Board Game Arena

FrankJones wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 04:44

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 01:08

FrankJones wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 00:12

No, they are not.

The only reason this has not been flagged and removed yet is because no moderator has seen it and no one has reported it.

Previously I was speaking on the accusation by Grim but what did wrld say that ppl believed he should be flagged? Wrld spoke on the same issue that that they have been speaking on for like a year now that appears to be unresolved. Them being restricted from reporting players. There are several active threads that more directly “indirectly call out others” . A thread that you are very active in (conceding) calls people childish and pathetic and ppl chiming in after they get conceded on are “indirectly calling out players”.

If op is actually trying to report someone because they put best in their name then yes that is petty. Trying to report op on assumptions would be petty. Bga doesn’t need to be that strict.

OP has been literally flagged from reporting for having at least FIVE bogus reports.

OP wants to report someone for having
"Best" in the username.

That is nonsense. End of discussion.

Peace.

Can you seriously not read? I did not mention any user names here. You do not know who I reported.

MarkSteere wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 07:36 I don't think anyone was "nasty." You want to see nasty? Come to my forum. It's essentially unmoderated. We do have moderators, but no one has ever been moderated. We're big on freedom of speech. If people are not forced to act civilized, sometimes they will and sometimes they won't. I've chased out a number of members just by calling them what's now known as the "R-word" (and sundry other words).

I don't know what's better, moderated or unmoderated. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Apples and oranges.

I certainly do not want to see nasty. So I visit mostly moderated places on the internet.

Reading your post it seems that "We're big on freedom of speech." is an excuse for people to do away with any responsibility for what and how they say things.
I have a different take on freedom of speech: yes, you can say anything you want but you can (and will?) be held accountable for what you say and how you say it. In consequence other people can react to your content and the way you say it. It is my (albeit) limited experience that "We're big on freedom of speech." people react very badly to being confronted with differing opinions and if communication is asked of them that is civil, well argument and openminded.

Why did I React to this comment?
Because I do not feel we are comparing apples and oranges, but it is my opinion we should serve for a better discourse/world and I feel that fora and other places on the internet do give people examples of how to have conversations with each other. And I feel that all those places would benefit from civility. The comment "ou want to see nasty? Come to my forum." only increases my wish for a better discourse everywhere.

Freedom of speech is not a euphemism for anything. It's simply the freedom to say what you want, without repercussion. Free speech is nothing to fear. You actually don't need moderators to protect you from it.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. You don't even have to listen. If the level of forum discourse is not to your liking, you're free to hightail it out of there at any time.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 08:50

FrankJones wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 04:44

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 01:08

Previously I was speaking on the accusation by Grim but what did wrld say that ppl believed he should be flagged? Wrld spoke on the same issue that that they have been speaking on for like a year now that appears to be unresolved. Them being restricted from reporting players. There are several active threads that more directly “indirectly call out others” . A thread that you are very active in (conceding) calls people childish and pathetic and ppl chiming in after they get conceded on are “indirectly calling out players”.

If op is actually trying to report someone because they put best in their name then yes that is petty. Trying to report op on assumptions would be petty. Bga doesn’t need to be that strict.

OP has been literally flagged from reporting for having at least FIVE bogus reports.

OP wants to report someone for having
"Best" in the username.

That is nonsense. End of discussion.

Peace.

End of discussion because you say so? . You didn’t even address any of my points lol. If you read op last thread having 5 bad reports isnt even what gets you flagged and bga admins said that message is misleading and would be fixed. Op alleged bad reports had to have been from yrs ago and bga failed to ever show op the outcome of their reports for them to know they had any bad reports in the first place. That is more “bogus” to me. I too asked bga multiple times for the status of a report years ago out of principle and never received any (won’t give further details bc then I can be flaggged for “challenging moderation on forums”).

"End of discussion" is a figurative statement meaning, "in my opinion there is nothing more here to discuss."

MarkSteere wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 12:09 Freedom of speech is not a euphemism for anything. It's simply the freedom to say what you want, without repercussion. Free speech is nothing to fear. You actually don't need moderators to protect you from it.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. You don't even have to listen. If the level of forum discourse is not to your liking, you're free to hightail it out of there at any time.

Well, I am glad we do NOT have "freedom of speech" to say whatever we want on a privately owned message forum.

