CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Brian Edwards6 › Posts

Posts by Brian Edwards6

242 posts shown.

I was watching some old clips of various athletes last night, and it got me thinking about that specific, heavy kind of pressure that comes when you’re suddenly thrust into the driver's seat. We all love a good underdog story, right? We love watching the person who was sitting on the bench or playing for a different squad suddenly get the nod, the keys to the kingdom, and the eyes of an entire fanbase staring them down. But honestly, I don't think we talk enough about the sheer psychological toll of that transition.

It’s one thing to be a reliable piece of a machine—to do your job, hit your marks, and go home. It’s a completely different beast to be the person the entire machine is built around. I remember back in my college days, I was part of a local club team where I played a supporting role. I was happy. I knew my role, I knew my responsibilities, and I could sleep at night. But then, one season, our main guy went down with an injury, and suddenly, the coach is looking at me. Every mistake I made wasn't just a mistake; it felt like a catastrophe that would ruin the whole season. The weight of everyone's expectations is a physical sensation. It’s like that "first day of school" feeling, but instead of just being nervous about where to sit, you're nervous that if you trip in the hallway, the whole world is going to laugh.

There's a massive difference between "being ready" and "being prepared." You can spend months in a gym, you can study the playbook until your eyes bleed, and you can build chemistry with your teammates in private, but none of that prepares you for the moment the lights go up and you realize that the outcome of the entire endeavor rests on your shoulders. It's a lonely feeling, isn't it? Even when you're surrounded by teammates and coaches, the actual execution of the role is a solitary burden. You can have the best supporting cast in the world, but if the person at the helm is shaking, the whole thing wobbles.

I also wonder about the chemistry aspect. We always talk about "rapport" and "chemistry" like it's something you can just manufacture with a few practice sessions and some team dinners. But real trust—the kind you need when things are going south in the middle of a high-stakes moment—takes time. It takes failure. You have to mess up together to really learn how to lean on one another. When a new person steps in to lead, they aren't just learning a system; they are trying to earn the faith of people who might have been loyal to the person who was there before them. That's a delicate social dance that no amount of "drills" can truly simulate.

Then there's the "new look" factor. Whenever a team or an organization undergoes a massive overhaul, there's this manic energy in the air. Everyone is hopeful. Everyone is saying "this is the year." But that hope is a double-edged sword. If you succeed, you're a hero. If you fail, you're the reason the "new era" died before it even started. It makes me wonder if we, as fans, are actually fair to these people. We demand perfection from someone who is essentially being asked to learn a new language while performing a high-wire act.

I've always felt that the most successful people aren't necessarily the ones with the most raw talent, but the ones with the highest "reset" capacity—the ability to take a massive error, shake it off, and move to the next play without letting the previous one haunt them. For someone stepping into a massive leadership role for the first time, that mental toughness is everything.

Do you think it's better to give a newcomer a long leash to find their footing, or should we hold them to the same standard as the veterans from day one? Is "potential" a valid excuse for early struggles, or does that just breed mediocrity?
Rule Change Update in Forum Help! ·
northernpilot2 said:… this kind of practice has always been applied on Reddit toward those 'anonymous' users; it’s just been codified into a written rule now…

What practice exactly? Handing over private information?🤔

northernpilot2 said:… If someone or something is problematic, it’s fine to write about why it’s problematic, basically as usual…

Posts were being written and deleted, and not by new users. Well, they were new under that specific username, but they were well-known to the moderators watching the thread (and acting in coordination with them to protect the site's integrity). How does what you're writing here apply to them?🤔

northernpilot2 said:… To simplify things, if someone registers today and starts trashing someone else's products or companies by next week, it is perfectly normal for such posts to be scrutinized, as well as the person behind them…

That isn't even what we're talking about. This is about deleting the entries of long-time users for no reason at all, and now, making the restoration of those entries conditional upon providing personal data.👎

northernpilot2 said:… I’m telling you, this isn't anything new. Such posts from new Reddit users have always been removed because their purpose for registering is immediately obvious. The only thing that's new is that such posts might actually stay on the thread and the site now, provided there is a real identity standing behind them rather than just a handle.

