Solidarity Thread

[Peter45]

Hi everybody

last week I wrote this posting

At that time @QUAD DOMAINS had an Impact Score of ca -170, @Domain noob was at -15
I mentioned these two members because the unfairness which their accounts had been treated with was evident to everybody.

Today
Quad Domains: - 3
Domain Noob (notably without any activity since then): + 28

There are good people in this community, people who care and are ready to take action upon it.


Unfortunately downvoting leads to the poster's account being penalised as it lowers its Impact Score.
You have surely met cases in which accounts were unfairly penalised through a questionable use of the downvoting tool.
Seeing one's posting disagreed with with no apparent reason doesn't annoy as much as seeing one's account unfairly penalised/punished.

In my view the fact that said penalisation is conducted mostly anonymously is extremely toxic for this community.


This thread offers you the chance of flagging up - be it simply through a link or adding a screenshot or a brief explanation - postings which in your view caused their author to be unfairly penalised.
Interested readers will look into it and decide whether to take action or not.

Let's uplift and encourage where anonymous penalising demoralises and intimidates.
Let's counter the negativity spreading through anonymous penalising with positivity.

 

[Peak.Domains]

Don't apologize, your personal attacks don't phase me, and I love this thread <3

There's nothing you could do or say to me that will ever bother me more than I can upset you by clicking one button.

 

[KingBilly]

This thread started out sounding noble. And now it just sounds petty.

 

[Peter45]

Please don't post anymore in this thread kingbilly, neither you nor peakdomains, as it would be unfair given that I cannot reply neither to you nor to him, otherwise you insult me again and then the mods delete our postings again.





#2

@Jannes getting 2x penalised for commenting on this news

Sedo has released its weekly report of domain sales, topped by Bitcoinetf.org. The domain was sold for $49,999 dollars.

 

[Peter45]

@Paul
@Alfa Mod Team
@Bravo Mod Team
@Echo Mod Team
@Foxtrot Mod Team

Good morning everybody,
I have a question

This thread started out sounding noble. And now it just sounds petty.

To that, this was my reply yesterday:

This thread looks silly only to those who don’t understand its point. It comes a time when all arguments and explanations have been used and the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to make a list of examples of how stupid that tool is.

The other side replied a.o. with an insult („basically you are a troll“).
One of you stepped in and deleted both postings.
My posting was deleted for being „antagonizing“.
Fair enough and no big deal.

But given that every posting replying to criticism can - by definition - be considered as „antagonizing“, I find myself now in the weird situation where if people write something negative on the thread I’m the OP of, I cannot reply because if they later come back e.g. with an insult my reply-posting - together with their insult-posting - gets deleted.

Is there a way for me to be able to reply to future criticism without risking to get deleted again should the other side then react crossing the line?

 

[Peter45]

A second question

a couple of weeks ago @kor addressed a mod with this line

Are you dumb or you just trying to be a shitty troll?!

His account was temporarily banned.


Kingbilly addressed a user (aka me) yesterday in this thread with this line

basically you are a troll

No ban, just deletion of the posting.


I’m not calling for punishment - far from that -, just trying to understand.
It looks like there is an unwritten rule in place, insults to mods get treated harder than insults to some users.
In general - this is my question - does the Account Level of "insulter" and "insulted" play a role in how insults get treated?

Not judging. Every forum I met has such a - unwritten - rule anyway, and I could even see some rationale in it.
Just trying to understand how it works here.

Thanks for your time

@Paul
@Alfa Mod Team
@Bravo Mod Team
@Echo Mod Team
@Foxtrot Mod Team

 

[Echo Mod Team]

A second question

a couple of weeks ago @kor addressed a mod with this line

His account was temporarily banned.


Kingbilly addressed a user (aka me) yesterday in this thread with this line

No ban, just deletion of the posting.


I’m not calling for punishment - far from that -, just trying to understand.
It looks like there is an unwritten rule in place, insults to mods get treated harder than insults to some users.
In general - this is my question - does the Account Level of "insulter" and "insulted" play a role in how insults get treated?

Not judging. Every forum I met has such a - unwritten - rule anyway, and I could even see some rationale in it.
Just trying to understand how it works here.

Thanks for your time

@Paul
@Alfa Mod Team
@Bravo Mod Team
@Echo Mod Team
@Foxtrot Mod Team

Hello,

I'm not familiar with both the cases, as another moderator team or staff member may have handled the report(s). However, it's important to remember that moderators generally handle all cases the same. Our policy is to issue a rule reminder on a general first time offense, if a member violates the same general rule a second time, it results into an official warning. If a 3rd violation occurs, the members account is then restricted.

