The Powerlock Case

I am filing a formal complaint against the moderator slybison8 regarding the Politics sub-forum.
I believe this moderator is abusing his authority to manipulate the forum rather than actually moderating it. Specifically, he uses his privilege to hand out warnings only to those who disagree with him in threads where he participates, while posts from Forum users who share his views remain untouched, even when reported. I will explain why.

The final straw was the decision to issue a warning for an ad hominem attack in the following post:

Steven King74 said:Listen here, Scum.🤣
That’s how thinking works in a democracy. And just because you think your opinion matters more than anyone else's doesn't mean it does—that kind of attitude only exists in Canada, which is probably where you're posting from.

First, I should mention that the Forum user I was arguing with called *me* Scum first, so it wasn't an insult. I was a bit surprised by the warning given the type of posts usually seen in this thread, but upon reflection, I suppose it passes. I used an argument about origin to refute someone's view; if we're being pedantic, sure, call it an ad hominem. Fine.
However, my reaction to that was simply reporting the post made by that Scum, which is what I was responding to in the first place.

Scum said:It's strange that people think like you only in countries like North Korea or China.

That way of thinking has no place in Europe. So, if anyone is bothered by the democracy we know, I suggest they move to one of those countries.☕

And yet, that post received no warning. I must point out that I used the exact same rhetoric as the Forum user Scum. If refuting an opinion based on where someone is from in Canada is an ad hominem, then it is also an ad hominem to claim that my way of thinking only exists in North Korea or China.

Incidentally, this post is the opinion that started all of this.

I received a symbolic one-point penalty for the post. Normally, I wouldn't waste my time with an appeal, but I believe the issue goes much deeper. First, I see this warning as slybison8 flexing his muscles—a signal that I should watch what I say whenever he's around. Second, I believe I have ended up on slybison8's blacklist because of this post from another thread. It isn't a coincidence that slybison8 warned a post where I mentioned Canada and the diaspora interfering in our domestic affairs; he feels personally targeted by the same criteria since he lives in the US, and Forum users frequently call him out on it.
To understand the full context of this problem, one would need to examine the thread currently titled Fiscalization and Tax Discipline - The Political Mission of Minister Linić.
and slybison8's behavior in this same thread. It’s vital to point out that while these two threads were merged, the original one functioned with surprising quality for a US politics subforum. Users were responding to one another in an orderly, well-argued manner without trolling; arguments were backed by evidence. In reality, slybison8 was the biggest troll in that discussion.
Here are a few examples.

Forum user Alexis, offering a counterargument regarding a cafe closing due to a mere $0.35 difference, writes this post where she reveals the actual owners of the establishment, suggesting that information provided by only one side should be taken with a grain of salt. slybison8's reaction is extremely heated, accusing her of having a "secret police" mentality just for daring to present that information. If we want to be blunt, the argument stands—it’s a classic ad hominem attack, even if it does highlight the questionable nature of the source claiming a business closed over pennies. But why doesn't slybison8 react as aggressively to posts like this first one and this second one, where he accuses Linić and the users defending him of being losers because they don't have children? Isn't that also, in every sense, an ad hominem argument? It’s also worth noting that Alexis hasn't posted once since slybison8's outburst, likely because she expects a disciplinary warning or a ban. slybison8 achieved his goal: he drove her away from the thread.
Finally, here are two of slybison8's posts from that thread, where he attempted to derail what was otherwise a civil debate through sheer trolling ( first and second ).

What kind of Moderator calls other users' posts "pathetic, miserable, cheap, and shameless demagoguery"? Who describes America as a totalitarian, despotic dictatorship? Who can't write a single post without mentioning communism, neo-communism, or secret police tactics? Who uses their authority to settle scores with those who disagree?