And once again in this thread—this isn't the issue at all. But given how you've framed it, I have to hand it to you. In political circles, they'd call that "spin."👎

Could you please address the questions I raised in my initial post?😕

I also have a few follow-up questions, given the way you’ve "clarified" things here:

- Regarding veteran users who actually have established credibility—will they also be wiped out and forced to "prove" who they are by handing over their private personal data?😕

- In this context, how are we defining an "old" versus a "new" user? For instance, does an "old" user mean someone who registered back in 2005 but hasn't logged in since, whereas a "new" user might have joined three days ago but already has dozens of high-quality posts?😕
Rule Change Update in Forum Help! ·
Well, it’s official, and the rule is now officially in effect:

Protecting the reputation of individuals and legal entities outside of Reddit

On Reddit, anonymous users enjoy the privilege of posting freely on a platform that is public and accessible to everyone. Consequently, there is always the risk that an anonymous user might abuse that anonymity to damage the reputation of specific individuals or organizations.

An aggrieved party can report such malicious posts and request their removal by providing a clear justification (such as falsehoods, libel, or privacy violations). In these instances, Reddit prioritizes the rights of the identified individual over the anonymous poster; we will weigh the reasoned arguments provided and remove posts that unfairly damage someone's reputation.

This doesn't mean every single reported post gets nuked automatically. Critical, yet objective and well-constructed posts from established users with a significant history on Reddit will likely remain (depending on the specifics of the case). However, for those authors who have very few posts—meaning they lack a digital footprint or any real credibility here—reported posts will be practically removed by default.

Those seeking to defend their reputation have the option to utilize a "verified user" to debunk false claims and provide accurate information firsthand. This is a far more effective practice than spinning up new, zero-credibility accounts just to dispute problematic statements or demand deletions.

An anonymous author whose posts have been removed may request their reinstatement, but doing so requires them to waive their anonymity. They must stand behind their claims with their real identity, which they can either disclose publicly or provide privately to the Reddit administration. We are obligated to keep this information confidential, except when compelled by a court order or police warrant.


As the title itself suggests, we are talking about both individuals and legal entities. And that, in short, is the gist of it.👎

I think the inclusion of the word "likely" is the most prudent part of the whole thing.🤦
Signature in Feedback & Suggestions ·
If I include someone else's quote in my signature, and that original post is later deleted (and quite some time after the fact, at that), why on earth does my signature get wiped out too? Look, what's written is what's written; I wasn't attempting any kind of forgery, I was simply being consistent with the citation. I don't believe I’ve violated any community guidelines since I haven't received a strike or anything, so why go through the trouble of scrubbing my signature?🤔
Rule Change Update in Forum Help! ·
What does it matter if they're public figures? At the end of the day, private individuals can still file a lawsuit for defamation or libel, whereas corporations generally can't. In fact, this actually gives them even more leverage to throw around legal threats.🤷
Rule Change Update in Forum Help! ·
Given that several threads (the first and the second) are discussing changes to the rules without any actual explanation of the "what" or the "how," this seems like the most logical sub-forum to pose some follow-up questions.👍

The new rule is as follows:

rustydrifter10 said:... moving forward, critiques can only be posted if the user steps out from behind anonymity. In light of recent litigation, anonymous critiques will be deleted. We intend to remain neutral; it is not our responsibility to verify the truthfulness of claims, but in situations where we have an anonymous user on one side and a non-anonymous user on the other, we will favor the non-anonymous party.

I have been reviewing the current rules and guidelines, yet I don't see this new policy incorporated anywhere. Consequently, I have several points of confusion regarding this concept of "stepping out of anonymity":

- By what mechanism would a user provide their personal information to Reddit (will there be a form during registration, or will they need to visit a notary public...)?😕

- How exactly will Reddit verify this (which databases will be used, and how will you ensure the data is accurate and actually belongs to the individual)?😕

- What is the intended use for this information (will it be handed over to the subject of the critique to facilitate a lawsuit, or something else entirely...)?😕

Similarly, I find the grounds for deleting critiques somewhat unclear:

- Is it necessary for the subject of the critique to lodge the complaint themselves, or can someone act on their behalf?😕

