ZK strikes again!

I can play by the rules, but then you all need to start playing by them too.

Every time a somewhat 'edgy' thread opens up here on ZK... honestly, I don't really get the criteria used to decide why certain users are allowed to stay while others aren't, but I guess we’re seeing the same pattern again.

I go into a thread like this expecting a bit of healthy banter, but then I realize; the same old pattern is repeating itself in these kinds of discussions.

I get flagged when I address someone directly with an insult, yet for instance, JPK doesn't get flagged even though he explicitly called me stupid.

this wasn't flagged;

JPK said:Look, just grab some basic logic textbooks and do us all a favor.

JPK said:Well, it might be a bit optimistic to assume I know which kettle is being referred to in this context

urbangull90 said:Clearly, reading comprehension needs to be taught in schools again.
SF

meanwhile, my response to them gets me flagged...😕

jevgenija's mockery isn't flagged either

jevgenija said:you missed the mark entirely. try not to watch TV after midnight 😬

whereas the part where Ace tells her to screw off gets flagged... 🤷

Ace gets bans that take them out, while jevge, who is arguing with Snjom, stays unbanned. 🤷

Then there's Tupelo popping up totally off-topic with some inside jokes, and nothing happens. 🤷

I mean, what are you guys doing... are you only moderating the people who actually raise your blood pressure?

If you asked me, I wouldn't have flagged anything from this, but it's both funny and sad to see how this forced sterility is only practiced against specific people. You don't need to claim you can't moderate every single word when you've already proven that you certainly can.

Megan Torres said:Fine, I’ll play by the rules, but then you guys better start playing by them too.

It’s always the same thing—as soon as some "controversial" thread pops up here on ZK... honestly, nobody can figure out the criteria for why certain people get a pass while others don't, but sure, let's just watch the same old pattern repeat itself.

I go into these threads expecting a little bit of healthy, irreverent banter, but instead, I realize I'm just looking at the same predictable cycle we see in every single one of these discussions.

The mods swoop in and ban me for addressing someone directly with an insult, yet JPK doesn't get flagged even though he was loud and clear about calling me an idiot.

this didn't get banned;

while my response to them gets me tossed out...😕

(...)

Regarding my own post, I’d really appreciate it if you’d take another look at the back-and-forth between that guy and me that happened right before what I wrote.

If anything is confusing you, I'm more than happy to walk you through it.

SF

p.s. Honestly, I couldn't care less if he got banned for those posts aimed at me. It's not like I went running to the mods asking for him to be kicked. At the end of the day, we all just leave our posts behind for ourselves to live with...

Megan Torres said:Ace gets banned because of her strikes, while Jevge, who’s actually picking fights, stays online. 🤷

They both hit 70 points. Ace got banned because she already had a 45-point strike on her record.

Look, we almost never hand out strikes just for light trolling or messing with people. We don't do that. What we *do* consistently crack down on are direct insults, aggressive trolling, and attacking the moderation team.

So, was Jepikino not being direct about it?

What’s actually the difference between just trolling and, say, hardcore trolling? I mean, don't you think Eurifesa falls into that heavy-duty category...? She shows up on pretty much any thread just to stir the pot. So if she isn't getting banned, how does that even work?

Since people kept complaining that "trolling" was too vague during previous appeals, we’ve introduced custom explanations for warnings. Now you can see exactly why someone actually got flagged.

From the thread:

Megan Torres said:Personally, I find this post offensive, even if it technically fits within the forum rules. 🤷 😁

I’m also sick of this pile of garbage posts that insult me for being an atheist forum member, yet they don't get banned. 🤷 😁

They're right on the edge. Honestly, my rule is that it's better to let borderline posts slide than to go banning everyone. People end up getting a pass either way too often.

The specific posts you pointed out to me don't deserve a ban. Look at them in the context of the conversation. Someone says something totally illogical, and others reply by telling them their logic sucks. Is it trolling? Sure. Is it legitimate? Yeah. Fine. We'll just debate it.

As for Eurifesa, you're starting to sound like a full-blown defense attorney. We could go down that rabbit hole, but then we'd be doing it for everything. Let's not expand the argument, especially when it targets specific users. Is someone being insulted? Is there a flame war? If her posts bother you, just report them.

I was actually going to start a new thread myself, but I see Megan Torres has already jumped in.

First off, let’s look at how Moderator1 actually kicks off a topic:

Quote: aryna said:In which one? That Westgate mall in Nairobi? Man, you really dodged a bullet there!

Anyway, what do you guys think about the miracles in Medjugorje? Is it all just leftover Christmas lights?

That is a textbook example of how *not* to open a discussion.

Secondly, Moderator2 goes ahead and insults people, which just turns the whole thread toxic and leads to nothing but warnings and bans.

