pianta's profile

i understand but we want to keep the mkpc forum strictly mkpc related, but a lot of under 13 users have nowhere safe to go outside of mkpc and interact with their friends there. on discord there are always separate servers or channels for offtopic activity, but on the forum its displayed on par with mkpc related topics in the recent list. topics like 'school fight in the replies' might be low effort, but the reason why people post in them is often just to interact with the people here, not necessarily to farm engagement or a hidden rank. thats why generally in a forum the offtopic/social sections have the most activity. i understand that we dont want the forum to stop being about mkpc entirely but we shoudnt create a 'play mkpc or leave' narrative for younger users. i dont want to come off as aggressive. i totally get that you want to keep the focus on the game itself. but i think theres a side to this worth considering from the user perspective. if these posts are cluttering the recent topics list, maybe a better solution would be a some kind of filter, rather than issuing warnings for people just trying to be social.

mods think you are posting low-effort content just to increase your message count and rank (which as of now no one except them can see lol) for bragging rights apparently. from your recent messages i can see that only like 1 message couldve been replaced with a reaction (unless you posted in a deleted topic) so clearly this is a false warning, mods are super triggerhappy with 'message farming' so just appeal in their dms. they constantly think people are spamming the forums, they forget that in a casual forum people are going to type 'fr' or 'true' instead of clicking a button sometimes

I recently had my profile picture removed, and I’m genuinely frustrated by the lack of consistency and transparency in how moderation decisions are being made.

For context, I chose that image as a form of visual protest—specifically to criticize what I see as failures and hypocrisy in both government institutions and mainstream media. It wasn’t meant to glorify anyone or promote harmful behavior. It was meant to provoke thought and spark discussion about accountability and how certain narratives are handled or ignored.

Instead of any kind of warning, explanation, or opportunity to clarify intent, the image was just taken down. That raises a bigger concern: are we allowed to express dissent in unconventional ways, or only in ways that are deemed “acceptable” by vague and inconsistently applied rules? If context matters, then moderation should take intent into account instead of applying blanket removals.

Right now, it feels like selective enforcement and a chilling effect on expression. This kind of silent removal doesn’t build trust—it just creates confusion and resentment.

I want to be clear: I will be putting the image back. I believe in fighting censorship and defending the right to express criticism—even when it’s uncomfortable or controversial. Context and intent matter, and moderation should reflect that.