- Does this apply universally to all criticized entities (for instance, companies on Pixar, public figures on Politics and similar sub-forums, FedEx on the Chicago sub-forum, telecom providers, makeup brands...)?😕

- If everyone mentioned in the previous paragraph were to request deletions tomorrow, would all historical posts be wiped, or will users be expected to submit their credentials retroactively...?😕

Well, that is just the starting point; I am certain more questions will occur to me within the next 14 hours.👍
MANNING Global - Thread deleted - Why?? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I actually attempted to post this over on the designated subforum as well.👍
MANNING Global - Thread deleted - Why?? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
It’s been a full 24 hours, so I figured I’d circle back and ask again:

Brian Edwards6 said:How should users on this World Economic Forum finally "step out from behind the veil of anonymity"?😕

I appreciate the sentiment, though I should probably offer a minor correction—it wasn't just one moderator, but the moderators. Plural.👍
MANNING Global - Thread deleted - Why?? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
How should users on this World Economic Forum finally "step out from behind the veil of anonymity"?😕

Dana Myers87 said:Honestly, who is everyone here actually terrified of, and what on earth is the reason? This whole situation feels incredibly bizarre... threads getting nuked, posts vanishing into thin air... all because apparently some massive lawsuit is being threatened against this site, or whatever other excuse they're cooking up lately..
It’s nothing short of farcical.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Since when is it considered an offense to simply express an opinion or share some firsthand intel about a company you worked for?

Look, this is a discussion forum. Not a single official rule governing this board has been violated in this thread.

And frankly, by deleting that first thread, you've managed to drive away a truly excellent moderator—someone who clearly couldn't stomach this new policy of scrubbing the boards under these absurd, nonsensical pretenses..

There are countless other discussions floating around on Reddit regarding different employers, covering everything from glowing reviews to absolute horror stories. So, what is the goal here, Mr. Anderlon, admins, and moderators? What are we actually doing?

I am genuinely at a loss. You are actively stifling free speech and preventing people from sharing their actual experiences and information. I was under the impression that we lived in a democratic society.

No trade secrets were leaked, and no private names were exposed. I will say it again: not one single rule was broken.

I appreciate the sentiment, though I should probably offer a minor correction—it wasn't just one moderator, but the moderators. Plural.👍
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
I’d appreciate it if we could move this conversation to private messages rather than keeping it in the public thread. Thanks for understanding.
Cable TV subscription Part II in Law ·
I’ll consider this post my final word on the matter, effectively closing this particular loop of discussion. As several of you have pointed out—quite frequently, I might add, in those deleted posts—this specific style of debate has become entirely unproductive. If anyone feels they still have some burning point to make, I kindly ask that you take it to private messages instead. Thanks for understanding.
Jonathan Williams46 As specified by:
I've already sent you a private message regarding this...

You didn't actually provide an answer; you merely posed a question. I, on the other hand, provided you with one.👍

Jonathan Williams46 said:...but let’s be honest: you aren't just misinterpreting things; you're actively hijacking other people's arguments and twisting them to suit your own agenda.

Which argument of yours am I supposedly stealing? Honestly, feel free to dig through your private messages, because I genuinely can't see what I’ve written here that differs from our private correspondence—let alone how I could have possibly used your points against you.🤷
Jonathan Williams46 said:...

While this topic might be making headlines right now, it’s fundamentally a matter of politics or history rather than legal substance. As it stands, there isn't much room for discussion here in the Law subforum—neither in the way you've framed it nor in any other capacity. The specific incident that triggered this whole debate actually belongs under the sports competitions section of our forum, where similar cases have been handled before. For everything else, particularly these kinds of back-and-forth arguments, there are plenty of other subforums better suited for it.👍

P.S.: Since everyone seems so obsessed with mentioning opera, perhaps this belongs in the Music section instead.🤷
Complaint regarding moderator "Know Thyself in Feedback & Suggestions ·
mellowgardener9 said:So what if this is my first time posting?
In other words, if I’m not an active participant in this specific PDF document, I don't have the standing to call someone else's attempt at "correcting a course toward the Mississippi" a total failure or claim they are leading others astray?...