I’ve tried to illustrate the problem with these examples, and I hope you see what I mean. These aren't the only instances of such behavior; it happens across many threads, but I simply don't have the time or the energy to go through them all in detail. That should be the administration's job.
In closing, I am directing this complaint to the administration. I have no intention of getting into a back-and-forth with slybison8 here or anywhere else. Handle that in your own corner. Honestly, I’m not holding my breath that this complaint will yield results, but I might as well try. The US politics section should be a serious space, but I have to admit, it's functioning poorly. It is a massive mistake to appoint Moderators where some pull left and others pull right, then expect balance. Proper moderation means defining clear, unambiguous rules and enforcing them regardless of who is involved. After opening this thread, I feel like there's nothing left for me to ask of the US politics section, because I know I'd have to weigh every word just to avoid giving slybison8 a reason for revenge. Perhaps one day, if the administration decides to get things in order, they will appoint well-meaning Moderators who take the job seriously—rather than having a Moderator who is the very first person I want to put on my ignore list.

God, what an intense complaint regarding a symbolic one-point penalty. 🙂

Well, I suppose I should respect the effort. Even though this appeal isn't specifically directed at me, and the Forum user has made it quite clear they have no desire to discuss this specific penalty with me further, I have been officially asked to provide my statement, so I shall do so.

First off, the two posts cited by the Forum user—where he argues it's unfair that his first post received a symbolic one-point penalty while the second received nothing—actually serve to prove that the first contained ad hominem attacks, whereas the second did not.

In the first post, the sanctioned Forum user was using a derogatory nickname for another Forum user, which implies an insult; he also mentioned that person's possible geographic origin in a negative context, noting he wasn't even sure if the other Forum user was actually from Canada—which leads me to believe his target might not have been that specific individual, but rather all Americans from Canada.

The second post is not an ad hominem because the Forum user emphasizes more than once that he struggles with the mindset being discussed; if anything, the only part that could be interpreted as an ad hominem is the very end of that post, where he suggests that people demonstrating such views should perhaps leave the US.

If there is indeed an ad hominem in that second post, it is quite clearly used in a much milder form than the ad hominem found in the first, penalized post.

If my responsibility in this matter is being re-examined, I am convinced it can only be determined by concluding that the penalized post should have actually received the standard 45-point penalty for insulting a Forum user, or perhaps even a harsher one due to the collective disparagement of Americans from Canada—meaning, I guess, that I was too lenient toward the appellant, rather than being too strict.

I also want to state very clearly that, as a Moderator, I do not maintain any "blacklists." Up until this moment, I wasn't even aware that the author of this appeal was the same person who wrote the post accusing me of "fleeing America." I generally don't even notice such trivial personal matters, and besides, this particular Forum user's handle is so complicated with its mix of letters and numbers that it is honestly difficult to even remember.

I don't wish to expend any more energy on the rest of the entry, as it seems to be just another significant ad hominem.

However, I would like to answer one question the Forum user posed:

Steven King74 said:I am filing a formal complaint against the moderator slybison8 regarding the Politics sub-forum.
I believe this moderator is abusing his authority to manipulate the forum rather than actually moderating it. Specifically, he uses his privilege to hand out warnings only to those who disagree with him in threads where he participates, while posts from Forum users who share his views remain untouched, even when reported. I will explain why.

The final straw was the decision to issue a warning for an ad hominem attack in the following post:

First, I should mention that the Forum user I was arguing with called *me* Scum first, so it wasn't an insult. I was a bit surprised by the warning given the type of posts usually seen in this thread, but upon reflection, I suppose it passes. I used an argument about origin to refute someone's view; if we're being pedantic, sure, call it an ad hominem. Fine.
However, my reaction to that was simply reporting the post made by that Scum, which is what I was responding to in the first place.

And yet, that post received no warning. I must point out that I used the exact same rhetoric as the Forum user Scum. If refuting an opinion based on where someone is from in Canada is an ad hominem, then it is also an ad hominem to claim that my way of thinking only exists in North Korea or China.

Incidentally, this post is the opinion that started all of this.

I received a symbolic one-point penalty for the post. Normally, I wouldn't waste my time with an appeal, but I believe the issue goes much deeper. First, I see this warning as slybison8 flexing his muscles—a signal that I should watch what I say whenever he's around. Second, I believe I have ended up on slybison8's blacklist because of this post from another thread. It isn't a coincidence that slybison8 warned a post where I mentioned Canada and the diaspora interfering in our domestic affairs; he feels personally targeted by the same criteria since he lives in the US, and Forum users frequently call him out on it.
To understand the full context of this problem, one would need to examine the thread currently titled Fiscalization and Tax Discipline - The Political Mission of Minister Linić.
and slybison8's behavior in this same thread. It’s vital to point out that while these two threads were merged, the original one functioned with surprising quality for a US politics subforum. Users were responding to one another in an orderly, well-argued manner without trolling; arguments were backed by evidence. In reality, slybison8 was the biggest troll in that discussion.
Here are a few examples.