However, it also depends on the seriousness of an offense. Name calling and fraud are on two completely different seriousness scales and are treated very differently, where a first-time fraudster is restricted immediately, and the name caller get a first-time reminder if they have never done it before.

In addition to the above, moderators also weigh a members account history. If they are habitual offenders that consistently violate rules, their warning or restrictions may be extended longer than the default times.

Without knowing all the details of both members and incidents, It sounds like one member may have violated the same rule multiple times or a habitual offender, which lead to their restriction and that the other member may have been a first- or second-time offender, which would result in a restriction if it happens again.

The above policy is very standard. At the end of the day, a moderator teams job is to enforce the rules equally, without playing any favorites, regardless of a members status.

While on the surface, it may look like one of the members received more punishment than the other, but what you are not seeing is the historical conduct and rule violations that member may have received previously to lead to a stricter resolution measure.

We hope that information helps.

 

[Peter45]

Hello,

I'm not familiar with both the cases, as another moderator team or staff member may have handled the report(s). However, it's important to remember that moderators generally handle all cases the same. Our policy is to issue a rule reminder on a general first time offense, if a member violates the same general rule a second time, it results into an official warning. If a 3rd violation occurs, the members account is then restricted.
...
We hope that information helps.

It did

The time you dedicated to answering my question is much appreciated.
The rationale makes sense.
Thanks Echo

 

[Paul]

His account was temporarily banned.

He wasn’t banned for anything he said publicly. I’ve already posted the quotes elsewhere.

Edit: Here’s where I posted quotes that he sent to staff: https://www.namepros.com/reports/122593/ He has a history of saying similar things to other members.

 

[Peter45]

He wasn’t banned for anything he said publicly. I’ve already posted the quotes elsewhere.

Thank you Paul
I didn't know that, as I can only judge based on what I can see from this side.

If I may: as far as I know kor, I don't think he is a bad person. There are a/holes in this forum, he isn't one of them. He's just ... a straight shooter!
And btw, when he isn't shooting in your direction he can write quite informative postings about domaining.


I was suprised to learn from Echo that even within the mods council anonymity can stretch itself to the point that none of you knows who handled a case.

I'd just like to let the anonymous mod who handled my case with kingbilly* know that by: A criticises B, B replies to A, A insults B; if a mod at this point intervenes treating A and B the same way (deleting both A's and B's postings), that's stupid.
It's stupid because the only options left for B then is to either not reply anymore to criticism or, in case he does, to pray not to get insulted because... getting insulted would mean getting deleted!

Informing me that my reply-posting had been deleted for "antagonising" and in order to "clean up the thread", far from looking like a justification, to me that just sounded as adding kidding to injury, so to speak.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time for that clarification


* how nice if he had enough guts to raise his hand...

 

[Echo Mod Team]

I was suprised to learn from Echo that even within the mods council anonymity can stretch itself to the point that none of you knows who handled a case.

All moderator actions are logged, so that any moderator team knows exactly what is going on with each member and how the moderator team resolved it.

It's these same logs that are used to determine if a member is a habitual offender or not. With each reminder, warning, infraction, restriction, report resolution, etc. having a time stamp and moderator stamp on them so that any moderator can pick up where the last one left off by reviewing the notes.

(Believe it or not, many members over the years have tried to contact a different moderator team that was not handling a case to try and get around a restriction, which is why a moderator team will generally refer you to the team that handled your case (Or you can request to know which team handled it) so you can contact them directly or reply in their existing communication with you. In your case, It looks like @Alfa Mod Team removed the comment(s) after finding that they violated the rules. You may reach out to that moderator team if you have further questions that we have not already addressed in this thread for you)

Here's the statement of ours that you appear to be referring to:

I'm not familiar with both the cases, as another moderator team or staff member may have handled the report(s).

The above simply means that we did not do Indepth research of both accounts involved in the actions you inquired about and that our reply was mostly based on NamePros policy and experience as a moderator on this team with almost 2 decades of handing community disputes, rule violations, and policy enforcement.

