Inquiry - PDF Television Network

I would appreciate it if someone from administration (referring to the television network PDF, though any relevant guideline will do since the issue is universal) could clarify whether this specific style of posting and commenting is permitted under our rules, or if it constitutes a violation subject to sanctions:

From my perspective, the entire post is nothing more than a blatant ad hominem attack—derisive, insulting, and entirely devoid of substance. There isn't a single constructive thought to be found, not even a well-reasoned critique; it is purely mockery.

I have already filed a report, though I haven't seen a response yet. If my assessment was off base, I apologize; however, I would ask for an explanation as to how such a post meets the communication standards of this forum, especially when it seems to fly in the face of the very engagement guidelines this site promotes and requires. Thank you.

I see people are reading this... yet there isn't a single response to be found. So, I am resubmitting this report:

I intend to persistently report this blatant and offensive ad hominem trolling until it finally meets with a sanction, or until someone can provide me with a clear explanation as to why this is considered an acceptable exception to the very rules established by this forum, under which such communication is strictly penalized.

I didn't really see what you were getting at with calling that post an ad hominem attack. It feels like you've turned this into some sort of private correspondence with PBS, which honestly has nothing to do with the PDF from the television network. My interpretation of the response that followed was basically that whether we actually enjoy the programming on PBS or not, we're still stuck paying our monthly $27 regardless; PBS couldn't care less about our opinions.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:I didn't really see what you were getting at with calling that post an ad hominem attack. It feels like you've turned this into some sort of private correspondence with PBS, which honestly has nothing to do with the PDF from the television network. My interpretation of the response that followed was basically that whether we actually enjoy the programming on PBS or not, we're still stuck paying our monthly $27 regardless; PBS couldn't care less about our opinions.

Oh, for heaven's sake! 🙄

Maybe try practicing some reading comprehension, especially if you're acting as a moderator! That wasn't an official response from PBS; it was just a made-up reply written by Earthse, who also happens to be a moderator.

Maybe try actually reading for comprehension once in a while. And honestly, stay out of other people's business when they're venting...

Matthew Castillo5 said:Oh, for heaven's sake! 🙄

Maybe try practicing some reading comprehension, especially if you're acting as a moderator! That wasn't an official response from PBS; it was just a made-up reply written by Earthse, who also happens to be a moderator.

I mean, obviously I knew whose response it was...
Do you really think I need to reach out to you every single time just to have you explain how to interpret things?
I'll pass, thanks!

Instead of focusing all your energy on picking apart my comments, maybe you could try explaining to redhawk76 why you don't actually see a problem with the reported post. 🙄

Matthew Castillo5 said:Instead of focusing all your energy on picking apart my comments, maybe you could try explaining to redhawk76 why you don't actually see a problem with the reported post. 🙄

Just go back and read my response to redhawk76 one more time.

I read it, obviously. But let’s be real—it feels like the old "all men are created equal" line, except some people (looking at you, moderators) are clearly more equal than others. A moderator can post whatever garbage they want without facing any consequences, yet regular users get slapped with penalties just for having an opinion that doesn't perfectly align with yours. 🙄

It’s just a joke. Nothing more to it.

Nathan Turner3 said:It’s just a joke. Nothing more to it.

I disagree. A true joke is something that elicits laughter from everyone involved. This particular post isn't funny to me; rather, it feels like an affront to my right to hold differing perspectives or experience certain events differently than the "moderator" @Earthse does. I am equally convinced that this "joke" insults anyone else who, much like myself, felt unsettled by Stanković's guest, Trifunović, or perhaps even by Stanković's own journalistic approach during that specific episode of Nu2.

Therefore, this isn't humor—it is a mockery of my dissenting opinion, a fact that should be obvious to anyone capable of reading between the lines (a phrase that has been tossed around quite condescendingly regarding this thread).

Under the current forum guidelines, users are penalized for such "jokes."

Consequently, I have once again formally reported the post, and I intend to continue doing so:

As I stated, I will keep reporting. I won't stop until I receive:
1. some form of satisfaction in the form of disciplinary action against this post.
2. a coherent explanation as to why this post is being tolerated.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:I didn't really see what you were getting at with calling that post an ad hominem attack. It feels like you've turned this into some sort of private correspondence with PBS, which honestly has nothing to do with the PDF from the television network. My interpretation of the response that followed was basically that whether we actually enjoy the programming on PBS or not, we're still stuck paying our monthly $27 regardless; PBS couldn't care less about our opinions.

It's easy to see it that way at first glance. But honestly, the tone of that "PBS response" practically begged for more context from Earthse right there in the same post. Without that extra explanation, it’s incredibly easy to read it as an insult—even if that wasn't the goal. To me, the fact that no clarification was offered then, or even now, strongly suggests the intention wasn't to critique PBS, but rather to poke fun at redhawk76 and her perspective.

I wonder where Earthse is now. Why the silence? It's hard to believe someone has good intentions when they don't feel the need to say, "Sorry, I didn't mean it like that," after seeing how things landed. If you're acting in good faith and realize you might have hurt someone, you usually try to clear the air immediately.

It’s a shame she’s staying quiet. It leaves the rest of us guessing why, and results in everyone arguing over who's right—whether it's redhawk76 or Tyler Vaughn7. She knows the answer...

I really want to believe nobody is enjoying this. Because if we've reached a point where we're actually feeding off someone else's misery, we're in real trouble.

Anthony Garcia19 said:It's easy to see it that way at first glance. But honestly, the tone of that "PBS response" practically begged for more context from Earthse right there in the same post. Without that extra explanation, it’s incredibly easy to read it as an insult—even if that wasn't the goal. To me, the fact that no clarification was offered then, or even now, strongly suggests the intention wasn't to critique PBS, but rather to poke fun at redhawk76 and her perspective.

I wonder where Earthse is now. Why the silence? It's hard to believe someone has good intentions when they don't feel the need to say, "Sorry, I didn't mean it like that," after seeing how things landed. If you're acting in good faith and realize you might have hurt someone, you usually try to clear the air immediately.

It’s a shame she’s staying quiet. It leaves the rest of us guessing why, and results in everyone arguing over who's right—whether it's redhawk76 or Tyler Vaughn7. She knows the answer...

I really want to believe nobody is enjoying this. Because if we've reached a point where we're actually feeding off someone else's misery, we're in real trouble.

My dear @Anthony Garcia19, you are clearly a kind soul who wants to believe there isn't a malicious bone in anyone's body, but you have certainly picked the wrong corner of the internet to test that theory.

Sending my best to you and Matthew Castillo5 at this late hour, wherever you both happen to be...🙂

redhawk76, let’s get one thing straight on this specific topic: Earthse is just another forum user like everyone else here. Being a moderator in one obscure corner of the site doesn't give you special status everywhere else.
Based on this appeal, it seems like the only way you'd actually be satisfied is if the post were completely deleted—you aren't leaving any other room for negotiation. 🤔
And honestly, constantly hitting that report button (those reports only go to the moderators assigned to that specific sub-forum) isn't going to get you anywhere. In fact, I'd say it might just backfire and be flagged as a violation of the rules, which could land you in trouble yourself. You’ve already voiced your complaint here, a moderator from the main network responded, then a super-mod from the network stepped in; now, just wait for an administrator to weigh in, and that should be the end of it.
Look, I shouldn't even be poking my nose into an appeal that doesn't technically involve me, but I'm trying to be constructive here. Having been a moderator myself, I know exactly how this forum operates, and I also know that the current staff are already spread incredibly thin.

Sanctions have already been handed out, and trust me, things will get much heavier next time. We’ve got plenty on our plates without people spamming us with reports; we saw the post immediately, the thread was opened right away, and both the moderator and the supermod weighed in... even though we aren't under any obligation to explain ourselves to everyone who thinks a post deserves a ban when it clearly doesn't, though in this instance, we did provide an answer.