Double Standards

Alright, so, like the title says, we’re gonna have a little chat about double standards—you know, that classic move where there’s one set of rules for the moderators and a completely different, much harsher set for us regular folks.

So, let's see what's actually going on here...

Last night, around 9:32 PM, this supermoderator guy "the edge" decided to reply to my post where I mentioned—among other things—that it isn't really classy to call Zeljko Markic the embodiment of pure evil. Well, he responded with these exact words:

It’s not an aesthetic thing. She is evil. Probably sexually compatible with Hell.

Now, according to YOUR own rulebook, writing something like that is what we call—classic trolling. A textbook example of trolling! Look, I don't care if someone calls Zeljko Markic pure evil; honestly, it just says more about them than anything else, but I have a massive problem when someone drops something totally out of context—like suggesting who Zeljko Markic might be sexually compatible with. But hey, I guess that’s "perfectly on topic," right? Why did he write it? Who knows, maybe he was just venting some frustration, but I’m not going to dive into his psyche.

So, in a discussion about Zeljko Markic, this guy writes—and I quote—"probably sexually compatible with Hell." If I were to post something even remotely like that, he, his clone, or their buddy KLCCLK would slap me with a ban instantly. Seriously, I’ve taken hits for "trolling" for way less than this, so believe me, I’m speaking from experience. It wouldn't have lasted five minutes before getting sanctioned if this had been written by me or any other regular user. If I went into a thread about, say, Vesna Pusic and claimed she was pure evil and probably sexually compatible with ____ (whoever), we all know exactly how the mods would react.

Therefore, since clearly this kind of stuff is allowed—because it obviously wasn't sanctioned (and I DID send a private message to another supermoderator reporting it, so nobody can pretend they didn't see it!) and that post—where someone rambles about sexual compatibility totally out of nowhere—wasn't deleted, I've decided on my next move. Following the very same scale you guys established for this level, I am now going to start writing about who people are "sexually compatible" with in every single thread. For instance, in a thread about Vesna Pusic, I'll just mention she's probably sexually compatible with her own brother, or something like that.

I'll say it again: we're talking about the scale YOU created, the criteria YOU adopted and since you claim that the same rules should apply to everyone, I’m going to start using this same style of writing everywhere. Let's see if the rules truly apply to everyone here, or if there's a special VIP pass for moderators participating in debates compared to the rest of us users.

Latest update... 😁

So, naturally, the post from the edge was nuked—bam, gone instantly. It’s the classic move when you run out of actual arguments, or better yet, when you just want to pretend the post never even existed in the first place. Where’d it go? Poof!

And look, don't go thinking I'm just making stuff up here—I’ve got that post saved, and I have the screenshots ready to upload whenever I feel like it, just so there's zero confusion about what actually happened.

Basically, instead of facing real logic, we get this lightning-fast deletion of a post that, right up until I started this thread, wasn't even controversial by any stretch of the imagination.

Seriously though, why did the mods wait UNTIL NOW to scrub that post? I specifically flagged it to another super-mod earlier, who told me at the time there was no need to step in (and if anyone wants proof, I can happily quote him word-for-word), and I'm positive that clone-mod lady saw it at the latest this afternoon when she dropped her own comment on the thread.

So why was that post perfectly fine for all this time, only to suddenly be wiped away now for some inexplicable reason? It's like they're trying to scrub every single trace of it so regular users won't see that such a garbage post was ever sitting there in the first place.

But hey, like I said, I'm not the one playing games here... the evidence is filed away and just waiting for my signal.

Joseph Stewart38 said:So, during this debate about Zeljko Markic, someone actually wrote—and I quote—that he’s "probably sexually compatible with Hell." If I ever dared to post something like that, he, his clone, or their buddy lonebadger6 would slap me with a ban before I could even finish the sentence...

I wouldn't dare.

If I were to go onto a thread about, say, Vesna Pusić, and claim she was pure evil or likely sexually compatible with ____(whoever), we all know exactly how the moderators would react.

Hard to say...

Fine then, from now on, following the standard you've set for this level of discourse, I'll just stick to mentioning who the subjects of these threads are apparently sexually compatible with. For instance, on a thread about Vesna Pusić, I might suggest she's probably sexually compatible with her own brother.

And you'll get 500 points for it, though I won't bother explaining why; if you can't grasp the distinction, or are simply pretending you can't, then there's really nothing the moderation team can do to help you...

Besides, you don't actually need to understand everything. The forum has its rules, and as long as you follow them, that's what matters—so, if you say Vesna Pusić is sexually compatible with Hell, you won't get banned by me, but if you say she's compatible with her brother, you'll earn 500 points. You don't have to figure out the logic behind it, nor am I obligated to walk you through it. You asked, so there you go, now you know how the game is played...

Joseph Stewart38 said:Latest update... 😁

Naturally, the post from the edge was deleted—swiftly, due to a lack of arguments, or perhaps one could say: what post? Where is it? Poof, gone.

But don't go thinking I've lost my marbles; I have that post saved, and the screenshot is ready to be uploaded whenever necessary, just so there's no confusion.

So, instead of actual reasoning, we get the rapid deletion of a post that, until this thread was opened, wasn't controversial in the slightest.

Why did the moderators wait UNTIL NOW to pull that post, even though I reported it to a super-moderator who at the time felt no reaction was needed (I can quote him if required), and even though the clone moderator surely saw it by this afternoon at the latest when she posted on that thread?

Why was that post perfectly fine all this time, only to be moved now for some inexplicable reason, apparently to scrub any trace of it so regular users won't see such an awful post ever existed?

But as I said, we aren't the ones being foolish... the evidence is filed away and waiting on command.

If you’re referring to me, there's no need to relay my words back to you from our PM, because you won't find the logic you've fabricated by claiming I told you directly that no reaction was necessary. You are free to forward our correspondence to the admin, Nice, for her review.

It isn't right to rely on falsehoods; check my other PM and read what your colleague wrote to you, and you'll see we both essentially said the same thing.

As for why the post was deleted or who did it, that simply isn't your concern; it's our job, not yours. You did your part by reporting it, and we have done ours.

Regards.