A second review, looking at both accounts notes, time-stamps, moderator actions, etc.. shows that the following was accurate in our assumption prior to taking the time to review both accounts in more depth:

Without knowing all the details of both members and incidents, It sounds like one member may have violated the same rule multiple times or a habitual offender, which lead to their restriction and that the other member may have been a first- or second-time offender, which would result in a restriction if it happens again.

The above policy is very standard. At the end of the day, a moderator teams job is to enforce the rules equally, without playing any favorites, regardless of a members status.

While on the surface, it may look like one of the members received more punishment than the other, but what you are not seeing is the historical conduct and rule violations that member may have received previously to lead to a stricter resolution measure.

We hope that information helps.

We hope that helps clarify.

 

[Peter45]

We hope that helps clarify.

It does (again!)
Once again, thanks Echo, I'm sure I'm not the only one appreciating your efforts for transparency (and to all my followers leave the man a Like!)

It looks like @Alfa Mod Team removed the comment(s) after finding that they violated the rules.

Ok, so you raised the hand in his place.
I'm sure he is loving you right now


I still have no idea which rules I violated, as I simply replied to Peak.Domains and KingBilly's criticism.
If my reply was "antagonising" then every reply to criticism is antagonising - and should trigger your intervention.
I wish Alfa could re-instate the postings he deleted, so everybody could see what are we talking about - and judge by themselves whether I violated any rules or not.

A reason why now I'm still interested in this case is that thanks to your explanations I learn now that in the file with my nickname on it, there is now a stain, so to speak.
"Peter has already received a penalty for antagonising".
I don't like it because that note could become relevant in the future when deciding whether Peter a first- or a second-time offender.

So I ask that my now deleted posting be re-instated in this thread and made public again, so - if needed - I can defend myself in the future.
As my posting contained neither swear words nor insults, I don't see no reasons preventing it.

But since you have already - generously - invested enough time here, and since it's him who messed it up, I'd like to see @Alfa Mod Team taking it from here.

 

[Future Sensors]

@Peter45 I suggest you talk with the mods in private about any issues you have with the removal of your posting.

 

[Echo Mod Team]

I still have no idea which rules I violated, as I simply replied to Peak.Domains and KingBilly's criticism.
If my reply was "antagonising" then every reply to criticism is antagonising - and should trigger your intervention.
I wish Alfa could re-instate the postings he deleted, so everybody could see what are we talking about - and judge by themselves whether I violated any rules or not.

Hello again,

After reviewing the posts, we can see that the first post was removed for the following in bold:

It comes to a point when all arguments and explanations have been used, so that the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to list examples of how stupid that tool is

While you did use the word "tool" instead of a persons name, it appeared that you were referring to the member you were replying too. The statement and it's context does appear to have an antagonistic/condescending tone, which is more than likely why that comment was removed.

Your second comment that was removed was done so because you quoted a comment from another member that was antagonizing. Since the comment you quoted was removed, your comment was also removed along with it.

Additionally, we just finished reviewing your account and found no reminders, notes, warnings, or restrictions. That's great news, it means that the moderator team that removed your posts did so without issuing anything to your account in hopes that the post removal notification itself, would help correct your postings that were deemed antagonistic and condescending.

Keep in mind, while you may not have received anything official on your account in this incident, through the moderator team being lenient or due to an oversight, this moderator team will now be leaving a note on your account directing any future moderators to your posts and our responses in this thread, so they know that you are now familiar with the rules regarding antagonistic and condescending posts.

In closing, we can also see that the only reason @Alfa Mod Team got involved and reviewed this thread was after you, yourself, reported it.

For internal use ONLY: https://www.namepros.com/reports/123149/

Keep in mind, once a moderator gets involved, they review all the obvious posts by members engaged in the potential rule violation reported (Occasionally, some get missed and should be reported individually for review), which can result in multiple members being reprimanded. Again, each member may have a different history of habitual violations or a clean record, which means, each ones resolution will look a little different on the surface based on said history.

We hope the additional information helps.

 

[Peter45]

Thanks again Echo


Let me get this straight

Me:
"It comes to a point when all arguments and explanations have been used, so that the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to list examples of how stupid that tool is"

You:

After reviewing the posts, we can see that the first post was removed for the following in bold: While you did use the word "tool" instead of a persons name, it appeared that you were referring to the member you were replying too.

So if - while discussing about anon DV - I reply to a member who disagrees with me telling him "anon DV is a stupid tool" it appears that I'm telling him that he is stupid.

Fair enough

What if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is very useful"
Does it appear that I'm telling him that he's very useful?

