Disgraceful moderator behavior on The Edge

I am filing this report, though perhaps not so much to trigger an official complaint, but rather to ensure the general readership—those silent observers who lurk without ever participating—understands how those calling themselves "the moderation team" actually behave toward users. It is frankly appalling to see the uncivilized, vulgar language and outright insults they direct at people. Beyond that, I want to address their fundamental approach to their roles: the arbitrary deletion of posts they deem inconvenient, the punishing of users simply for expressing viewpoints, and the systematic censorship of almost any topic where ideological factions clash. This is meant to be a forum for debate, yet whenever there is even a hint of criticism regarding the current liberal-green coalition, the censors step in. It has become painfully obvious that certain moderators act as political activists. Whether acting on their own whims or following orders from political mentors, their mission seems to be deleting, censoring, and steering discussions to ensure that any argument not aligned with "they are perfect" is suppressed. By silencing dissenting voices from various corners of the web, they are actively distorting reality to present a version of events that simply does not exist.

Take a look at the way some of these moderators speak to the community.

trolls

f*** off - pieces of shit - you snitched on Mexicans as comparisons

Uncivilized, vulgar, anti-social, and demonstrating a profound lack of basic decency.

You forgot to mention that I'm transgender.

I don't even need to exert myself here; I appreciate the help.

QED

Kevin Hughes2 said:I am filing this report, though perhaps not so much to trigger an official complaint, but rather to ensure the general readership—those silent observers who lurk without ever participating—understands how those calling themselves "the moderation team" actually behave toward users. It is frankly appalling to see the uncivilized, vulgar language and outright insults they direct at people. Beyond that, I want to address their fundamental approach to their roles: the arbitrary deletion of posts they deem inconvenient, the punishing of users simply for expressing viewpoints, and the systematic censorship of almost any topic where ideological factions clash. This is meant to be a forum for debate, yet whenever there is even a hint of criticism regarding the current liberal-green coalition, the censors step in. It has become painfully obvious that certain moderators act as political activists. Whether acting on their own whims or following orders from political mentors, their mission seems to be deleting, censoring, and steering discussions to ensure that any argument not aligned with "they are perfect" is suppressed. By silencing dissenting voices from various corners of the web, they are actively distorting reality to present a version of events that simply does not exist.

Take a look at the way some of these moderators speak to the community.

trolls

f*** off - pieces of shit - you snitched on Mexicans as comparisons

Uncivilized, vulgar, anti-social, and demonstrating a profound lack of basic decency.

And look at that—they only delete the posts they find offensive.
Meanwhile, not a single one of those troll posts from Antilles gets taken down. That guy is all over every single thread, downplaying everything and insulting anyone who doesn't share his views.

Honestly, I think Ryan Vaughn7 is one of the absolute best mods on this entire forum.

I get his logic... he thinks Trump is a joke, yet he isn't even particularly outraged by the Democrats—I’m not even sure he buys everything they do, but basically, he views them as the "good guys" regardless of how things shake out.

And then he gets annoyed when nobody is dropping dead from shock over the attacks on Trump.

But we aren't falling unconscious—just like we don't fall unconscious every time some nonsense breaks out on the political stage or in the news.

He’s spent more energy obsessing over Trump than actually looking at what’s going on in Zambia.

I just think people went overboard cheering for the Democrats this time around—everyone lost their compass because they're being asked to do something they were never asked to do before... wait for the verdict.

For God's sake, where would we be if we always waited for verdicts? Besides, since when has a court ruling ever stopped someone from trashing a person or a politician, no matter what the judge eventually decides?

Amanda Hughes37 said:I get his logic... he thinks Trump is a joke, yet he isn't even particularly outraged by the Democrats—I’m not even sure he buys everything they do, but basically, he views them as the "good guys" regardless of how things shake out.

And then he gets annoyed when nobody is dropping dead from shock over the attacks on Trump.

But we aren't falling unconscious—just like we don't fall unconscious every time some nonsense breaks out on the political stage or in the news.

He’s spent more energy obsessing over Trump than actually looking at what’s going on in Zambia.

I just think people went overboard cheering for the Democrats this time around—everyone lost their compass because they're being asked to do something they were never asked to do before... wait for the verdict.

For God's sake, where would we be if we always waited for verdicts? Besides, since when has a court ruling ever stopped someone from trashing a person or a politician, no matter what the judge eventually decides?

Well, you have a point, Trump is just a wonderful human being.🤣

The issue is Ryan Vaughn7... Meh.

I have even heard whispers that Ryan Vaughn7 sports an earring, listens to nothing but foreign music, and isn't exactly a stranger to a cocktail or two.

Furthermore, one should consider that he did not enter into marriage as a completely innocent soul. ☕

Tyler Vaughn7 said:Well, you have a point, Trump is just a wonderful human being.🤣

The issue is Ryan Vaughn7... Meh.

What on earth does this post even have to do with anything?

graniteharbor502 said:I have even heard whispers that Ryan Vaughn7 sports an earring, listens to nothing but foreign music, and isn't exactly a stranger to a cocktail or two.

Furthermore, one should consider that he did not enter into marriage as a completely innocent soul. ☕

I don't even need to exert myself here; I appreciate you all confirming everything that's been said.

