Off-topic

I actually meant to post this in the thread. Post edited by a moderator.Yeah, the feedback was pretty much the same—but by the time I actually got a response, they’d already shut it down.

On topic. Switzerland just banned minarets. kao odgovor na sledeci post:

I can't make sense of that. Could you clarify what you mean? said:Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't—it’s hard to say. But usually, when you start stripping rights away from a specific group, it doesn't happen all at once. It starts small—restricting which colleges they can attend, then eventually banning them from school altogether. We saw that history play out with Jews in certain countries. Sure, we don't have A. H. or Nazism around today, but it's entirely possible for new laws to pop up that target minorities just to push them out of Europe. We'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

I wrote this next post—mostly just trying to be a little ironic about the ridiculous idea that the situation for Muslims in Switzerland is somehow comparable to how Jews were treated in Nazi Germany:

casualtiger2 said:Spot on. Things are getting pretty tense here in Switzerland—there's definitely more pressure being put on Muslims lately.
I guess that’s why their numbers just keep climbing—between the birth rates and the constant influx of immigrants.

They even picked up Gaddafi's son in Geneva—not because he beat his own servant or maid, but simply because he’s Muslim.

Only 14 minutes (!) after I posted—just 14 minutes—and moderator Chris Peterson53 wipes my comment because it was "off-topic." All I did was mention that the upcoming vote in Switzerland regarding pensions is actually way more important than that whole minaret situation, and that turnout is going to be massive compared to the other one.

Look, strictly speaking—that was off-topic. Though, I guess it does give you some insight into how those bans on building minarets actually play out—even with low turnout, a 50% plus one vote doesn't necessarily mean the majority of voters were actually in favor of the ban! Anyway, I’ve got nothing against the mods deleting it.

What really bugs me is the reply following mine—half of it feels completely off-topic. It’s mostly just directed at me personally, along with all this speculation about my friend Makaj and that spiritual group... by the way, most of those Swiss people in the group actually voted against the ban.

Starting over. A whole new life. said:I can't say I'm surprised you voted for him—honestly, it tracks.
Your worldview is pretty much black and white—it’s either this or that. I guess that’s why you're such a fan of Switzerland. It seems like the perfect spot for someone like Makaj—with his massive wealth and those trendy new social elites—to live where the government, and especially the courts, can't touch him regardless of how much money he has.
Let's be clear—I don't have anything against Aba Aziz, really; if anything, it's true that Switzerland maintains a very liberal worldview.
All he needs to do is finish his European integration and open up some banks—likely filled with suspicious cash acquired through the same shady methods you'd see from Belgians or Dutchmen. It’s easy for people to take aim at Americans, who—let's be honest—usually built their capital through blood and sweat after the first couple of generations; the old-money aristocracy over here has a much different tradition.
Look, let's get back to your voting record: if you cast that ballot just to support some New Age nonsense, then fine—I've got nothing against it. It just means I can easily see you doing the same thing with pagodas, cathedrals, or Jewish shrines.
When people ask about your religion, just tell them you're a Komaj.
Your nationality? You're a Swiss man.
If you ever get the chance to take over moderator duties here again, maybe you can actually show us what you're capable of.

Look, if we're talking about long-term disasters, we need to look at both sides of the scale—Ehud’s statements can basically be filed away next to Nazi rhetoric. The terminology might vary slightly, but the result is the same: providing cover for killing innocent Israeli civilians, or those Muslims on the front lines, or Palestinian mosques.
Let's be real for a second: Switzerland has realized they don't rely on Islamic capital quite as much as they used to.
There are four mosques in Switzerland—the ones with minarets, anyway. Let’s be honest, that’s hardly a significant display of faith; even the presence of a minaret is debatable, as you'd barely recognize them architecturally.
Actual, serious democracies handle this by tightening borders against radical newcomers. Plenty of major European countries could have done it given the level of threat—the US certainly could have—but they haven't.
And you know why? Because the US is already at its limit with immigration, whereas places like Germany, France, or Switzerland would lose their entire workforce in certain mid-to-small business sectors if they didn't have workers from Turkey, Afghanistan, or Pakistan—not to mention all the under-the-table labor.
But hey, as long as they keep working, they can speak whatever language they want in schools for all it matters...
It’s pretty undeniable that certain Muslim groups are radical and struggle to articulate their goals, much like many other minority communities in Europe—Hindus, various African groups, different tribal clusters, etc.
Still, meddling in someone else's diplomacy is completely illegal; the Gaddafi case was just a convenient excuse.

I flagged this for the PM moderator, Chris Peterson53, but she thinks I'm just splitting hairs. So, forty hours later, the post is still sitting there untouched.

Bonus question (mostly for ZgSasha): will my direct response to this post—which the moderator clearly doesn't think is off-topic—be labeled as off-topic itself?!

It’s not the first time you’ve twisted my posts to fit your own little narrative—which, by the way, tells me everything I need to know about your actual intentions.
Since you’re only cherry-picking one side of what the President said—clearly knowing full well that quoting him in his entirety isn't allowed here—I guess I'll just play by your rules and paraphrase my part of it for you:
I already told you, I’m not the sole moderator for this PDF section; I don't spend every waking second babysitting a single thread... etc., and that was exactly what my "nitpicking" was actually about!

And exactly which timeframe are you complaining about now?
Is it the one that's too fast, or the one that's too slow?
What is it you're actually after here?
Are you looking for permission to commit a murder before you even pull the trigger?
Or perhaps you're just asking for permission to post off-topic nonsense that you haven't even written yet?