Forum user Alexis, offering a counterargument regarding a cafe closing due to a mere $0.35 difference, writes this post where she reveals the actual owners of the establishment, suggesting that information provided by only one side should be taken with a grain of salt. slybison8's reaction is extremely heated, accusing her of having a "secret police" mentality just for daring to present that information. If we want to be blunt, the argument stands—it’s a classic ad hominem attack, even if it does highlight the questionable nature of the source claiming a business closed over pennies. But why doesn't slybison8 react as aggressively to posts like this first one and this second one, where he accuses Linić and the users defending him of being losers because they don't have children? Isn't that also, in every sense, an ad hominem argument? It’s also worth noting that Alexis hasn't posted once since slybison8's outburst, likely because she expects a disciplinary warning or a ban. slybison8 achieved his goal: he drove her away from the thread.
Finally, here are two of slybison8's posts from that thread, where he attempted to derail what was otherwise a civil debate through sheer trolling ( first and second ).

What kind of Moderator calls other users' posts "pathetic, miserable, cheap, and shameless demagoguery"? Who describes America as a totalitarian, despotic dictatorship? Who can't write a single post without mentioning communism, neo-communism, or secret police tactics? Who uses their authority to settle scores with those who disagree?

I’ve tried to illustrate the problem with these examples, and I hope you see what I mean. These aren't the only instances of such behavior; it happens across many threads, but I simply don't have the time or the energy to go through them all in detail. That should be the administration's job.
In closing, I am directing this complaint to the administration. I have no intention of getting into a back-and-forth with slybison8 here or anywhere else. Handle that in your own corner. Honestly, I’m not holding my breath that this complaint will yield results, but I might as well try. The US politics section should be a serious space, but I have to admit, it's functioning poorly. It is a massive mistake to appoint Moderators where some pull left and others pull right, then expect balance. Proper moderation means defining clear, unambiguous rules and enforcing them regardless of who is involved. After opening this thread, I feel like there's nothing left for me to ask of the US politics section, because I know I'd have to weigh every word just to avoid giving slybison8 a reason for revenge. Perhaps one day, if the administration decides to get things in order, they will appoint well-meaning Moderators who take the job seriously—rather than having a Moderator who is the very first person I want to put on my ignore list.

I would say he is an absolutely wonderful moderator. One who holds various opinions on posts but, unlike the appellant, always respects other Forum users as individuals regardless of the differences in our content. A moderator who is free-thinking and independent enough to clearly identify the symptoms of state repression against certain American citizens and call them what they are: despotic, totalitarian, and dictatorial behavior stemming from the unfortunate and shameful legacy of the communist dictatorship we all once lived under.

I am glad that Steven King74 recognized this.

Respectfully,

PL

What kind of Moderator is this who calls other users' posts pathetic, miserable, cheap, and shameless demagoguery? Who labels America a totalitarian, despotic dictatorship? Someone who can't go one post without bringing up communism, neo-communism, or secret police tactics. Someone who uses their authority just to settle scores with anyone who disagrees.

A moderator with an opinion, maybe. 😁

I don't think having a right to a personal opinion (which would be even worse, obviously) defines whether a moderator is good or bad—I think you missed the mark there. A good mod should probably be someone who understands the essence of democracy, the spirit of debate, or where the line for free speech lies, and then actually implements that here.

And if anyone is actually grasping or practicing that in the Politics section, it’s still slybison8. By all accounts, PL is an above-average and fair moderator.

(Sorry to jump in, but what you wrote above just isn't true)

Alright, we've both laid out our positions. Now, I’d like to ask the Moderator for a comment so I can provide a response.

The Forum user wasn't being derogatory by using someone else's nickname; he simply called Scum what he is. It isn't his fault that the guy's handle is Scum rather than something like Smelly Rose.

slybison8 said:God, what an intense complaint regarding a symbolic one-point penalty. 🙂

Well, I suppose I should respect the effort. Even though this appeal isn't specifically directed at me, and the Forum user has made it quite clear they have no desire to discuss this specific penalty with me further, I have been officially asked to provide my statement, so I shall do so.

First off, the two posts cited by the Forum user—where he argues it's unfair that his first post received a symbolic one-point penalty while the second received nothing—actually serve to prove that the first contained ad hominem attacks, whereas the second did not.

In the first post, the sanctioned Forum user was using a derogatory nickname for another Forum user, which implies an insult; he also mentioned that person's possible geographic origin in a negative context, noting he wasn't even sure if the other Forum user was actually from Canada—which leads me to believe his target might not have been that specific individual, but rather all Americans from Canada.

The second post is not an ad hominem because the Forum user emphasizes more than once that he struggles with the mindset being discussed; if anything, the only part that could be interpreted as an ad hominem is the very end of that post, where he suggests that people demonstrating such views should perhaps leave the US.

If there is indeed an ad hominem in that second post, it is quite clearly used in a much milder form than the ad hominem found in the first, penalized post.

If my responsibility in this matter is being re-examined, I am convinced it can only be determined by concluding that the penalized post should have actually received the standard 45-point penalty for insulting a Forum user, or perhaps even a harsher one due to the collective disparagement of Americans from Canada—meaning, I guess, that I was too lenient toward the appellant, rather than being too strict.

I also want to state very clearly that, as a Moderator, I do not maintain any "blacklists." Up until this moment, I wasn't even aware that the author of this appeal was the same person who wrote the post accusing me of "fleeing America." I generally don't even notice such trivial personal matters, and besides, this particular Forum user's handle is so complicated with its mix of letters and numbers that it is honestly difficult to even remember.

I don't wish to expend any more energy on the rest of the entry, as it seems to be just another significant ad hominem.

However, I would like to answer one question the Forum user posed:

I would say he is an absolutely wonderful moderator. One who holds various opinions on posts but, unlike the appellant, always respects other Forum users as individuals regardless of the differences in our content. A moderator who is free-thinking and independent enough to clearly identify the symptoms of state repression against certain American citizens and call them what they are: despotic, totalitarian, and dictatorial behavior stemming from the unfortunate and shameful legacy of the communist dictatorship we all once lived under.

I am glad that Steven King74 recognized this.

Respectfully,

PL

I would say that it is... An absolutely stellar Moderator. What does he really think about the enrollment process? He’s got plenty of opinions, but unlike that one person complaining, He always maintains a level of respect for other Forum users as individuals. Regardless of how much our posts might differ in content.
How exactly did you label my post—pathetic, miserable, and demagogic—that I felt the need to jump in and respond?

First off, if you want to show some respect to other Forum users, you shouldn't be using that kind of language. Instead, you should actually state exactly which part of the post you disagree with.

You’re such a fantastic moderator, it really shows. Discussions regarding Fiscalization.So, where can one actually go to read about this? Ohoho. The less fortunate ones. posts.

I wasn't exactly sure how things worked on the Politics board; I honestly thought that kind of approach was perfectly acceptable and standard for this place. Eventually, though, I just lost my patience and filed a report against one specific post. To be honest, I can't even remember exactly what I wrote in the report itself. The post has since been deleted, and I have no idea if any sanctions were actually handed out. But that was just that one single instance—everything else consists of a massive amount of other posts, many of which are similar or almost identical to it.

I’m not entirely sure which moderator stepped in, but here we go—just a few highly questionable, completely irrelevant posts surfacing in a thread where they clearly don't belong. An absolutely brilliant Moderator. slybison8 participated

Just some examples:

This administration is utilizing... Gebelso's propaganda...who actually blamed the walls for the crisis.

Here we go again, back to the same old rhetoric about Goebbels and the Jews.

My dear. The breeding grounds of bureaucratic cancer.Look, you're just one of those tax-obsessed bureaucrats—and honestly, you probably belong in that same group—constantly acting like you're superior while showing off nothing but pure arrogance.

Linić and his crew. Fascists.

Linić's With the lawyers...., You aren't as stupid as Linić and his crowd. Regarding the IRS.... Linic's Fascist. izjava:...

Linić... just pure terror from the Linić camp. From a legal standpoint....Linić's I'm still waiting for the specific details or context you want me to tackle. Just give me the prompt or the content you need me to rework, and I'll get to work on it.

SA tax genius

Linic's SA lawyers

I almost forgot about slybison8 as a forum user, at least one post:

You have established a quasi-Nazi control system
in America.

And finally, yesterday slybison8 wrote a warning post on the thread: let's try to restrain ourselves from discussing whether the Minister has children or not and how that affects his work, or this recent stuff about certain rumors suggesting illnesses and similar nonsense.

Some context for that post: it was only after this thread was opened that PL "remembered" he should rein in some forum users; meanwhile, everything he mentions—whether someone has kids, illnesses (presumably mental, since that was also being discussed on the thread)—has all been allowed to run wild, and it's all sitting right there on the thread about Fiscalization. It's just like this post, for example:

There is plenty more on the thread where PL participated quite regularly; I've linked part of it in the first post.

lp

Just so I can put what Edward Fisher86 added into the context of this complaint. As you can see from the examples provided, the PDF is riddled with ad hominem attacks and trolling that mostly goes unpunished. I’d also add that the go-to argument against anyone defending anything coming from the Democratic Party is to label them a communist, an agent of the old regime, a nostalgic, or a traitor. I hope it’s clear to the administration just how stupid and baseless those accusations are. If not, let me clarify. The Democratic Party grew out of the social-democratic wing of the former Communist Party of America, and it is a member of the Socialist Party, a group based in Brussels that includes 32 different European parties. Part of the party's name doesn't imply communism—because if it did, we wouldn't have elections or the privatization of state assets; we'd be looking at nationalization instead. This persistent counter-argument used against any Forum user defending the party by calling them a communist is becoming irritating, and I would declare it as trolling. In those cases, the attacked user starts defending themselves, and the discussion gets derailed from the actual topic.
I’ll leave it to chance whether all sorts of people write on Politics, but slybison8 isn't stupid; he's more than educated enough to know this. When the same moderator uses such arguments in their own discussions, while leaving a forest of similar posts unsanctioned—yet hands out bans to people who are genuinely using aggressive ad hominems simply because they hold a different political view—it raises the question: what is this moderator's motivation for working on this site? Honestly, I believe this moderator is actively trolling and abusing their authority to tilt the discussion toward whatever side suits them personally.
Therefore, I would ask the administration: is it the official stance of this platform as a legal entity that the Democratic Party is trying to bring communism back to America? Or is such a stance merely a matter of political opinion? Would you agree with me that such views constitute trolling? And if you agree that it is trolling, then I think I am asking a perfectly reasonable question: by what criteria did you decide that slybison8 was fit for moderator duties?

Does this forum, as a legal entity, hold the official position that the Democratic Party is trying to bring Communism back to America? Or is having such a view just a matter of political opinion? Would you all agree with me that these kinds of claims are just trolling? And if we agree it's trolling, then I think I'm asking a perfectly reasonable question: by what criteria did you decide that slybison8 has what it takes to be a Moderator?

That’s something that should be handled through arguments—either debunking or supporting them within the discussion itself—rather than filing a complaint against someone's work just because of their personal views and their absolute right to an opinion. Surely, the whole point of a forum is to debate and present different perspectives through reasoned arguments; it shouldn't be the exact opposite.😉

@ And just a quick note for Moderator Cuki from another thread, if possible: that topic wasn't closed "one hour and 45 minutes" ago like you claimed. It was actually only opened last night around 7 or 8 PM, so it was essentially closed for almost the entire afternoon during the heat of the debate. Basically, it stayed closed until someone noticed and a Moderator decided to step in. Just for the record.