And if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is useless", does it appear that I'm telling him that he's useless?

And if I reply to him telling him "I don't care about anon DV anymore", does it appear that I'm telling him that I don't care about him anymore?

And if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is a toxic tool", what does appear?
That I'm telling him that he is toxic?
Or that I'm telling him that he's a tool?


It looks like an attempt to insert words into my mouth in order to justify a moderator's decision.

 

[Peter45]

The problem with context, condescending tone, antagonistic tone... is that they are very nebulous, subjective concepts.
A mod can delete everything he dislikes using such concepts as an excuse.

You could even say that my previous posting itself is written in a condescending/antagonistic tone!
In which case I could make a list of 4.000+ replies in this forum which had a condescending/antagonistic tone.

 

[Echo Mod Team]

Thanks again Echo


Let me get this straight

Me:
"It comes to a point when all arguments and explanations have been used, so that the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to list examples of how stupid that tool is"

You:



So if - while discussing about anon DV - I reply to a member who disagrees with me telling him "anon DV is a stupid tool" it appears that I'm telling him that he is stupid.

Fair enough

What if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is very useful"
Does it appear that I'm telling him that he's very useful?

And if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is useless", does it appear that I'm telling him that he's useless?

And if I reply to him telling him "I don't care about anon DV anymore", does it appear that I'm telling him that I don't care about him anymore?

And if I reply to him telling him "anon DV is a toxic tool", what does appear?
That I'm telling him that he is toxic?
Or that I'm telling him that he's a tool?


It looks like an attempt to insert words into my mouth in order to justify a moderator's decision.

The sentance above the one we quoted of your post was:

It sounds petty only to those who don't understand its point Kingbilly

It comes to a point when all arguments and explanations have been used, so that the only way left to show how stupid a tool is is to list examples of how stupid that tool is

So technically, you did refer to the username prior to calling them a stupid tool.

To reiterate, you didn't receive a warning for your comment (Even though you appear to think you did or took offense to being reminded of the rules in an alert). The moderator team that handled the case felt that a simple alert might help correct your condescending tone in your post(s). However, this moderator team has noted your account that you are now aware of the rules, so that moving forward, if it should happen again, an official warning will be issued.

I think we've covered NamePros rules and policies regarding this adequately now. There's no need to keep repeating our previous answers.

Please reference and keep the following Expectations for Respect and Constructiveness in mind moving forward: https://www.namepros.com/threads/expectations-for-respect-and-constructiveness.845259/

And here's the official rule that goes along with the above guide:
1.2. Be professional, tactful, and constructive at all times, including with your username and profile picture. Do not intentionally disrespect, harass, threaten, attack, instigate, insult, antagonize, or be aggressive toward others.

 

[Peter45]

So technically, you did refer to the username prior to calling them a stupid tool.

Well - beside the fact that I don't understand what do you mean with them... - yesterday we were watching TV.
I said to my friend sitting next to me, Hey Steve, this show is stupid.
Although I did refer to his name prior to calling the show stupid, nobody in the room came to the idea that I was insulting Steve.


When you make a mistake you have two options, the first one is to admit it. It's time and energy saving, and you get the bonus of looking honest.
The second one is starting inventing interpretations and secondary rules, which usually ends up with you entangled in a sea of contradictions, so that your only way out is applying brute force.
Which is what had happened, if this exchange would have taken place outside the Help Desk section.
(God bless 1.5 and its creators)


It's okey Echo, I'm not angry.
I think this exchange was a civilised one.

Just a last one, since we are here to have fun

In which case I could make a list of 4.000+ replies in this forum which had a condescending/antagonistic tone.

Actually I don’t need 4.000 postings, I just need John Berryhill : )

We know that if one wants to know what condescending and antagonizing mean in English, all he needs to do is to pick up randomly a couple of JB's postings.

So, I wondered, could it be that JB too used words ... Well there you go
foolish, 4 postings
moron, 4 postings
dense, 4
gullible, 4
ignorant, 11
dumb ... ... 45!

... stupid ... ... ... !!! s i x t y f o u r !!!
(how can you not love this lawyer)

And in none of those 150+ postings those epithets appeared to the mods as referring to JB's interlocutors.

As I said, I'm perfectly fine with different treatments based on the different status of a forum user. I could even come up with a couple of good reasons for that.
Thank you for your dedication Echo

 

[Peter45]

Thread title: Has anyone else's EPC plummeted?

