political views back in March 2010. Today's little incident isn't anything new; it's just more of your usual intolerance toward me.

That's nonsense. I'm just asking you to follow the forum rules.

And let's be perfectly clear: Yes, you claimed the garage in Warsaw would be reserved exclusively for customers of Horvatinčićev apartments.

Irrelevant. But since we're being clear—I didn't. I was commenting on the permit and the development plan, which states exactly that—the spaces are for center users, specifically defined by number. I don't feel like digging up the development plan again right now, but I've looked at it at least five times already. You can Google it yourself if you want. You can find it. I didn't claim anything else; all my posts regarding Warsaw are right there for you to read.

That turned out to be incorrect, much like today's claim that Kerum is planning to sell the hotel to Hilton. In reality, the fact is that Kerum is forced by the terms under which he bought the hotel from the Privatization Fund to sign a franchise agreement with a foreign chain. I know you aren't uninformed. So what am I left to conclude other than that you're just planting false ideas?

This is ridiculous. Over the last few years, I've read and listened to so many of Kerum's statements regarding the Marjan Hotel that I know exactly what I'm talking about, and most of those statements are available online for you too. Honestly, I think I'm the one who should be calling you out for planting ideas when you start rambling about "American ownership."🤷
Anyway, it's your job—both as a user and as a Moderator—to argue your points rather than just whining and jumping to arbitrary conclusions.

And what does any of this have to do with moderation? I've never given you a single warning or penalty just because we disagree—even though there's a school of thought that you should be penalized for breaking discussion rules even when arguing with a moderator, I don't really subscribe to that view. On today's topic, where I clashed with you, I wasn't acting as a moderator; I was just having a discussion. If my status as a Moderator "gets under your skin," that is entirely your own issue, and I have no intention of dealing with it. I'm sorry, though, that you allow yourself to take your personal issues and intolerance out on third parties who have absolutely nothing to do with this.

I’m honestly about to lose it 😁 😁 Just say you feel forced into being a moderator. I guess... look, I expect a moderator to actually follow the forum rules, whether they're posting their own stuff or dealing with everyone else's. That's really all.
If we're going to push this to the limit—and I think we should, because I certainly want to—then your entire response right here is enough reason for you to be moderated rather than doing the moderating.

Well, I see that. If that is how you feel, 😁 I rest my case.

@Tyler Grant76

If my habit of calling out people who "spin" things or twist facts bothers you so much, here's a tip: go read some fluff pieces on a lifestyle blog instead. Maybe find a sub-forum meant for lonely hearts and sensitive souls. That seems more your speed.

Calling out distortions is perfectly normal in political discourse. If we start banning people from pointing out when someone else is twisting the truth—especially when they back it up with actual evidence—then this whole politics section is going to be a ghost town.

By the way, I’ve noticed a sudden wave of attacks against slybison8. It's pretty obvious his views are rubbing some people the wrong way. Apparently, it’s "unacceptable" to them that a Moderator on the Politics board isn't affiliated with the HNS, doesn't scrub posts in the thread about Josipovic, and chooses to express clear political opinions rather than just policing the board.

Just a friendly reminder: we live in a democracy where people are allowed to have opinions.

If his opinion is that your arguments are nothing more than blatant fabrications—and he provides proof to show why—who is this "super-admin" or god-tier moderator that's going to step in and stop him?

The whole point of a forum is the clash of ideas and the decent discussion that comes from it.
The days when you couldn't call out someone for claiming Marshall was a legend, or for using lines like what Balasevic calls "the greatest beast of our nations," are long gone. Technology brought forums into our lives and changed everything. We've moved into an era where liars can try to twist things, but everyone else has every right to call them out on it.

So, quit trying to play "protect the princess" and actually join the fight with logic. Let the readers decide who's lying and who's spinning. Defend yourself with solid arguments instead of cheap insults or trying to defame someone just because they told you your dad is bigger than yours.

And leave slybison8 alone. He's one of the few guys on this forum whose recent posts I actually bother to read. And from what I hear, I'm not the only one. Given how certain newspapers have a habit of lifting his posts and publishing them under their own names, it seems pretty silly to attack a guy who clearly reaches a much larger audience than the people he's calling out for lying.

Do yourself a favor: try using some real reasoning and see if you can reach that level.

All The Best

Medek, that’s not quite how this works. 🙂 I still find myself following politics just for fun and to learn, and I don't see why I should deny myself that just because someone else is having a meltdown. Personally, I’m not really bothered by mindless posts, but being called out without any actual argument? That gets under my skin. I mean, what is a forum even for? It exists so we can exchange views within some set of rules—even if they are a bit loose. I fully realize my posts aren't going to flip the script for anyone who disagrees with me, but I honestly enjoy reading what people reveal about themselves during a discussion. In that sense, what I'm doing is perfectly fine and often actually constructive, unlike that habit of screaming after the fact that "that wasn't what I meant." How are we supposed to have a coherent—or even semi-coherent—discussion if Powerlock gets all worked up because I quoted him, and then proceeds to aggressively invent things in my posts that I never actually said? 😁 😁
And if we're going to call someone sensitive, well, Powerlock dug up a thread from, what, two years ago? 😬 It’s pretty obvious he can't handle his own past posts. 🤷

Tyler Grant76 said:For instance,

my own post—which I'm only bringing up to show that PL is quoting me:

and then I get this response: (it starts off with "you're making things up and twisting words, as usual" 🤷),

just so the grand finale, in response to yet another objection ends up being this:

Do I really need to go on?

Nah, you don't need to. I took a look at the thread and honestly, I don't see any issue here. Personally, I’ve got nothing against things getting a little heated, as long as people actually have an argument to back it up. Besides, both you and slybison8 are top-tier users on this board—and I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm intended—your posts are always a blast to read. Yeah, you might throw a sharp jab at each other once in a while, but I don't think it's a big deal. It’d be nicer if we could skip the toxicity, sure, but if I have to choose between a high-quality debate that gets a bit salty or some polite, boring conversation that's just plain stupid, I'm picking the first one every single time.

Zachary Gomez2 said:Just a small contribution from my side—I have no intention of hijacking the primary purpose of this thread, so if I drift into generalities in the title, bear with me. Since you all decided on the other thread that Powerlock has every right to his own opinions as a forum member (or a "Forumer," in his preferred terminology), and that such views don't interfere with his moderation duties, I feel compelled to remind everyone once more: having an opinion is one thing, but influencing the direction of a discussion by permitting sub-par discourse is quite another (though I suspect my previous posts failed to convey that distinction clearly enough). In that particular example, it isn’t that one shouldn't be allowed to claim homosexuality is a disorder or a deviation; rather, it is that a moderator's decision cannot be to allow anyone walking through these digital halls who insists "homosexuality is a disorder"—without providing any actual reasoning—to simply hide behind their "right to an opinion." Because, let me repeat, that isn't an opinion. It's just noise.

That is one matter; here is another. Regarding the recent ways in which Powerlock’s stances (which are, admittedly, better reasoned than what he was attempting to shield in the aforementioned examples) might influence moderation, consider the timeline of when and why the original thread regarding General Brodarac was closed (was it deemed irrelevant? outdated? pushed out of scope?) and when it was subsequently reopened. It was shuttered at 9:58 AM on the day of General Brodarac's death, only to be reopened much later at 2:37 PM that same day following a comment from a user. A six-hour silence? (And please, I mean no disrespect to the tragic nature of the situation or the legitimate questions surrounding the circumstances of his passing: those factors could not possibly justify closing a thread concerning allegations of war crimes in Sisak only to redirect the conversation toward entirely different content and tone.) Suddenly, a nonsensical instruction appeared on the thread: "Please refrain from mentioning the late General Brodarac..." (and to add insult to injury, they wrote "General," but let's move past that). Only then did someone mention that there were actually two other suspects involved and that the thread exists as a standalone entity (effectively admitting that for at least six hours, the moderation was being driven by personal bias):

Thread Closed
Thread Reopened

These are merely illustrative examples; if you look at the thread concerning Brodarčev's death itself, you can see a series of exchanges (and deleted posts) that specifically critique such moderator steering.

It was honestly uncomfortable to watch people struggle to explain that these two things—and these two distinct threads—cannot be treated as one and the same.

Look, when a topic starts blowing up like crazy, the posts just pile up way too fast for any Moderator to actually keep up with. It gets messy. In those cases, sometimes we just gotta lock the thread for a bit—just a temporary shutdown to clear out the junk, do some basic cleanup, and get everything back in order before we open it back up again.

Watching Tyler Grant76 try to play the Isusek role while acting like some fragile little princess is honestly exhausting; if you’ve spent more than five minutes paying attention to the political landscape here, you know the whole thing is pure nonsense, and honestly, if she actually spelled out what she meant, I’m pretty sure she’d be banned before she could finish her thought.

I feel like I’m just repeating myself at this point, whether we’re talking about the main boards or the corner for the banned.
I think it’s high time we pinned Lutarez’s thread back up. The insult from slybison8 so we can stop wasting our breath on these trivial distractions.

Just to add my two cents: once this settles, it’ll be the same old story, just like it’s been countless times before—a swarm of clueless kids and mindless parrots parroting politics, regurgitating the same hateful rhetoric against Americans and non-Americans, complete with all those recycled, loaded arguments pulled straight from some obscure pamphlets, and they’ll keep doing it until the end of time, while the actual thinkers are still left searching under a magnifying glass for any shred of sense.

To drive the point home, let me give you a recent example of exactly what we’ve been pointing out over and over again.

So... a few weeks back, I was venting about a truly, absolutely hilarious piece of trash

And now, out of nowhere, I see this brand new thread from slybison8 with two posts:

Which, according to the same logic Sam Green73 was defending, really should have been flagged.

Or maybe not? 🤷😁

There are endless examples like this; it's definitely not an isolated incident.
And no, we aren't talking about simple oversights or accidental misses, nor are we talking about a frantic enforcement of certain questionable rules.
This is something else entirely, something a lot of us on the forum have called out numerous times already.

I mean, it’s probably nothing major, but it certainly gives some people a certain kind of joy. 🤷😁

mellowraven22 said:Nah, you don't need to. I took a look at the thread and honestly, I don't see any issue here. Personally, I’ve got nothing against things getting a little heated, as long as people actually have an argument to back it up. Besides, both you and slybison8 are top-tier users on this board—and I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm intended—your posts are always a blast to read. Yeah, you might throw a sharp jab at each other once in a while, but I don't think it's a big deal. It’d be nicer if we could skip the toxicity, sure, but if I have to choose between a high-quality debate that gets a bit salty or some polite, boring conversation that's just plain stupid, I'm picking the first one every single time.

Look, when a topic starts blowing up like crazy, the posts just pile up way too fast for any Moderator to actually keep up with. It gets messy. In those cases, sometimes we just gotta lock the thread for a bit—just a temporary shutdown to clear out the junk, do some basic cleanup, and get everything back in order before we open it back up again.

Complaining about how many of your own posts you quote doesn't really count here, wouldn't you agree? 🙂 Look, I'm not against intense debate either, but if every single discussion about San Francisco just devolves into people calling their civilized opponents Americans, thugs, communists, or all sorts of other unconstructive insults—then we aren't having a heated debate. We're just wading through incredibly boring, useless garbage. And if a Moderator steps in without being able to tell the difference between a solid point and a personal attack, then we're just multiplying that garbage. Right?

James Diaz8 said:Watching Tyler Grant76 try to play the Isusek role while acting like some fragile little princess is honestly exhausting; if you’ve spent more than five minutes paying attention to the political landscape here, you know the whole thing is pure nonsense, and honestly, if she actually spelled out what she meant, I’m pretty sure she’d be banned before she could finish her thought.

I feel like I’m just repeating myself at this point, whether we’re talking about the main boards or the corner for the banned.
I think it’s high time we pinned Lutarez’s thread back up. The insult from slybison8 so we can stop wasting our breath on these trivial distractions.

Just to add my two cents: once this settles, it’ll be the same old story, just like it’s been countless times before—a swarm of clueless kids and mindless parrots parroting politics, regurgitating the same hateful rhetoric against Americans and non-Americans, complete with all those recycled, loaded arguments pulled straight from some obscure pamphlets, and they’ll keep doing it until the end of time, while the actual thinkers are still left searching under a magnifying glass for any shred of sense.

To drive the point home, let me give you a recent example of exactly what we’ve been pointing out over and over again.

So... a few weeks back, I was venting about a truly, absolutely hilarious piece of trash

And now, out of nowhere, I see this brand new thread from slybison8 with two posts:

Which, according to the same logic Sam Green73 was defending, really should have been flagged.