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 10:28

FrankJones wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 04:44

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 01:08

Previously I was speaking on the accusation by Grim but what did wrld say that ppl believed he should be flagged? Wrld spoke on the same issue that that they have been speaking on for like a year now that appears to be unresolved. Them being restricted from reporting players. There are several active threads that more directly “indirectly call out others” . A thread that you are very active in (conceding) calls people childish and pathetic and ppl chiming in after they get conceded on are “indirectly calling out players”.

If op is actually trying to report someone because they put best in their name then yes that is petty. Trying to report op on assumptions would be petty. Bga doesn’t need to be that strict.

OP has been literally flagged from reporting for having at least FIVE bogus reports.

OP wants to report someone for having
"Best" in the username.

That is nonsense. End of discussion.

Peace.

Can you seriously not read? I did not mention any user names here. You do not know who I reported.

Other people in the forum seem to have figured it out based on the information you gave.

I was trying to help you avoid getting into trouble.

FrankJones wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 13:53 Well, I am glad we do NOT have "freedom of speech" to say whatever we want on a privately owned message forum.

Sure. I don't disagree. I'm not advocating for an unmoderated BGA forum. I just don't think moderation is necessary in every forum. Certainly not in my forum. It's just a few guys debating about abstract game design philosophy. Seems like an innocuous topic, but it can get heated. Extremely heated. And that's ok.

FrankJones wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 13:55

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 10:28

FrankJones wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 04:44

OP has been literally flagged from reporting for having at least FIVE bogus reports.

OP wants to report someone for having
"Best" in the username.

That is nonsense. End of discussion.

Peace.

Can you seriously not read? I did not mention any user names here. You do not know who I reported.

Other people in the forum seem to have figured it out based on the information you gave.

I was trying to help you avoid getting into trouble.

No you weren't. If anything you were trying to cause me problems by flat out lying about what I have said.

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 10:28 Can you seriously not read? I did not mention any user names here. You do not know who I reported.

Yes yes yes, you never said what username you reported, blah blah blah. Other than a misreading of block quotes, nobody has claimed that you mentioned a username. But you did point a finger in a very specific direction.

Here’s the reasoning: You came to complain after attempting to report somebody for a “blatantly triumphalist and provocative username”. Now, it stands to reason this didn’t happen two weeks ago and you only now came here to post about it. Or even the day before you posted here. People don’t sit on concerns like this for any significant period of time before posting.

So, we look through your player history. At the time of your post, you had played two games in the previous hour, two more games a couple of hours before that, and then a cluster of games ending over 12 hours earlier (which, again, are too long ago to thing you’ve been stewing in this all day before coming to post). So we look at the four most recent games, and you were in a handful of turn-based games at the time as well. Sifting through these 8-10 games or so reveals only one name that anybody could even concievably take to be “triumphalist”. And that’s a stretch.

Is this in fact the name you reported? Only you and the BGA moderation team know for sure. I suppose it’s possible you saw this “blatantly triumphalist and provocative username” elsewhere, like in a user group or even here in the forums. But you should be aware of why everybody has concluded whom you are pointing a finger at.

And to be honest, your denials about this are well into “Methinks the lady doth protest too much” territory. The more vehement and belligerent and insulting you get, the more I think the armchair detectives here got it right. But I’m still willing to grant a soupçon of doubt.

Finally, food for thought: I don’t understand why you even brought up the “blatantly triumphalist and provocative username”. It wasn’t relevant at all. You could have just said, “Hey, I tried to report somebody and got this ‘boy who cried wolf’ message and I find it deeply concerning I apparently can’t report people.” So yeah, part of me wonders whether you were in fact trying to indirectly point a finger and are now denying it because of the reaction you got.

But again, only you and the moderation team know for sure.

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑24 January 2026, 14:25 No you weren't. If anything you were trying to cause me problems by flat out lying about what I have said.

FrankJones certainly did not lie about what you said, which I think makes you the liar here. Your behavior is not helping your case at all.

I tend to take FrankJones at their word. You in fact have given the appearance of pointing a finger at a specific identifiable user, which is usually a no-no, and I do believe they were genuinely trying to warn you of this and help you. But your hostility won’t win you any friends and I would be surprised if anybody reading this thread felt a desire to give you similar assistance in the future.

I never mentioned any user name. I never "confirmed" anything. And yet, multiple people have accused me directly of doing that. Anyone who has accused me of doing that is lying. End of.