CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Complaint against moderator - Uncle Sam

Complaint against moderator - Uncle Sam

Started by Bradley Sanders4 · · 👁 4 views · 9 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Bradley Sanders4dustyranger64Sean Cook2Daniel Ward87
Bradley Sanders4 Bradley Sanders4 Active MemberOP
108 messages
joined Jul 2018
#1 ·
Since some people are hell-bent on turning this whole thing into a debate about me and my trading cards, let’s just pivot to a new topic entirely. I want to know if it's actually off-limits to say that the tone over on the UN subforum is basically infantile and chauvinistic. If it's "not allowed," then I want to know exactly why. You only need to glance at that section to see that most posts consist of people thinking they're hilarious by leaning into tired old stereotypes about women. It's a plain fact. I'm just acknowledging reality here, and honestly, I don't even bother stepping foot in a subforum that literally advertises itself as being full of verbal sexism and total chaos in the USA. If it's okay to say, then I'd love to hear by what authority a moderator can threaten someone just for making that observation.

I ate a green pine tree, please hurry with an answer.
Bradley Sanders4 Bradley Sanders4 Active MemberOP
108 messages
joined Jul 2018
#2 ·
Look, I’m not actually trying to pick a fight with the mods here, but I honestly didn't see any other way to get a straight answer without starting a thread about how people get shut down. It feels like any real question just gets dodged by hiding behind technicalities—people tell me I’m being "off," that I’m trolling, that I’m posting in the wrong sub-forum, or that my topic doesn't belong in a section dedicated to card collecting.

So, let's just get to it. Is it fair to call the UN an infantile, chauvinistic joke? And if it isn't, then why the hell is it off-limits to say?
dustyranger64 dustyranger64 Active Member
76 messages
joined Jan 2008
#3 ·
1. Look, if you're complaining about getting a ban, then the whole conversation is really just about you and your ban.
2. That wasn't a threat, it was just a heads-up. Daniel Ward87 has the authority to hand out bans right then and there, so there’s zero need for threats.

3. By that logic, it’s totally fine to say that women are acting stupid, backwards, and infantile by obsessing over male stereotypes in the women's section—basically implying the women posting there are just clueless old ladies.

I mean, look at the PDF subheadings: "we're just old ladies," "pointless topics," and the main title is basically "The Henhouse"—and we all know hens aren't exactly known for their intellect. Everything about it is just as childish as the posts themselves.

So, using that same logic, I could spend all day rambling across this entire forum about how I'm "granting women the privilege to act stupid, infantile, and backwards while pushing their female-centric feminism in that PDF section."

The user was just warned (not even banned!) that her tone wasn't the most appropriate, and we even explained why afterward.
Bradley Sanders4 Bradley Sanders4 Active MemberOP
108 messages
joined Jul 2018
#4 ·
1. So, I finally got a response regarding my account status, but I’m laying out the rest of my questions here since this whole mess started because of that initial warning and the appeal.

2. Look, let’s call it what it is: it wasn't a threat, it was a warning. But why issue a warning if the observation itself isn't even punishable? And if it *is* against the rules, since when, and by what logic? Does any rulebook actually state that you can't share an opinion on topics that dominate a specific subforum?

3. As for comparing things to the NAACP, go ahead and write that. Unlike the UN, most of the discussions over there aren't built on exaggerating gender stereotypes just to mock men—though, granted, some of that happens too. It’s also full of ridiculous, childish posts, endless chat clutter, mindless babble, and piles of gossip. Why should it be a violation to point out that's exactly what it is?

4. Yeah, if we're going by that logic, you can say it. Even if it weren't true—which it is—I don't see one single reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion.
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 Member
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#5 ·
dustyranger64 said:The user was simply cautioned—not even sanctioned—that her tone wasn't quite appropriate, and she was later given an explanation as to why.

Since I’m apparently the subject of discussion here, I assume I’m allowed to weigh in—considering my thread was locked while I was away.

Honestly, I’m almost speechless.

I find it hard—actually, impossible—to believe I'm facing a ban just for calling out male chauvinism as "infantile." It seems someone felt the need to step up and defend his honor.

And what else is there to conclude? Apparently, on this forum, you're permitted to say:

"If you don't agree with me, you're stupid and malicious."

Though, I suspect saying that in the masculine gender might be against the rules. I'll test it out and let you know.

EDIT:
If anyone looks at my posts with a level head, they'll see only one thing. To put it simply:

Someone called another person "stupid and malicious" over in Politics without any consequences. You used to be able to talk like that anywhere on the forum, but nowadays—optimistically speaking—it seems only permissible in the UN, which has become a breeding ground for chauvinism. In this case, the adjective "infantile" was used as a personal opinion toward that specific individual, not the people writing there. The kind of insult that goes unpunished in the UN ( EXAMPLE) shouldn't be tolerated anywhere else and really ought to be sanctioned.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#6 ·
I think there’s been a massive misunderstanding here.

I'm going to quote the specific part of the post that triggered my response.

"I'll leave it to the guys to practice their infantile male chauvinism there, but I don't think he belongs in other subforums."

What Nancy Johnson17 isn't seeing is that by saying this, she’s basically calling Cuka an infantile chauvinist. And it doesn't stop there—she's labeling everyone posting there. She even goes as far as calling the UN forum a breeding ground for male chauvinism. People have already talked about the vibe over at the UN, which is why there's actually a link for "women's rights in the US" right there.