Thirdly, after fourteen pages of back-and-forth, Moderator1 decides to "correct" the original post like this:

This thread will be strictly moderated, so the rules for conduct and posting remain the same as the rest of the forum. Because of that, the usual ZK trolling and mockery won't be tolerated here.

In short:
1. Participants are expected to refrain from insults, armchair diagnosing, or labeling other users and groups.
2. Posts containing controversial content won't be deleted; instead, they will result in a warning. A warning for insults is 45 points. Trolling warnings will be issued as custom explanations and carry 35 points.
3. Commenting on moderator warnings or discussing moderation within this thread is strictly prohibited. Ignoring or responding to them results in a 30-point warning for commenting on moderation, which violates sub-forum rules.
4. Replying to warned posts is forbidden. Replying to a warned post carries a 10-point penalty.
5. If the thread gets too heated, it may be locked for one or more days.

And of course, they did that just so nobody would dare ask who is actually responsible for the mess this thread has become.
This is embarrassing. It's an absolute disgrace!!!

The topic was pulled from the mystery section and started up as a chat thread, just like all the others. I don't really see any issue with how it was handled.
last time around, people were complaining that the rules regarding cardboard limits and boundaries were super confusing—but now that the debate has actually kicked into gear, the rules are sitting right there, clearly laid out in the intro post.

Sarah Doyle54, what are you even playing lawyer for? Euripides popped up in this thread too, though she only dropped one single trolling comment.
But yeah, it’s pretty obvious she’s been out there trolling basically every topic on the board.

Look, whether I personally find her charming or think she deserves a ban is secondary.
The actual criteria are what matter here.
If you’re going to hand out bans to me just because I brought up the moderation team, then you have to hand one to Mume for saying the exact same thing.

You can't just turn a blind eye for some people and crack down on others.

And if you want me to look at the context, maybe you should try doing the same. JPK didn't just start randomly bashing atheists out of nowhere; he was responding to a constant stream of posts and generalizations claiming that believers are all idiots.

I have no clue where you dug up Euripides from. What does she even have to do with this thread, and why does she bother you? That’s on you. I don't even know which post by Mume you're talking about. If you've got a bone to pick, just drop the link.

Megan Torres said:If you want me to look at the context, maybe try looking at it yourself. He didn't just wake up one day and start bashing atheists in general; he was reacting to constant posts and generalizations claiming believers are all morons.

I am looking. That's exactly why his posts aren't being cardboarded for generalizing about atheists. It's the same reason nobody else is getting cardboarded for their posts generalizing about believers.

Megan Torres said:j.a. didn't just start making sweeping statements about atheists out of nowhere; he was reacting to the constant posts and generalizations claiming believers are just plain idiots...

Sorry, but that’s just not how I see it. I’m not saying not a single comment has been like that—though I haven't read every single word here—but there’s this persistent underlying vibe that anyone believing in visions or a glowing Lady is just a moron.
Whether it's on this thread or pretty much anywhere else online, you see believers either folding under it or getting outraged because they feel the whole thing is just mocking their faith.

Now, if you think that kind of attitude deserves a ban too, well, that's a whole other debate, but saying believers were being mocked en masse isn't exactly accurate.

And j.a. was the first one to really start trolling this thread, and he did it hard. Honestly, I think JPK deserved a cardboard warning at some point, maybe not for any specific individual comment, but more because he was basically just picking on him, which I don't agree with even though I actually agree with JPK's actual points... but j.a. should have been carded for the trolling way sooner.

This time I really am not at fault—I gave a perfectly on-topic, reasoned response to a valid question and ended it with a direct quote... only to be met with this:

Quote: Ace of Diamonds said:Since you clearly have special protection on this forum—and it’s been proven on the main site that the rules don't apply to you like they do to everyone else—do me a favor and take your condescension and arrogance elsewhere... just leave me out of it.

Ace of Diamonds said:You're actually hilarious.

I'm not just talking for the sake of it. Either you're incapable of understanding what was written, or you just feel the need to dump your daily dose of crap on this forum—or maybe you just enjoy being a bully and exploiting people you can get away with, and now it's finally biting you back. 🙂

Anyway, you're just not worth my time. Bye! 👋

I don't entirely agree with my own warnings, honestly... I didn't come anywhere close to insulting her nearly as much as she insulted me. But fine, let's say I got flagged because I chose to engage with this nonsense, even though I knew beforehand it would lead to a warning. I guess I got them because, given how long I've been around here, I should have been smarter and just used the ignore button. I'm not going to make a scene about it, though...

But things like "you aren't exactly smart" and "maybe stop watching those psychic shows" don't even come close to these outbursts of pure frustration and insults.

electricjackal55 said:The thread was pulled from the mystery section and started in a chatty style, just like all the other similar ones. I honestly don't see any issue with how it was handled.
Last time around, everyone on the forum was complaining because they didn't understand the rules regarding cardboard limits and what's actually allowed, but now that the debate has really heated up, those rules are sitting right there clearly laid out in the intro post.