#194

Someone will point to @TjWarrior's previous bad behaviour, but - beside the questionable fact of keeping punishing a user because of previous bad behaviour - that's not the point.
The point is, what are those downvoters disagreeing with.
Or are they signalising that he is a troll?
Is this the real point of anon DV?

 

[Peter45]

That one person is still a human with feelings. Part of the job of a moderation team--or any oversight body--is to protect the minority from the majority.

How wonderful.
I guess there is a couple of supporters of the ex US President in this community whose feelings were unsettled by that posting.

Imagine what would have happened back then to the account of a forum member proposing to round up, fix and deport President Obama's supporters.
Or imagine the same forum member proposing to confine black people, or proposing to round up gays and lesbians and fix them, "so they can have a better life" (no Echo I'm not proposing those ideas. Please don't start again with the you are implying- and the technically speaking-game).

Among the mods there would have been a race to the Smoke Out Account button.

So why the author of that posting gets such a free pass from the mods you ask. Imo it has less to do with treating accounts differently according to their status, and more with cultural affinity, or political bias.

Anyway, even if I'm not one of them, my solidarity goes today to the members of this forum who support the ex US president, i.e. those who according to that posting should be round up and fixed

 

[Paul]

So why the author of that posting gets such a free pass from the mods you ask. Imo it has less to do with treating accounts differently according to their status, and more with cultural affinity, or political bias.

No, it has to do with the fact that not a single person reported it. Not one. You didn't even link me to it. I had to search for it and report it myself.

We're not sitting around all day policing the break room. If you see someone suggesting to round up > 30% of a country and deport them, report it. That should go without saying.

@JB Lions: Really? C'mon. You know better.

 

[JB Lions]

No, it has to do with the fact that not a single person reported it. Not one. You didn't even link me to it. I had to search for it and report it myself.

We're not sitting around all day policing the break room. If you see someone suggesting to round up > 30% of a country and deport them, report it. That should go without saying.

@JB Lions: Really? C'mon. You know better.

What? It's a political thread. You should know better than to listen to trolls like the one above that didn't point out anybody's else's posts, which are much worse. The deport stuff was a joke, everybody in that thread knows that. Guess what, we joke around sometimes. The people that actually post in that thread have no problem with each other. Daniel loves me, ask him. We're adults, we understand when we talk about politics, we will disagree, sometimes it might get a little heated. We're all fine with that. Doesn't matter what some troll thinks who doesn't post in the thread and might have had his feelings hurt from something somebody said. Use the Block Feature the forum comes with @Peter45 A little obsessive counting words then posting them without context, which makes one a bit dishonest. And since you like to count @Peter45, why don't you count how many times Daniel has posted he loves me - https://www.namepros.com/search/562768/?q=love+JB&c[users]=Daniel+Owens&o=date And @Paul the mods are aware of the thread and have said many times heated debate is fine. And the people who actually post in that thread are fine.

I thought this was some other thread, then I go back and read from the begging of the thread to find out this has been nothing a big @Peter45 troll thread of him complaining about stuff.

 

[Peter45]

Oh, it was a joke.
Proposing to round up and fix people based on their skin colour, sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs... is allowed in this forum, as long as it’s a joke?
I don't think so.

I'm still convinced that if a declared right-leaning member - as opposite to the many left-leaning members here - would joke about rounding up people of colour or homosexuals - just like you do with Trump supporters - the moderators would ban his account from this platform.

The benefits of sharing the same cultural or political camp with the moderators.

And the people who actually post in that thread are fine.

Well, good for them.
The problem is that that thread is public. You are arguing as if it were a private chat.
What about the non-posting reading members. What about the non-members readers.

So - e.g. - if you are debating with a homosexual on the public square, you think that you are allowed to propose to round up homosexuals and fix them as long as your interlocutor doesn't take it personal.
What about those who could hear you. It's a public square.

You seem to be convinced that you are allowed - in a public space like an internet forum - to propose - just for fun, of course - to round up black people as long as the Afro-American you are debating with doesn't take it personal.



Finally, you refer to me as a troll 3 times. The last time someone insulted me the mods gave me a penalty because my reply to him was "antagonising and condescending". Good for you that you have the mods on your side.

 

[JB Lions]

Oh, it was a joke.
Proposing to round up and fix people based on their skin colour, sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs... is allowed in this forum, as long as it’s a joke?
I don't think so.