The UN forum is its own unique beast, much like the Women's Forum. You'll find plenty of verbal banter and ribbing there, but that doesn't mean the people posting are actual chauvinists. The UN is primarily a place for good-natured, masculine joking around. Plenty of women post there too, and they lean into that "verbal chauvinism" just for the laughs. Sure, sometimes it pushes the envelope, but for the most part, it stays within the realm of harmless fun.

Also, let me be clear—I don't go around threatening people with bans. I give warnings, and if those don't work, then I issue the ban. I don't do threats. I simply mentioned that Nancy Johnson17 shouldn't be surprised if she ends up getting a strike herself. While I have the authority to hand out bans on the spot, I usually leave that to the NAACP moderators because we believe in teamwork. But I've been a mod long enough to know how things play out. Honestly, I don't care what you call different types of chauvinism, but I do care when people start slapping labels on others based on one isolated incident.

Thirdly, if someone can't handle the specific brand of humor found on the UN forum—which almost all the women who post there seem perfectly fine with—then they probably shouldn't be hanging out there in the first place.
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 Member
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#7 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:I think my point was taken quite the wrong way here.

I’ll quote the specific part of the post that prompted my response.

"I'll leave the guys to enjoy their infantile male chauvinism there, but I don't think it belongs in the other subforums."

What Nancy Johnson17 failed to realize is that by making this comment, she essentially labeled Cuka an infantile chauvinist—and by extension, everyone posting there. She actually goes a step further, labeling the UN forum as a breeding ground for male chauvinism. There's already been plenty of discussion regarding the UN and its culture, which is why there's even a link to "women's rights in the US" right there.

The UN is a unique space, much like the Women's Forum. Verbal chauvinism pops up there frequently, but that doesn't mean the people posting are actual chauvinists. The UN is primarily a place for good-natured, masculine banter. Plenty of women post there and embrace that "verbal chauvinism" as just part of the fun. Sure, it occasionally crosses a line, but generally, it stays within the realm of harmless entertainment.

Furthermore, let me be clear—I don't make threats regarding bans. I issue warnings, and if those fail, then I issue the ban. I don't do threats. I simply suggested that Nancy Johnson17 shouldn't be surprised if she receives one herself. While I have the authority to issue a ban on the spot, I prefer to leave that to the NAACP moderators out of professional courtesy. However, I've been a moderator long enough to know how things play out. I couldn't care less about the labels being thrown around—male or otherwise—but I do care when people start handing out labels based on a single isolated incident.

Thirdly, if someone can't handle the vibe at the UN—which almost all the women who post there seem perfectly fine with—then perhaps they shouldn't visit that section at all.

Nancy Johnson17's argument was that such comments shouldn't be tolerated in Politics, that moderators should punish them, and that they shouldn't be treated as normal there like they are in the UN, where, incidentally, Cuka is a moderator. Just because Cuka was mentioned, she believes the standards from the UN shouldn't apply to Politics.

The explanation provided by Cuka is offensive to me, as I remained within the bounds of decent behavior while the other party did not.

I was actually saying that I'll let the guys have their fun if that's what they enjoy. I didn't deny them that right, even though I could have. I’ve certainly laughed at certain threads myself—though, I still find the whole thing rather infantile.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#8 ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:What Nancy Johnson17 was getting at is that those kinds of comments shouldn't be tolerated in Politics. The mods should be handing out penalties instead of letting them slide like they do over on UN, where, by the way, Daniel Ward87 is a moderator. I’m only mentioning Daniel Ward87 to point out that the standards used on UN just don't apply here in Politics.

The explanation Daniel Ward87 gave feels like a slap in the face because I stayed within the lines of being respectful, while the other person definitely didn't.

You've got a point. The rules from UN don't carry weight in Politics since they're basically polar opposites.

That said, if you want to play hardball with the rulebook, we can.

Option A.
The person who called you stupid or malicious could get a strike for being insulting—because, let's face it, they were.

But if we go that route, you're looking at two strikes yourself. One for implying there's some infantile male chauvinism that Daniel Ward87 should be policing over on UN, which basically brands him one too. The second would be for insulting the UN crowd by calling their subforum a breeding ground for chauvinists, effectively labeling everyone there as such. They aren't. You're just stating your opinion, just like the person you're calling out, but if we're being strict sticklers for the rules, both sides get penalized.

Option B.

Nobody gets punished.

Which way are we going? Because I'm not going to let this back-and-forth drag on forever.
Sean Cook2 Sean Cook2 Member
46 messages
joined Oct 2006
#9 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:You've got a point. The standards used over at the UN don't really apply here on Politics—they're essentially two different worlds.

Look, if you want to play by the book, we can certainly insist on following the rules.

Option A.
Anyone who claims you're being stupid or malicious could technically receive a warning for insults—because, strictly speaking, they are.

The catch is, you’d end up with two warnings yourself. One for implying an infantile male chauvinism that Cuka should be practicing over at the UN—which suggests he shares those exact traits. The second would be for insulting the users at the UN by labeling the whole place a breeding ground for chauvinists—effectively calling everyone there one. They aren't. You’re just stating your opinion, much like the person you're calling out, but if we’re sticking to the letter of the law, both sides are liable.

Option B.

Nobody gets penalized.

Which will it be? Because I won't allow this back-and-forth to drag on indefinitely.

I'll go with Option A.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#10 ·
Nancy Johnson17 said:I'm going with option A.

A. thanks. 🙂

Case closed.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads