Moderator comment and thread locked

To whom it may concern,

I’m looking for some clarity regarding Sophia Thomas7’s decision to lock the thread "Suspicious Female Predators and Leaky Condoms"—specifically his hostile reaction to this remark:

My comment was actually just a parallel to an earlier post by Flatiron, where they took a personal shot at me—which, frankly, had nothing to do with the topic:

I only posted my response to highlight how ridiculous that labeling was, yet Sophia Thomas7 didn't say a word about their previous post. So, why wasn't that initial comment flagged, and why did it trigger such a nasty response and a thread lockout from the moderator? Does the admin team consider that earlier post acceptable enough to go unpunished?

Thanks in advance for the help.

placidorca16 said:That’s exactly why I wrote my previous post—to point out how ridiculous that kind of labeling is. But then moderator Sophia Thomas7 didn't even flag the earlier comment. So, why didn't that initial remark earn a single reprimand, let alone a spiteful reply and a thread lockout? Does the moderation team actually believe that previous post was perfectly fine and didn't deserve any pushback at all?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Since this whole thing has spiraled into everyone labeling each other from every possible angle, the topic itself has become the problem. There's really no point in just killing off the entire community because everyone's lost interest anyway. And honestly, Flatiron's post isn't worth a ban.

Matthew Anderson said:Since this thread has devolved into everyone pointing fingers at everyone else —it’s a vital discussion. There's zero point in nuking half the forum just because everyone collectively decided to lose interest. Flatiron's post isn't worth a ban.

So, despite all those "labels being thrown from all sides," you "accidentally" chose to target only the side I wrote—the very last one. If I hadn't spent years lurking here and seeing how things actually work, I might have actually believed you.😉
The ban isn't the issue; it's your "brilliant" little comment aimed solely at my post—even though mine was nothing more than a direct parallel to Flatiron's previous post, using his own words against him because of the label he slapped on me. But apparently, that wasn't "brilliant" enough for you.
If you had quoted his post with that same level of irony, we wouldn't be having this conversation—but instead, it looks like certain people get a free pass to throw ad hominem insults while everyone else gets flagged. So much for your legendary moderator impartiality.😁👎

I’d love an opinion from the higher-ups in oversight—if they're actually listening. Thanks!

placidorca16 said:So, even though they used a "multi-perspective" tag, they "accidentally" picked the exact side I wrote about—the very last one.😉 If I hadn't been hanging around this forum for years seeing how things actually work, I might have actually believed you.

The actual warning isn't the issue here; it's your "brilliant" little comment directed solely at my post. My post was nothing more than a direct parallel to what Flatiron wrote earlier—literally the same words, just with a different tag because of the label he slapped on me. But apparently, his post wasn't worth your "brilliance."😁 If you had quoted him with that same sarcastic tone, I wouldn't be saying a word. Instead, it looks like certain people get a free pass to throw ad hominem insults while everyone else gets flagged. So much for your legendary impartiality and objectivity as a moderator.👎

Honestly, it feels like you’re just desperate for the forum admin to ban the guy because he called you a feminist. But sorry to burst your bubble—posts like that don't merit a ban. And why did you get "labeled" in the first place? Because of your own posts on the topic.

Matthew Anderson said:I get the feeling you’re dying to see the mods hand out a ban—mostly because you told him you were a feminist—but, unfortunately for you, posts like yours don't actually break any rules. Why did you get that "label" in the first place? Well, just look at your own comments on the thread.

No, you just don't get it—I'm telling you, it’s not about the cardboard. So, we're talking about your "genius" comment—yeah.Why isn't Flatow's post quite as "genius" as mine—considering mine was just a direct response to his?
Was I even the subject of this thread—and besides, who does he think he is, judging me personally?😲
So, if some people are allowed to write like that, why can't someone just call out a guy for being patriarchal? I mean—seriously—what's the deal there? Why is that off-limits? You? That parallel—if you can even call it that. Does this bother anyone? — Just checking.

I'm still waiting on a response from management—as I already mentioned.

placidorca16 said:No, you’re missing the point. I’m telling you, this isn't about some minor rule violation. It’s about you calling my comment "genius". Why isn't Flatow's post just as "genius" as mine, considering mine was just a direct response to his?

Because yours was the final word after several pages of back-and-forth bickering. Besides, if you think his post is worth a ban, then your reply to him is just as bad.

Like I said, calling someone a feminist or accusing them of having a bias isn't grounds for getting banned—especially since that was directed at you because of how you've handled this entire topic.

Matthew Anderson said:It’s because yours was the last one—there were pages of bickering before that. Besides, if his post counts as a strike against you, then your reply to him should count as a strike against him, too.

Like I said, calling someone a feminist or accusing them of bias isn't a banable offense—especially since it was aimed at you because of how you've been handling this thread.

Still obsessing over strikes?🙄 Where on earth did I ask about being banned?😕 My whole point is your "brilliant" comment. It's literally in the thread title! Or do you just not get the difference? Why didn't you hit his post with a "brilliant" label back then and close the thread right there, considering it's the exact same content just under a different label? Why is calling a guy "patriarchal" considered an ironic "brilliant," while calling a woman a "feminist" isn't?😕 Both were reactions "> And what does it matter if mine was the last one? Does the first person always get a free pass?😁

Since you clearly can't explain that, I’d like a ruling from the moderators once more, please!

placidorca16 said:Are we back to the cardboard thing again?🙄 Seriously, where on earth did I even mention cardboard?😕 My entire point was about your "brilliant" comment. It’s right there in the thread title! Are you actually having trouble distinguishing between the two? If you were being consistent, why didn't you just call his post "brilliant" too and close the thread then, since it's the exact same content just under a different label? Why is it that calling a man "patriarchal" is considered just an ironic "brilliant" remark, while calling a woman a "feminist" isn't treated the same way?😕 Both comments were made "because of the thread posts." And what does it matter if mine was the last one? Does the first person always get a free pass?😁

Since you clearly can't give me a straight answer, I’m asking the moderators to step in and review this once more!

You claimed I didn't sanction that specific post. As for everything else, if his post had been the most recent one instead of yours, he would have faced the exact same outcome. Yours happened after a string of similar "brilliant" remarks.

Generally speaking, Apple was right in what they wrote. Your posts are heavily colored by ideology, and this isn't the first time you've taken this tone. In fact, even the senior mod team has issued a warning to you before.

Matthew Anderson said:You claimed I didn't discipline that post. Look, if his last one had been—well, if it were yours—he would've gotten the exact same response. And yours came after a long string of equally "brilliant" posts.

Bottom line: Apple was right about what they wrote, because your posts are clearly colored by ideology—not exactly the first time you've taken this tone, either. Honestly, even the senior mods have flagged you before.

Look, I asked about a specific enrollment process, not for a lecture on feminism or whatever—I already know where you stand on that. I also know how most of the mods here feel about certain old topics, so don't worry about me.
But you still haven't actually explained the specific case. All you're doing now is rambling about your own biases and lack of knowledge regarding the subject—just like half the people on this forum—but I have zero interest in debating that with you, nor did I ask.

I didn't say his post wasn't "sanctioned"—I said it wasn't addressed the same way mine was.

Can I get an actual answer to my question from the admins, or not?

And this "warning" thing you're bringing up: about what? Why am I just hearing about this "warning" now? What am I, some kind of domestic terrorist or something? Ha!

placidorca16 said:Can I actually get an official answer to what I asked the authorities, or is that just wishful thinking?

Well, here's hoping they actually get back to you. In the meantime, feel free to keep flooding the feed with those ideological rants of yours. 😁

Matthew Anderson said:Well, fingers crossed they actually get back to you—in the meantime, feel free to keep dropping those ideological bombs. 😁

Oh, really? Since when is calling someone a feminist "ideological"? I guess it's only an ideology if you call them patriarchal—nice logic there, genius!

placidorca16 said:Oh, really? So calling someone a feminist is "ideological," but labeling them patriarchal isn't? Nice logic there, genius!

Look, unlike you, the actual user didn't say any of that. You just twisted their words and slapped a "patriarchal" label on them, which totally misses the point of the discussion.

The mods are free to ban you or whatever they see fit—I’m staying out of it.

Look, I already explained why your specific post was the one being quoted—it’s simply because it was the very last one in the thread. And honestly, we've already established that once a certain volume of posts starts piling up, the mods are going to step in and lock things down. I totally get that the way the quoting went down felt a bit clumsy and awkward, but even if they hadn't quoted you, the moderators would have shut this thread down regardless. There really isn't much point in overanalyzing why someone picked one person to quote instead of another. At the end of the day, the thread got locked because the discussion turned inappropriate, and that’s really all there is to it.