QED

Kevin Hughes2 said:I am filing this report, though perhaps not so much to trigger an official complaint, but rather to ensure the general readership—those silent observers who lurk without ever participating—understands how those calling themselves "the moderation team" actually behave toward users. It is frankly appalling to see the uncivilized, vulgar language and outright insults they direct at people. Beyond that, I want to address their fundamental approach to their roles: the arbitrary deletion of posts they deem inconvenient, the punishing of users simply for expressing viewpoints, and the systematic censorship of almost any topic where ideological factions clash. This is meant to be a forum for debate, yet whenever there is even a hint of criticism regarding the current liberal-green coalition, the censors step in. It has become painfully obvious that certain moderators act as political activists. Whether acting on their own whims or following orders from political mentors, their mission seems to be deleting, censoring, and steering discussions to ensure that any argument not aligned with "they are perfect" is suppressed. By silencing dissenting voices from various corners of the web, they are actively distorting reality to present a version of events that simply does not exist.

Take a look at the way some of these moderators speak to the community.

trolls

f*** off - pieces of shit - you snitched on Mexicans as comparisons

Uncivilized, vulgar, anti-social, and demonstrating a profound lack of basic decency.

I think you missed the mark slightly on that definition.
On certain threads, the whole goal is just to blow the same horn over and over—don't deviate, don't have a different opinion, just stick to the agenda... I mean, specifically on certain topics. That's why I usually just stay away from those threads entirely.

Nicholas Barnes74 said:I think you missed the mark slightly on that definition.
On certain threads, the whole goal is just to blow the same horn over and over—don't deviate, don't have a different opinion, just stick to the agenda... I mean, specifically on certain topics. That's why I usually just stay away from those threads entirely.

What you’re describing is a reality manufactured by political activists who find genuine debate foreign to their nature. When they lack the actual arguments to win a fight, they resort to the easy way out: deleting, banning, or scrubbing anyone they can't match intellectually or socially. It’s much easier for them to just hit the "delete" or "ban" button than to face a superior argument. It is quite telling how their favorite pastime has become hiding behind the skirts of the ruling establishment. It shows how seamlessly they merge with the powers that be; on certain issues, you can barely tell where the activists end and the administration begins. They adopt the same modus operandi, the same perception, and the same hostile attitude toward anyone they perceive as a threat simply because those people refuse to parrot their "correct" opinions. In their eyes, there is only one truth, and any deviation from it is treated as a punishable offense.

But the true purpose of a forum should be something else entirely, shouldn't it?

Take a recent example: a few days ago, they suddenly took issue with the phrase "engaging in child trafficking," which is common colloquialism in these discussions. Instead, they insist on the precise wording "they are accused of attempting child trafficking" (though they’d likely prefer to omit even that, if they could, since there hasn't been an actual conviction yet).

Let’s not forget how these very same individuals—by name, surname, and handle—spent years hurling all sorts of labels at various politicians, whether they were under indictment or not, guilty or innocent. To them, being "accused" was always enough to justify the vitriol.

If we were to start pulling up old posts, we would find plenty of hypocrisy from these exact same people, but suddenly, that level of rhetoric is a problem.

It is crystal clear why. This is political activism in its most degenerate form.

The most tragic part of it all is that, in their perceived impotence, they believe they are helping their political faction, when in reality, they are doing the exact opposite—inflicting significant damage upon it.

I honestly can't find any fault with how Ryan Vaughn7 handled himself here. He was calling Govnet a piece of trash, not attacking the actual forum member, so even that part of his comment isn't really up for debate.

Amanda Hughes37 said:I get his logic... he thinks Trump is a joke, yet he isn't even particularly outraged by the Democrats—I’m not even sure he buys everything they do, but basically, he views them as the "good guys" regardless of how things shake out.

And then he gets annoyed when nobody is dropping dead from shock over the attacks on Trump.

But we aren't falling unconscious—just like we don't fall unconscious every time some nonsense breaks out on the political stage or in the news.

He’s spent more energy obsessing over Trump than actually looking at what’s going on in Zambia.

I just think people went overboard cheering for the Democrats this time around—everyone lost their compass because they're being asked to do something they were never asked to do before... wait for the verdict.

For God's sake, where would we be if we always waited for verdicts? Besides, since when has a court ruling ever stopped someone from trashing a person or a politician, no matter what the judge eventually decides?

Katherine, look, I've been on this forum for twenty years. You've been here a bit less, and we know each other pretty well. Am I seriously having to explain to you after all this time that condemning Trumpian behavior isn't the same thing as supporting human trafficking? Isn't the whole situation regarding the questionable adoption of children from the Congo problematic enough on its own, without Trump's nonsense? Do we really need to attack sexual minorities just to argue that the situation is bad?

Trump is potentially evil. Luckily, in his vanity and narcissism, he doesn't try to hide it. One day he'll go off on chemtrails, the next on the Masons, then quack doctors, then transgender people, then something else entirely. He usually ends up looking ridiculous, but every now and then he actually causes harm because he drags along idiots who are just itching to pick fights with various minorities. Bujanec has already jumped on that bandwagon. So has Fox News.

You don't need that loser, nor do you need the likes of Bujančev or Markićnik, acting as useful idiots to argue that the story from the Congo needs to be sorted out. There is plenty of material to work with even without them.
And those users who say they find Trump disgusting—either bluntly like me, or more subtly—they aren't saying it because they're traffickers in waiting. They say it because they genuinely can't stand the guy.

Any user is allowed to have an opinion on any public figure. You're even allowed a curse word or two here; that was settled long ago, no matter how much NoDirectionHome fumes about it. By the way, it's an interesting take to suggest it's somehow dirtier to write a swear word on a forum than it is to target sexual minorities in places where it could actually ruin their lives.

What you can't do, however, is slap a label on a user just because they hold a certain view on a public figure. That protection applies to both the regular users and the moderators.

Anyway, Katherine, have it your way.