Oh, no we aren't doing that. 🙂
This whole argument blew up because the moderators completely messed up the thread; you were the first one to kick things off with that "who cares" attitude when opening it, then Sarah Doyle54 used her mod powers to insult believers, then you went ahead and switched the thread status from casual chat to strictly moderated, and frankly, all the moderators together are just looking out for each other whenever it suits you.

Quote: Ace of Diamonds

Sarah Doyle54 said:I have no idea where you dug up Euripides from, or what on earth she has to do with this discussion, much less why she’s bothering you. That's really on you, I guess. Also, I’m not entirely sure which of Mume's posts you're referring to. If you actually have a grievance, maybe just provide a link?

I’m just watching from the sidelines. That’s probably why his posts—the ones where he makes those sweeping generalizations about atheists—aren't being cardboarded. It’s the same logic applied elsewhere; you don't see people getting cardboarded for making broad strokes about believers, either. I guess it just works that way.

It’s funny to me how you all go out of your way to invite people to come here and vent, only to serve them up responses exactly like these once they actually do.

I don't have anything against Euripides, really. I was just reacting to that aggressive trolling you mentioned, so I brought her up as an example of someone who seems to constantly get away with everything without any consequences.

Regarding JPK—you were actually the first one to bring him up, and I already laid out exactly why he’s suddenly being such a jerk toward atheists. So, I guess I don't really follow why you're giving this explanation now. It seems a bit redundant.

To be perfectly honest, you haven't actually given me a single answer.

I guess I have to ask: why hasn't JPK received a single yellow card? And if we’re being completely honest here, why hasn't Teddy either?

brightcrane56 said:Oh, let's not play that game. 🙂
The debate really spiraled out of control once the moderators completely botched the thread. You kicked things off with that "who gives a damn" attitude when opening the topic, Sarah Doyle54 used her mod status to insult believers, you went back to changing the thread status from casual chat to strictly moderated, and frankly, all the moderators together act like a unified front just to cover for one another whenever it suits them.

I actually moved this thread out of Mystery just yesterday because the discussion was gaining momentum.
That’s how we handle anything that takes off in Mystery; we separate it. In those cases, the designated starting post is the original one that sparked the conversation in Mystery—not some polished, manufactured opening post designed specifically to bait people.
Furthermore, the ZK rules clearly outline how inflammatory topics are handled, which was all agreed upon during our last PZK correspondence, so I don't see why everyone is acting so surprised.

Megan Torres, I honestly don't get why you're struggling to follow my explanation. You brought up j.a. in your opening post, so that's what I was responding to. Seriously, I have zero clue how Euripides fits into anything we're talking about here, which is exactly why I asked you for an example. I thought you were complaining about specific moderation on the ZK boards, not trying to kick off some massive debate about some vague definition of trolling on the forum in general. 🤷

What exactly would you want to see lead to JPK or Teddy being cardboarded?

velvettrucker52 said:I actually stepped away from the mystery thread just yesterday because the debate was starting to get a little too heated for my liking.
That’s how we differentiate everything that gains traction here on Mystery. In those specific cases, we look at the very first post—the one that actually kicked off the discussion on Mystery—rather than those overly polished, manufactured opening posts that people usually aim for.
Also, in... According to the ZK rules. He’s explaining how we’re going to handle those controversial topics, which is exactly what we settled on during our last round of ZK correspondence, so I honestly don't see why everyone is acting so surprised.

You forgot to mention that the moderator just turned this thread into a total powder keg. Was that just an accident, or is there something else going on here?
Quote: Ace of Diamonds

I haven't seen anything from brightcrane56 yet, but I'm definitely keeping an eye out! Asks: ... plus all you moderators, because you truly have each other's backs, even when it isn't strictly necessary.

Mume, stop spinning this. This whole thread went nuclear the second a few posters started implying that making fun of a glowing statue was some kind of collective atheist middle finger to believers. Before that, people were just having a decent conversation. Now, they’re still having a conversation—they're just talking about everything and anything under the sun.

Sarah Doyle54 said:Mume, don't twist my words. I never once suggested that making fun of a glowing statue was an insult to believers.

Oh, please, you know that’s not true—you went straight for the jugular and insulted believers directly. To make matters worse, you actually pulled rank and used your moderator status just to shut down anyone who disagreed with you.
Do you have enough integrity to at least offer an apology?

brightcrane56 said:Of course you didn't—you basically insulted the believers right to their faces. And you did it while pulling rank as a moderator just to shut down anyone who disagreed with you.
Do you actually have the guts to at least say you're sorry?

Wait, which post are we even talking about?

1. I didn't insult any believers, whether directly or otherwise.
2. I haven't used my moderator status to win arguments.
3. Because of that, I don't see any reason to apologize.

Are you planning on apologizing for maliciously twisting my words?