I'm still convinced that if a declared right-leaning member - as opposite to the many left-leaning members here - would joke about rounding up people of colour or homosexuals - just like you do with Trump supporters - the moderators would ban his account from this platform.

The benefits of sharing the same cultural or political camp with the moderators.





Well, good for them.
The problem is that that thread is public. You are arguing as if it were a private chat.
What about the non-posting reading members. What about the non-members readers.

So - e.g. - if you are debating with a homosexual on the public square, you think that you are allowed to propose to round up homosexuals and fix them as long as your interlocutor doesn't take it personal.
What about those who could hear you. It's a public square.

You seem to be convinced that you are allowed - in a public space like an internet forum - to propose - just for fun, of course - to round up black people as long as the Afro-American you are debating with doesn't take it personal.



Finally, you refer to me as a troll 3 times. The last time someone insulted me the mods gave me a penalty because my reply to him was "antagonising and condescending". Good for you that you have the mods on your side.

You are a troll/instigator. You posted 3 times in that thread. Your first post you said, I'm not American, not into politics, but then proceeded to repost a troll tweet from a right wing account.

As far as this nonsense:

"Good for you that you have the mods on your side."

I just had a 3 month account restriction from replying to another troll.

The important thing Paul pointed out is that nobody in that thread, you know, actual people that participate daily, reported the post. We're fine with it, it's a political thread and they understand when I'm joking and they understand we're going disagree and sometimes it gets heated. Yet, we all still participate. And for those that don't like it, they don't have to post or they can use the ignore feature.

And it dishonest, weird, you may be bored, to count how many times somebody says a certain word. The dishonest part is when you leave out context.

If you need help finding the Ignore Feature, let me know. I'm glad to help out newbies.

 

[Peter45]

Your first post you said, I'm not American, not into politics, but then proceeded to repost a troll tweet from a right wing account.

This is the posting you are referring to JB Lion.
You are convinced that in order to find that speculation interesting one must be a Trump supporter, or a right wing.
Maybe you are wrong

And for those that don't like it, they don't have to post or they can use the ignore feature.

So you think you can write whatever you want, as long as your interlocutors don't report it.
The others, the readers, they can skip it. Or they can use the ignore feature.
I like that.
I'll try to use that argument the next time one of the moderators lecture me about forum rules.

But should you in future come up to the idea of jokingly proposing to round up and fix groups of people other than Trump supporters - like e.g. people with specific religious beliefs - I think it could become a problem.
Your argument, that your interlocutors didn't report you and the readers can skip and use the ignore feature, I'm not sure it would be of help.
And should then the mods not act upon it, you could put them too in trouble, I believe.

 

[JB Lions]

Show attachment 247446

This is the posting you are referring to JB Lion.
You are convinced that in order to find that speculation interesting one must be a Trump supporter, or a right wing.
Maybe you are wrong




So you think you can write whatever you want, as long as your interlocutors don't report it.
The others, the readers, they can skip it. Or they can use the ignore feature.
I like that.
I'll try to use that argument the next time one of the moderators lecture me about forum rules.

But should you in future come up to the idea of jokingly proposing to round up and fix groups of people other than Trump supporters - like e.g. people with specific religious beliefs - I think it could become a problem.
Your argument, that your interlocutors didn't report you and the readers can skip and use the ignore feature, I'm not sure it would be of help.
And should then the mods not act upon it, you could put them too in trouble, I believe.

Yes, I can write about politics and joke around in the Political thread. That thread has been going for 11 years. Do you grasp that people will disagree when talking about politics? People that actually post in that thread understand this, even tho you don't. You didn't get it was a joke because you're not a regular participant in the thread. And I was joking about MAGAs. Your reply above was talking about something else, sexual orientation, skin color etc. That post had nothing to do with that, but you needed a way to drama it up, again being dishonest.

It seems your goal here it not to be part of a community, a regular participant but go around the forum to find stuff to complain about. And you're taking it to some weird level when you actually take time to count words.

I went to take a look at your earlier posts in the thread where you were complaining about some people getting downvoted. One person already explained this to you, but I think it went over your head, so let me try once more. Those downvotes were to SPAMMERS. Spammers are not welcome here. Spammers are not people/bots you should feel sorry for. Maybe, push away from the keyboard, put your phone down and go outside and get some fresh air. It will probably do you a world of good. Or you can count my words in this post or spend the rest of your day looking for something in this forum to offend you.