Obama's moderators

So you conducted a survey using a representative sample and now you want to responsibly present those findings to the entire forum masses, yet these Obama types won't let you?

I mean, how they dare!!!!! truly

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:So I ran a poll using a legit representative sample, right? And now I’m just trying to do the right thing and show the results to everyone on this forum, but these Obama types won't let me.

I mean, seriously... how do they even have the nerve? Honestly.

People claiming Obama is some kind of massive superstar? Yeah, that’s a pretty shaky argument if you ask me. But hey, nobody's really calling them out on it.

Michael Collins said:The resonator isn't the only issue here. We have several moderators who tend to settle scores on threads involving anyone who disagrees with Obama's views...

Then you have certain forum members who are completely biased and, frankly, a bit full of themselves. They seem unable to see the obvious reality right in front of them: currently, there are three main political threads on the front page dedicated entirely to Obama, totaling roughly 2,200 posts. At least half of those are negative toward him, and quite a few cross the line into being outright insulting. Even the person who started this specific thread authored a good portion of those comments himself. Yet, somehow, he’s still here, active and unbanned, despite the constant, sneaky attempts to tear him and other dissenters down.

Here’s a link that might give you some context, at least partially...

Though I highly doubt every single American has heard of Sijekovac—you were a bit presumptive claiming otherwise... honestly, I hadn't even heard of Sijekovac until now, and frankly, I still don't know what it is... nor do I particularly care...

I could've dropped that link for the resonator, but I just didn't feel like it...

Why should I be the one footing the bill for him when nobody else has to, especially since they're all in the same boat?

Look, my opinions are mine. As long as I'm not out here calling people out by their full names unless they're actual public figures, I don't owe anyone an explanation. If I did, this whole forum would be pretty much pointless...

Richard Wilson4 said:I could've just sent the link to the moderator, but I didn't feel like it...

Honestly, that wasn't the smartest move. The moderator clearly flagged himself (using blue text) saying he was stepping in as a mod to figure out if your post was just bait or if there was actually some substance to it.

Why should I have to answer to him if nobody else does, especially when they're on his side?

Well, since he’s holding that title, he has the right to judge whether posts are legit. And let's be real, your point was a bit of a stretch. Even that link you mentioned doesn't prove Americans don't know about [US site/event]; it just shows that high schoolers from that specific era aren't exactly experts on everything.

My opinions are my own. As long as I'm not naming names—unless they're public figures—I don't owe anyone an explanation. Otherwise, this whole forum becomes pointless...

That's partially true, but a moderator's actual job is to decide if you're making a valid argument or just trolling for attention.

Now that I've laid all that out, here's just my two cents on these kinds of claims that pop up everywhere. I'll even look at it from the opposite side of this debate. The truth is, there are hundreds of posts just like yours floating around—posts where someone makes a claim without providing a link or any hard data, and then acts like they don't need to back it up. If I happened to be a mod on this thread, I wouldn't even give you a warning strike; I'd just handle the "issue" via a private message. I mean, if you actually deserved a strike, there should probably be hundreds more handed out by now (to people both for and against Obama's policies). In my opinion, the mods were a little heavy-handed because the post didn't really "smell" like a troll post to me. I saw it, and I saw the moderator asking for confirmation. But hey, that's just my view, and it doesn't really matter, does it?

Anyway, since we're on the opposing side of this discussion, I thought it'd be good to weigh in on how we handle data and the need for everyone to back their stuff up with links.

And I don't think the mods are being biased just because of your stance; I think they were just being a bit too intense and not applying the same rules across the board.

But again, the moderator has every right to ask those questions if a post looks suspicious. Things could have been settled quickly if you'd just shared the link... I definitely would have.

Whatever, man. They're here to keep things orderly. When we think they mess up, we complain, but in my experience, the mods aren't being unfair. They've actually wiped a few of my strikes before once I managed to explain my side. So, just stay chill, bring the facts, and everything works out.

The bottom line is that there needs to be a consistent rule for when a link is required for certain info, and when failing to provide one is considered trolling.

So yeah, that's it.

P.S.
I've heard of [US location], but as for that other place, I haven't a clue where it is or anything about it.

Richard Wilson4 said:I could have sent Sam Green73 that link, but I decided against it...

You would’ve walked away with 35 points less.
Plus, based on how you phrased your enrollment, it sounds like the President of the United States is more familiar with some obscure town I've never heard of than he is with the tragedy at Ovčara.
On the Politics subforum, that's getting pretty close to being offensive—basically an invitation to start a flame war.

Listen, my dear Michael, do you have any idea how much of your spam gets wiped clean without you even getting a formal warning?
Do yourself a favor: take a moment to actually read the netiquette rules with a bit of common sense and try to resist the urge to chime in on every single thread. Only jump in if you're actually bringing something new to the table that hasn't already been covered in the discussion.

@some random clone: the national standardized tests really proved that you get out of education exactly what you put into it.

Quote:

rezon@tor says: @some random guy: the SATs pretty much proved that you get out exactly what you put into your education

Does anyone actually learn anything about macroeconomics in school anymore?
I barely touched it, graduated high school like 5 years ago...

Richard Wilson4 said:The idea that Biden is somehow this massive crowd favorite is equally flimsy, yet nobody seems willing to actually challenge it...

Didn't the election results provide all the proof we needed?🤷

It’s funny how people always seem to have an opinion on this, isn't it? It feels like every time we touch upon this subject, the room fills up with these incredibly loud, unearned certainties that don't actually hold any water under scrutiny. It reminds me of those debates you see during election season where everyone acts like they've cracked the code to the economy, yet most of them couldn't explain a basic supply chain disruption if their lives depended on it. We tend to rush toward these sweeping conclusions without ever pausing to consider the messy, granular reality of how things actually function on the ground. It’s much easier to shout a slogan than it is to sit down and parse through the actual data. kaže:
Didn't the recent elections serve as a perfect illustration of that?🤷

Sure, if you want to look at it that way—back when his candidate profile was basically a walking indictment for corruption, and before he started revealing his true colors and actual intentions during that third month in office, which, let’s be honest, we all saw coming.

There’s an entire rabbit hole of media manipulation we could descend into, but let’s start with the basics: it’s worth noting that Clinton’s dear associate is currently operating as Obama’s collaborator. That should be enough to cast some light on the supposed "impartiality" of this award-winning new network that claims to champion democracy—if it weren't so absurdly laughable, it would actually be tragic.

This is starting to feel more like politics, and this subforum isn't really meant for that. Michael got the answer he was looking for. I think we can close this thread.