Well, since the boss doesn't seem to care, I suspect you'll be stuck dealing with this poor moderation and the dip in revenue for a while longer. If you have more to say, just post on the Federal Reserve thread using your original handle
Nostrađurus isn't some amateur, nor does he hold any influence over the economy. Donald Trump was banned from the entire forum because he couldn't stop self-promoting and playing politics. In this instance, the issue lies entirely with you and your writing style. I finally recognized you by your fourth post—it was classic. Does that mean I’m exceptionally brilliant, or just that you write exactly the same way you did when you were earning your keep?
You seem to have missed the fact that you’re banned and can only post on the Federal Reserve board now. You got a 7-day suspension for posting with a clone over on the Economy sub, where you actually hold some stakes. Don't let it happen again.
Normally, when you hit Wrap Quote, it places two tags—one before and one after the selected text. If you want to keep the author's name, just delete that specific part.
Can an author write in front of every section of a post?
Use the first quote (since you can't have two) and keep the second one—the original one from when you clicked quote on the post, which also added two tags, one at the start and one at the end.
edit: Looks like you figured it out. 👍
Now I'm missing two quotes again. 😁 Like I said, there isn't a quote tag over the last part of your post. 😬 No, I entered the quotes myself. I could have highlighted it and used Wrap Quote, but I thought since it was the last part of your post, I wouldn't need to edit it.
Hahaha, oh man, it turns out you actually answered my question. Look at the first part of the quote. 😁 Jesus.
😁
The point is this isn't automatic. You have to figure out which brackets go before and after the text, then it's simple. If you want the author listed for every single section, you have to copy and paste the bracket containing their name before every select.
The part you moved 😁 Generally, if you hit >, it inserts two tags—one before and one after the selected text. If you want to keep the original author's name, just delete that first tag, since having two won't work. You should leave the second one intact, because when you used the quote function on the post itself, it also added two tags: one at the start and one at the end.
You have to do this manually. Select the specific section you want to isolate, then use Wrap Quote That applies to every individual part. You’ll also need to delete the excess, which consists of one [ quote ] at the start and end of the text.
Do you see that icon for the Wrap Quote tags? Select your text and click it. Delete the first part before the username you are quoting—specifically the [ / Quote ] bit—and leave the rest. It should work fine then.
About 4 months ago, I issued you a warning, which you didn't contest at the time. Your actual grievance is simply that Klapalo wasn't penalized on that same day because you took issue with his comment.
This entire endless exchange is nothing more than logical nonsense fueled by that single issue. Don't you think it's time to move on?
Mark Thompson6, did it ever occur to you that the mods and admins didn't issue a final ruling because they actually agree with me? They had nothing left to say. That's their prerogative. Just as it's yours to claim I'm the worst moderator to ever walk the earth.
Stryker, Mark Thompson6 recently filed a complaint regarding my moderation; if you have the time, feel free to read the pages he cited. However, I will simply state here that I have never once been as arrogant as he claims I am (specifically regarding his accusation that I said, "Why should I even bother showing up when I'm just doing this job as a volunteer?")
These quotes aren't for your benefit; they are for the masses watching this unfold. I am simply justifying my decision to issue you a ban. I also clarified why I chose not to ban hazzarder—a distinction that seems to be causing you significant distress. Let Daniel Ward87 step in if he feels a correction is necessary.
I still don't believe I made a mistake, and clearly Tyndall doesn't either, given that he didn't bother to correct me.
You didn't get a penalty for this one.
Michelle Alvarez8 James Patel20 said:Foolish. That is your argument. Absolutely. Absurd. You are intentionally drawing the wrong conclusions.
Michelle Alvarez8 said:If you actually understood why your argument fails. Idiotic. I probably wouldn't have even bothered writing it. Most likely. 🤷
You’re back at it again. Nonsense..
As we have already established, you write. Nonsense. You should probably eat more grits.
You deserve a failing grade for this.
Michelle Alvarez8 James Patel20 said:Then I am stating quite clearly and legitimately that you are writing. Nonsense. Look, you can't exactly act surprised when people mock you for being so relentless. Nonsense.
As for your actual life—not that I'm particularly interested in the details—one can only hope you don't speak this way in public. Nonsense..
And how exactly do you plan to continue being such an idiot toward your own people? Pure stupidity. i To wander aimlessly. Irrelevant.
I suppose I owe you all an apology for my recent writing. My apologies. Nonsense. That is simply untrue.
Even if you're technically correct in this argument, I can't exactly call that approach non-confrontational. Regardless, I upheld my end of the deal; you received a warning for violating posting rules—specifically regarding content behind spoiler tags—not for insulting other users.
Daniel Ward87, I am a moderator here. Michelle Alvarez8 and I discussed this via private message—and per her request, copies of those messages were sent to Tyndall—so I didn't intend to weigh in publicly when he brought it up, but an explanation is necessary.
The thread and the disciplinary actions can be found here. As you can see, Michelle Alvarez8 chose to continue the argument immediately after my warning was issued; consequently, she received a strike, as did the individual who replied to her. No one was penalized prior to the warning. The post containing the insult occurred just before the warning was given and certainly warranted a strike, but Michelle Alvarez8 also earned her penalty through several posts preceding the warning (do try to read the previous entries). This has all been explained, which is why I asked if he insisted on someone receiving a retroactive penalty, since he hadn't posted anything following the warning itself. In short, Michelle Alvarez8's strike was well-deserved. Whether the other user should also receive one is for you to decide.