Susan Price30 As specified by:
That’s just standard etiquette, really. If you disagree with someone, you should be able to dismantle their point using actual arguments right there in the discussion. You shouldn't be filing complaints against a Moderator just because someone holds an opinion you don't like; everyone has an absolute right to their own perspective. After all, isn't the whole purpose of this Forum to engage in debate and present different viewpoints through reasoned argument? That’s what it's meant to be, not the alternative.😉

It’s about... labeling The communists, the old-school intelligence agents, the Nostalgics, and all that other crowd.
On the topic/topics.

The latest news is that they're calling you a tax collector. 🤣 Seriously.

Edward Fisher86 said:

Susan Price30 As specified by:
That’s just standard etiquette, really. If you disagree with someone, you should be able to dismantle their point using actual arguments right there in the discussion. You shouldn't be filing complaints against a Moderator just because someone holds an opinion you don't like; everyone has an absolute right to their own perspective. After all, isn't the whole purpose of this Forum to engage in debate and present different viewpoints through reasoned argument? That’s what it's meant to be, not the alternative.😉

It’s about... labeling The communists, the old-school intelligence agents, the Nostalgics, and all that other crowd.
On the topic/topics.

The latest news is that they're calling you a tax collector. 🤣 Seriously.

(I hadn't read your post yet, but now that I have) you also listed examples of criticizing someone's speech, opinions, or public stances (whether official or unofficial)—specifically regarding things said by the government, Minister Linić, and others.

An appeal is just an appeal—not my business, obviously, but since we're already in a dialogue...—that was the idea.😉

Susan Price30 said:(I hadn't read your post yet, but now that I have) you also listed examples of criticizing someone's speech, opinions, or public stances (whether official or unofficial)—specifically regarding things said by the government, Minister Linić, and others.

An appeal is just an appeal—not my business, obviously, but since we're already in a dialogue...—that was the idea.😉

It’s not that I don't fully grasp you 🤷.

Are you trying to say that calling a country's tax policy a quasi-Nazi system of control is "criticism," or that labeling SA members as fascists, Nazis, or SA units is just "criticism"? 😕

Fine, if that's how it works, let me know so I can play along too.

Regardless, it’s not like you’re part of the administration anyway.

There's something new here 😲



🤷 This is a critique of my position, of my post 🤷

slybison8, and actually Robert Hall7 as well, are participating steadily in this topic.
Maybe this is just standard practice in Politics 🤷 🙂

Why are you dragging me into this?

Nica, please just settle this. Especially when the Moderator starts acting like this.

And to all the other users, cheers!

Robert Hall7 said:Why are you dragging me into this?

Nica, please just settle this. Especially when the Moderator starts acting like this.

And to all the other users, cheers!

I’m not dragging you into anything, Robert Hall7. It wouldn't be right to leave you out of the conversation since you're active right here in this thread.

Regardless of what this topic is actually about, you really ought to step up and clarify things; after all, you're a Moderator too.

Why on earth should I feel the need to explain myself when I’ve already said my piece? The correspondence is there. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed. Goodbye. Let the administration deal with the rest.

You’ve all been taking aim at PL, but I think you need to learn how to distinguish a regular Forum user from a Moderator.
As a Forum user, PL is a right-wing Scum with conservative views and a truly toxic way of speaking, but when he steps into his role as a Moderator, he plays fair and doesn't hold grudges. To me, the latter matters much more.

Robert Hall7, when did you last take a photo for your avatar? You used to be much more attractive... 🤣

'The thread is closed,' says Robert Hall7, 'let someone else (another one) take over from here'...🤣

.

bluecyclist64 said:You’ve all been taking aim at PL, but I think you need to learn how to distinguish a regular Forum user from a Moderator.
As a Forum user, PL is a right-wing Scum with conservative views and a truly toxic way of speaking, but when he steps into his role as a Moderator, he plays fair and doesn't hold grudges. To me, the latter matters much more.

Robert Hall7, when did you last take a photo for your avatar? You used to be much more attractive... 🤣

That's exactly my point.

There isn't anyone here who is 🤷, I took a look at the Politics conduct guidelines PDF and I am fairly certain those posts shouldn't have been allowed. But since PL expresses the exact same—or very similar—ideas, he's essentially in a conflict of interest 😬 and basically just protecting his own side.

