Warning for posters who have been changing the names of famous Polish politicians, celebrities, etc.

Indeed, like "Harold" that is not offensive.


I think Kotomir suits him better

or Bullshitoslav

Pimposz?

I don't think that's the explanation, it can't be, given some of the names being used.

The problem here is that we are both guessing. What is needed is a clear statement from a mod that either yes the rule does still apply to all posters or that it no longer applies to any poster. That way we all know what we can and cannot post.

Bwahaha. Aren't you optimistic?!

I mean, we used to have mods that stuck to clear rules. PF was quite a friendly place then, but of course, someone got jealous and ruined everything.

You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one who remembers when all members of PF had the same rules enforced on them by the mods. PF used to be a far more pleasant place then. These days mods don't seem to care at all about what is posted and only about who posts it. A very good example is the rule about not changing the names of posters. It's blindingly obvious to all that the mods are not enforcing that rule when it comes to a certain poster: 92 examples here ?phrase=Hairy and not a single warning, I can't even remember a red-letter comment from a mod about those posts. But they can't even be bothered to post the most cursory of excuses in this thread, let alone any explanation. Instead they post threats of one-month bans if people dare to mention their names in open forum.

And that's exactly why PF is such an uncivilised mess.

Says the dude who has had more warnings and bans than ayone else in PF history

Its almost funny, but actually very sad they continue to let this hateful troll pursue his lefty agenda and abuse other posters.

Dolno, do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem?

Unlike you I have no bans or warnings that tells me that you are the problem here not me.

If I were to break the rules here, a certain moderator who cannot be named in open forum (because he has specifically said it's a one-month ban for posting his name in open forum) would ban me immediately. You claim that I am the problem here, so post a few quotes in which I break any rule here. It can't be too hard, above I posted a link to a poster breaking a rule here 92 times.

So are you saying that all the warnings and bans you have had on PF happened because the mods singled you out for some reason?

They clearly haven't singled me out, there are other people who have had lots of warnings (and you'll note that I currently have the average number). The problem is that they very clearly apply the rules differently for different people. The fact that I can link to posts in which a member breaks just one rule 92 times without even a single warning being given to him clearly shows that. And once posters start to understand that they are, so to speak, bulletproof, their behaviour changes accordingly. It becomes more and more vile, to the point that they actually drive away well liked and respected posters, for example by calling them prostitutes or carry out a campaign of harassment.

I am unsure if the title of this thread is valid, was it not created by and ex mod that left under a cloud?


I too am upset that a poster left this forum, but your statement above is not strictly true to what happened, the mod explained that in his opinion the comment that caused offence was made indirectly and tongue in cheek.


Well your the master along with your club members.

The thread was created by the best mod PF has ever had. She left after personal information about her was posted in open forum. The person who posted that didn't even get a warning for doing it.

I'm trying to find out if the rule is still valid. We have 92 examples that say it isn't but the question is whether it is not valid for all posters or can only selected posters ignore it?


It's amusing how you keep making your claims and ignoring every request that you quote from posts which support your claim. Perhaps you don't understand how to support statements, so let me give you an example:

I assert that the mods here have been ignoring the ban on changing the name of another poster and I can provide 92 examples to support my assertion: phrase=Hairy

Still having trouble with the concept of supporting a claim? OK, I'll do it again: I assert that your claim is entirely false and I support my assertion by pointing out that a moderator who must not be named in open forum has told me I'll be hit with a one-month ban for even mentioning his name in open forum. If he gives such a long ban for such a minor thing, he would no doubt have given a very long ban for carrying out a campaign of harassment. The fact I'm not banned for a very long time tells us that your claim must be false.

I wonder why you might want to make false claims. Could it be that you don't want people discussing the rule breaking and rule ignoring that is clearly going on at PF? If that is the case, you are part of the problem.

IINM that sad, little excuse of a man is still around (and actually proud of harassing a woman in public - a recurrent problem here that the owner of the forum is just fine and dandy with).

Why should that bother me, you are the one who keeps moaning about rule breaking while also being one of the most prolific rule breakers on the forum.

And I guess its fine for you to chip in considering you have a marker on the forum for being an abuser yourself.

I think you are mistaken, the person who posted private information about Lenka has never harasses a woman in public, and I find it hard to imagine him doing that.


And there's the problem, you don't care when rules are broken here, which means you don't care that the forum has been driven into the gutter. You only care who posts what. You are part of the problem. Perhaps you'd like to change that and become part of the solution.


I'd ask you to quote a post in which Maf abuses anybody but we all know you can't do that and that when challenged to support your posts you refuse to do that.

Anyway, back to the question: mods, does the rule about not changing the names of posters no longer apply to everybody or do the 92 examples linked to above show that it doesn't apply to certain people and does apply to other people?

That was aimed at the owner (first initial V) name rhymes blincent who is an extraordinarily think skinned little twerp. I suggested that he was dreamergirl (becuase his antics were being tolerated for so long) and he had a diva fit and calls me an abuser.... whadya donna do, eh?

On the other hand, I've never revealed personal information about other posters here nor called anyone a prostitute (that I can recall and if I did I'm sure it was descriptive and not meant in anger).


i refuse to acknowledge any such event ever taking place....


but in private..... POW! straight to the moon! is that the sub-texte of your artful implicature?

Its the mods job to enforce rules here not mine, and they are being enforced as you can see from your own profile markers.


So you are saying that his marker for abuse just appeared out of thin air?.

already explained in #81, if it's not true then that person can deny it here (and point to the real source)

You are absolutely hilarious at times! You're shown a rule which states that the names of posters are not to be changed, then you're presented with 92 examples of a single poster doing exactly that and you respond by claiming that the rules here are being enforced! As for the warnings you can see, one was for putting four quotes in a post in the bin (other posters don't get warnings for having far more quotes in posts in open forum) and the other was for a supposedly copy-pasting a post which I'd actually written (I'd link to the post but somebody deleted from the site when it was pointed out that it was original content rather than a copy-paste).


Not at all, I can't imagine him doing it in private either.


I'd be careful there, you could be done for changing the name of a poster, i.e. He Who Must Not Be Named In Open Forum. Perhaps a better way would be to 'bleep' out part of the name, perhaps replace the vowels with *?

So you are doing exactly what Harry and the title of this thread is complaining about, poking the mods with a sharp stick is going to get you nowhere.

Oh lord, dealing with pathologically fragile egos is exhausting... demanding a lot of what progressives call 'emotional labor'... (that's not about you dolny, can I call you dolny? or would you prefer slunzok?)


I didn't call the person 'blincent' I wrote that it 'rhymes with' blincent, very different as different as bear droppings and sailing ships.

The forum's Liar Laureate is back in action. Kosher is not only not derogatory but actually describes a hygienically superior way of food storage, handling and prepration including the final wash-up. To read something derogatory into it reveals someone's unnatural hypersensivity that immediately triggers the big unanswered question: R U 1 2?

Oh good, Po has seen this thread. Perhaps you'd care to tell us why you think that the rule about not changing the names of posters shouldn't apply to you? You clearly think that it doesn't, as is shown by the 92 examples linked to above.

Sadly I fear that we'll be waiting as long for you to explain why this rule (and others) doesn't apply to for even longer than we'll be waiting for the moderator now known as He Who Must Not Be Named In Open Forum to explain why he doesn't apply this rule (and others) to you.

Ślunzok he isn't. If he were, he may well be addressed 'górny'. But because he isn't a native of Oberschlesien, the best way to call him is 'Niederschlesier'.

A nickname or soubriquet is not changing anyone's name, it is merely describing them in a poignant and/or colourful way. You still haven't answered: R U 1 2? There's nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, you should be proud.