Chris Peterson53 said:It’s not like this is the first time you’ve gone off on an interpretation. mine Just write it down—however you see it fits—to show what's actually happening and what their real intentions are.

Yeah, that's spot on. Round two. I've been hanging around this forum for seven years now—enough time to know how to read between the lines of your posts. Honestly, I think this is the first time I’ve actually started a thread here, unless you count that one time I had a post moved over from another board at my own request.
I’m not trying to psychoanalyze your posts—I'm just asking you and everyone else—what's the actual difference between my "mild" off-topic comment (which got nuked instantly) and that long-winded, total mess in the next post that’s still sitting there?
What exactly do you think I'm up to here?

Chris Peterson53 said:Since you’re only sharing a fraction of what the President said—clearly knowing that dropping the whole thing here is against the rules—I guess I'll follow your lead and recount just a piece of it my way:
Look, I told you—I’m not the only one moderating this PDF sub—and I don't spend my entire day babysitting a single thread... etc. That was exactly what I meant by nitpicking!

I laid out the most important parts of the President's message—without violating his privacy, obviously. But here’s the kicker, even after you added those extra details: the main issue is that you're letting this whole off-topic mess about me and my friends just sit there. You know perfectly well it has nothing to do with the actual thread, yet instead of cleaning it up, you're just hiding behind the "I'm too overwhelmed" excuse.
Instead of just doing your job as a moderator, you’d rather take this out on me—as if picking a fight is somehow "easier" than actually moderating. Honestly, I'm bracing myself for a long one here—maybe weeks, maybe years of this back-and-forth series.
You did the exact same thing when I tried my first "interpretation" of your writing style.

Chris Peterson53 said:And what kind of timeframe are we even talking about here?
Is he moving too fast, or am I just being way too slow?
So, what exactly are you looking for here?
So, what—you need a permit to kill someone before you actually go through with it?
Wait, am I getting permission to post an off-topic thread before I've even written it?

Like I said, it’s great you caught my massive off-topic tangent so quickly—if only all the moderators were this on the ball.
So, what’s stopping you from just handling that other off-topic thread I mentioned? It’s been 42 hours since the notice went out—honestly, if you'd just dealt with it right away, I wouldn't even have to be typing this all out.

So, I’m asking you. If that New Life post wasn't considered off-topic, then logically—unless I'm missing something obvious here—my direct response to it shouldn't be off-topic either, right? Or am I just being optimistic?

🙂

Your intentions are crystal clear.
Even though you admit that the edited portion of your post is off-base, instead of using the report button—which is your actual right and function here—you decide to single out one specific moderator (me) out of the three currently on duty. You aren't even looking for clarification on why I edited your own post; no, you’re just calling me out regarding a separate, subsequent post, essentially trying to force your own judgment and decision upon me. By bypassing the reporting system—which would involve the other moderators—you are attempting to dictate how I perform my duties, which is completely outside your lane. Furthermore, you’re twisting my private messages to make me look negligent, all while having absolutely no clue about the sheer workload or the constant availability required from the moderators of this platform—myself included.
You're implying that I'm hovering over your posts just to edit them too quickly, creating this false impression that I have nothing better to do than track your every move... basically, you're trying to paint me as biased against you. It’s a clever little tactic, isn't it? You conveniently ignore the only realistic possibility here: that I happened to check this exact thread precisely 14 minutes after you posted, looked it over, and then moved right along with my day.
Ultimately, driven by your personal vendetta against me, you are ignoring the established rules—specifically those regarding filing grievances through the book of complaints. You are positioning yourself above the authority and collective judgment of the entire moderation team by taking this directly to the site administrators.
And if you wanted to mask your antagonism, you could have at least tried harder; in your previous post, you generalized the issue of off-topic content, yet you still insist—without even having written your "future" post yet—that none of the moderators in this section are capable of properly judging a minor (and frankly, negligible) off-topic remark. And that's assuming the remark was even off-topic, considering it was directed at you!

Now you're even bringing up the potential for this debate to drag on for weeks or months...
all just to drive home the point that I am failing in my moderator responsibilities. Well, newsflash: that’s not happening.
This is my final response and my explanation regarding your comment.
The administrators will handle whatever remains.

"I'm frustrated" because that post was actually a response to mine—which, aside from one sentence in the P.S. (that was technically off-topic, though indirectly), stayed strictly on subject. The follow-up post, which quotes me and claims to be "responding," spends the first half ignoring the actual topic entirely to go after me personally and spin wild theories about Makaji and those idiots. That’s pure off-topic noise.
If the moderator was already watching the thread and moved quickly to scrub my off-topic remark, I don't get why she didn't do the same for that post after I sent her a PM.

Here's my dilemma:
if I engage with that off-topic nonsense, then I'm also breaking the rules, which usually just leads to getting my posts deleted and a strike on my account.
but if I stay silent, the off-topic garbage stays up—and it’s not just irrelevant; it's throwing out false accusations about me and my friends.

Basically, my question is: should you even bother responding to off-topic posts if the mods haven't flagged them yet? (Because if I do respond, it triggers a debate about Makaji in a thread where that doesn't belong—it's funny, really, how new life keeps bringing that up and pointing fingers at me when I haven't given them any reason to do so for months, if not longer.)

Thanks for the quick and clear answer.