Or maybe not? 🤷😁

There are endless examples like this; it's definitely not an isolated incident.
And no, we aren't talking about simple oversights or accidental misses, nor are we talking about a frantic enforcement of certain questionable rules.
This is something else entirely, something a lot of us on the forum have called out numerous times already.

I mean, it’s probably nothing major, but it certainly gives some people a certain kind of joy. 🤷😁

Do you actually have any idea how many of your own posts—and everyone else's, for that matter—slip right past without a single consequence, even when they clearly break the rules?

Look, I don't just hand out bans just because I feel like it.

Paul Green31 said:@Tyler Grant76

If my habit of calling out people who "spin" things or twist facts bothers you so much, here's a tip: go read some fluff pieces on a lifestyle blog instead. Maybe find a sub-forum meant for lonely hearts and sensitive souls. That seems more your speed.

Calling out distortions is perfectly normal in political discourse. If we start banning people from pointing out when someone else is twisting the truth—especially when they back it up with actual evidence—then this whole politics section is going to be a ghost town.

By the way, I’ve noticed a sudden wave of attacks against slybison8. It's pretty obvious his views are rubbing some people the wrong way. Apparently, it’s "unacceptable" to them that a Moderator on the Politics board isn't affiliated with the HNS, doesn't scrub posts in the thread about Josipovic, and chooses to express clear political opinions rather than just policing the board.

Just a friendly reminder: we live in a democracy where people are allowed to have opinions.

If his opinion is that your arguments are nothing more than blatant fabrications—and he provides proof to show why—who is this "super-admin" or god-tier moderator that's going to step in and stop him?

The whole point of a forum is the clash of ideas and the decent discussion that comes from it.
The days when you couldn't call out someone for claiming Marshall was a legend, or for using lines like what Balasevic calls "the greatest beast of our nations," are long gone. Technology brought forums into our lives and changed everything. We've moved into an era where liars can try to twist things, but everyone else has every right to call them out on it.

So, quit trying to play "protect the princess" and actually join the fight with logic. Let the readers decide who's lying and who's spinning. Defend yourself with solid arguments instead of cheap insults or trying to defame someone just because they told you your dad is bigger than yours.

And leave slybison8 alone. He's one of the few guys on this forum whose recent posts I actually bother to read. And from what I hear, I'm not the only one. Given how certain newspapers have a habit of lifting his posts and publishing them under their own names, it seems pretty silly to attack a guy who clearly reaches a much larger audience than the people he's calling out for lying.

Do yourself a favor: try using some real reasoning and see if you can reach that level.

All The Best

Instead, we mostly just see people attacking the Moderator and making personal jabs at him on these threads. Instead of. His statements or his stances. 😉

Does "Ay Carmela" bother you? Is this the original text? Oh, for heaven's sake, the paranoia is real. 🤣
You certainly picked quite a topic to be ashamed of.👍 It’s a blessing that democracy offers us so many choices.

Moderator, please focus. These kinds of "us versus them" categorizations are completely pointless for several reasons.

Look, I don't feel like getting into a fight with the Moderators. I just want to apologize to you for making such broad, inaccurate generalizations about San Francisco.

It seems like there’s been a sudden surge in aggressive trolling lately—mostly people acting out in the LGBTQ+ threads. It’s become quite predictable: they resort to the same old personal insults and targeted harassment, always aimed directly at Powerlock, of course.😁

And then, naturally, this whole thing just ends in an anticlimax.🙏🙏

I'm loving it. What are those people who keep bragging actually thinking? When it comes to landmarks like Isusek, they clearly don't realize just how much incredible wealth they're living on and enjoying. Ungrateful, blind, pathetic fools—people with no identity and absolutely no roots..

Are those people really going to act all high and mighty just because of that Isusek statue? It was clearly aimed at a few of us on that thread who were joking around about how a potential statue on Marjan would become a major tourist attraction. In reality, it was a bit of a dig at me, since the post being replied to featured my own comment about it becoming a "tourist attraction."