Great, so my predecessors are Nazis, according to the "highly respected" forum user who is protected like a grizzly bear and whose political views align perfectly with the moderator. 🙏
(Though, what he's actually putting out there aren't even moderate views, they're just 🙄)

Steven King74, since I participated in the thread regarding Minister Linić before it was merged with this one, I can tell you that you’ve simply laid out a series of sweeping generalizations here, attempting to bolster them with links that ultimately fail to hold water. I clicked through every single one of them, and not a solitary bit of evidence supports the claims you're making.

slybison8 writes with a certain level of intrigue; he doesn't harass those who disagree with him and isn't a nuisance at all—all things considered, he's easily one of the best Moderators we've ever had.

I honestly find it hard to believe that you chose to go after him like this, especially with such an interminable, rambling post filled with nothing but baseless accusations. 😲

It seems some of you are just bothered by the fact that he expresses his views without sugarcoating them; frankly, it feels like you'd actually prefer if he were charged with a verbal offense. That is where the real issue lies, rather than some trivial little reputation score for a post that most people would have gladly given thirty points to.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why people shouldn't use the harshest language possible to describe what is happening here in America, particularly regarding the actions of that traitor Linić, while the rest of the political scum remains unresponsive to these absurdities as if they were in a trance—and a good portion of the mindless masses is actually cheering him on.

Sam Wright21 said:Steven King74, since I participated in the thread regarding Minister Linić before it was merged with this one, I can tell you that you’ve simply laid out a series of sweeping generalizations here, attempting to bolster them with links that ultimately fail to hold water. I clicked through every single one of them, and not a solitary bit of evidence supports the claims you're making.

slybison8 writes with a certain level of intrigue; he doesn't harass those who disagree with him and isn't a nuisance at all—all things considered, he's easily one of the best Moderators we've ever had.

I honestly find it hard to believe that you chose to go after him like this, especially with such an interminable, rambling post filled with nothing but baseless accusations. 😲

It seems some of you are just bothered by the fact that he expresses his views without sugarcoating them; frankly, it feels like you'd actually prefer if he were charged with a verbal offense. That is where the real issue lies, rather than some trivial little reputation score for a post that most people would have gladly given thirty points to.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why people shouldn't use the harshest language possible to describe what is happening here in America, particularly regarding the actions of that traitor Linić, while the rest of the political scum remains unresponsive to these absurdities as if they were in a trance—and a good portion of the mindless masses is actually cheering him on.

I don't care if his stance is the polar opposite of mine. What bothers me is that he, acting as a Moderator, supports posts like this:



Can you label a government institution or (any) official with Nazi or fascist traits? According to the rules, that's forbidden. I didn't write those rules.
And even that isn't enough; Forum users get slapped with the same or similar labels.

Following a report on one post, a specific post by Branko was deleted, which implies it didn't meet the forum guidelines. Yet, not a single one of his previous posts, nor any of his following ones, were touched, allowing the man to run wild with everything he has.
The moderation here is a joke; I thought I knew slybison8, but honestly, I don't know him at all anymore. This is more than enough for me.



Aggressive machine guns??? Threats against children? What on earth is this person lamenting under the Moderator's hat?
🤷

Just to be clear, I only reported one post. I noted that similar things keep happening. I have no intention of clicking that little triangle on every single post while the moderators are active on this thread. Or anywhere else.

Look, I’m fairly certain this specific user's writing style isn't being stifled by any moderator oversight; rather, it's simply that slybison8 lacks a true law-enforcement mindset.

Take the thread author, for instance—he posts absolute nonsense that even a stray dog wouldn't touch, yet he provides evidence through his own two posts, only to be slapped with a one-point penalty for one of them. 😍 It really speaks volumes about the supposedly "noble" soul of PL.

It’s honestly laughable that they're using him as a "case study." Besides, you can clearly see that a mob of disgruntled users hasn't descended upon this topic, because there aren't any—which is quite telling in its own way.

Aside from him, we have Robert Hall7 on the thread, and she certainly doesn't carry herself like some heavy-handed authority figure either.

Personally, I find this arrangement quite refreshing; it seems to me that the two of them, along with Vojky, are unique personalities among the moderators—they aren't constantly breathing down your neck or manufacturing unnecessary tension.