That's all I have to say about that.☕ Sometimes it feels like people are just taking advantage of the good intentions of the Politics moderators, especially PL, because Liso has spent way too much time relentlessly trolling... only to act like they're "outraged" afterward. It's ridiculous.

mellowraven22 said:Nah, you don't need to. I took a look at the thread and honestly, I don't see any issue here. Personally, I’ve got nothing against things getting a little heated, as long as people actually have an argument to back it up. Besides, both you and slybison8 are top-tier users on this board—and I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm intended—your posts are always a blast to read. Yeah, you might throw a sharp jab at each other once in a while, but I don't think it's a big deal. It’d be nicer if we could skip the toxicity, sure, but if I have to choose between a high-quality debate that gets a bit salty or some polite, boring conversation that's just plain stupid, I'm picking the first one every single time.

Look, when a topic starts blowing up like crazy, the posts just pile up way too fast for any Moderator to actually keep up with. It gets messy. In those cases, sometimes we just gotta lock the thread for a bit—just a temporary shutdown to clear out the junk, do some basic cleanup, and get everything back in order before we open it back up again.

I don't think you actually addressed my specific point regarding the types of threads I'm talking about:

PL has abandoned all standards and is handing out warnings based on nothing but personal vendettvas... It is glaringly obvious that PL cannot handle even the slightest hint of criticism regarding his conduct. Specifically, he opened this thread under the guise of asking what we would do if we were handed $185 million...

And... Dear Kevin Gonzalez79,

You have received an infraction at Forum.hr.

Reason: Violation of forum rules
-------
Commenting on moderation outside of official channels
-------

This infraction is worth 30 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

Quote:
I would call Anderlon, buy Forum.hr, and resolve some issues with the political moderators. The rest would be invested in developing renewable energy sources.
All the best,

The politics section has gone completely to hell alongside Powerlock. If you haven't noticed, all the veteran users—from Revke to MC Ozzy and Adler—have migrated to a different forum...

PL does an excellent job moderating the World section, and frankly, he deserves credit for that. He stays well-informed about global affairs, which is clear because he doesn't live in the US; let’s be honest, our local media outlets provide pathetic coverage of international events unless something reaches a level of extreme importance.

However, Powerlock has completely detached himself from domestic affairs. He views them through a telescope from the United Kingdom (in fact, he once mentioned he’s fed up with the US, which was his reason for leaving). Because he isn't physically present, he simply cannot grasp the public pulse through the media or even via this forum. When it comes to domestic topics—especially those where he engages in debate—he is incredibly biased and uninformed, having lived in the UK for 15 years.

Global diplomacy rotates diplomats every four years for this exact reason: to prevent them from becoming detached from their home country or becoming too cozy with the host nation. After a four-year term, every diplomat returns to their homeland for at least two years before accepting a new mission. I believe we should implement a similar rule for moderators handling domestic politics. If we don't, we will see further fragmentation and users migrating to other forums due to the heavy lack of objectivity from the PL moderator, who is clearly disillusioned with the US anyway.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:PL does an excellent job moderating the World section, and frankly, he deserves credit for that. He stays well-informed about global affairs, which is clear because he doesn't live in the US; let’s be honest, our local media outlets provide pathetic coverage of international events unless something reaches a level of extreme importance.

However, Powerlock has completely detached himself from domestic affairs. He views them through a telescope from the United Kingdom (in fact, he once mentioned he’s fed up with the US, which was his reason for leaving). Because he isn't physically present, he simply cannot grasp the public pulse through the media or even via this forum. When it comes to domestic topics—especially those where he engages in debate—he is incredibly biased and uninformed, having lived in the UK for 15 years.

Global diplomacy rotates diplomats every four years for this exact reason: to prevent them from becoming detached from their home country or becoming too cozy with the host nation. After a four-year term, every diplomat returns to their homeland for at least two years before accepting a new mission. I believe we should implement a similar rule for moderators handling domestic politics. If we don't, we will see further fragmentation and users migrating to other forums due to the heavy lack of objectivity from the PL moderator, who is clearly disillusioned with the US anyway.

This line of reasoning is on par with the famous: 'atheists shouldn't moderate the Religion or Spirituality subforums'—it's a somewhat nonsensical "argument," and frankly, quite rude.

Does being an atheist actually impact one's ability to judge what constitutes trolling, a violation of subforum rules, or who is a troll versus a clone? Or does one's personal worldview somehow imply a bias against believers or a lack of knowledge regarding the subjects discussed in those subforums? Those who claim atheists shouldn't moderate religious sections clearly believe that they do.

It seems to me you are making a similar claim here regarding the moderation of Politics; you are using the same (strange) criteria to measure competence or suitability.