You have the right to an opinion, but you don't have the right to turn the discussion into a personal attack, which is exactly what you're doing (in the deleted portion of this paragraph). If you want to say something personal to him, use private messages. If you want to discuss the topic, stay on the topic. If you think a certain post doesn't belong here, report it or bring it over here. It's really that simple.👍

mellowgardener9 said:... oh sure, it's my fault for starting this thread. Let's just give me a permanent mark on my record and ban me already...

Read that again. Not regarding this thread specifically, but regarding the post you're complaining about—specifically the part where you dragged the conversation down to a personal level.👍

mellowgardener9 said:... if you keep making statements like that, you're going to end up creating the exact opposite impression...

Why would I lie to you? You've already formed your impression, and there isn't anything I can (or want to) do to change it.👍
Complaint regarding moderator "Know Thyself in Feedback & Suggestions ·
My impression couldn't be more different, though as I mentioned before, I don't actually know him personally and we don't have any history together.👍
Complaint regarding moderator "Know Thyself in Feedback & Suggestions ·
mellowgardener9 said:Isn't that an insult?

It isn't.👍

Which post of yours was that on? If you don't want to bother checking, it was the very first one—and until yesterday, the only one. You jump straight into personal attacks against another user in your opening post without contributing a single useful thought to the discussion (whatever the topic may be). Why resort to such a condescending level of discourse? He actually told you exactly what he thinks in lowercase, and his opening remark was just a clear way of drawing that parallel.👍

For everyone else—perhaps try reading the rest of the thread, especially everything that came before that specific post?🤔

P.S.: And I know the inevitable "defending the mods" comments are coming, but I have zero personal relationship with the moderator in question; this is simply my opinion as a user.👍

P.P.S.: Speaking as a moderator myself, if I were running this board, I would have issued a ban and deleted that post immediately, but apparently, I don't hold any authority over this specific community.🤷
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Daniel Martinez9 said:The link explains how to settle payments through the Federal Reserve. It’s straightforward information regarding the process.

True... under the new law, you can go straight to the Federal Reserve to garnish an employer's assets. I completely missed that part.

By the way, you can find information on how payroll is calculated online.
The Department of Labor just dropped some new guidelines regarding accounting regulations. It’s essentially a complete overhaul of how they want everything handled. Expect more oversight from the Department of Labor Inspection moving forward.

Envy, I think I know what the issue is. The Federal Reserve only recognizes... Certified pay stub. This is how it looks on the employer's end. Something like this (though it might not be identical).

[Link to payroll list image]

Another example:

[Link to image showing an American invoice list]

So you need to file a separate claim for every single unpaid paycheck. Signed by the company seal and signature. That makes it an enforceable instrument.
The catch is that hardly any employer actually follows the law on this.
I assume all you have is a piece of paper certified by the company stating they owe you a specific amount in unpaid wages, issued at the request of the Department of Labor Inspection. That isn't an enforceable instrument. I assume it could serve as valid evidence if you ever need to sue an employer for unpaid wages—though you'd probably be working with a lawyer by that point.
I’ve been there myself—employer refusing to hand over pay stubs (thank God that's over). A lawyer friend told me the best move was to get a signed statement on paper stating: "Wages have not been paid."
I don't know how much weight that carries since the Federal Reserve can easily verify if those salaries were actually paid out.

A quick coffee chat with a lawyer for a few bucks could have prevented all of this.

If I didn't hit the mark, then I honestly have no clue what the issue is. You should probably just call a lawyer.

And one last thing... an employer can actually face prison time if they fail to pay wages. You guys probably didn't bother looking into that option, did you?

That only applies if there was actual criminal intent, which, in cases like this, is notoriously difficult—perhaps even impossible—to prove. We'll just have to wait and see how that plays out.👎
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Is everything running smoothly on your end?🤔
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
If your account was frozen, you'll need to cover the $22 processing fees from the IRS (essentially by depositing funds so they can pull the amount directly). That’s really all there is to it.👍
Censorship in the Law subforum in Feedback & Suggestions ·
granitegull51 said:Look, quit lecturing everyone. It’s obvious that topics like this are the Achilles' heel of any "legal institutions actually doing their jobs"...

Since this is a private forum, we aren't particularly concerned with those systemic flaws on the Law subforum, nor would they influence our editorial politics.👍

granitegull51 said:... so, feel free to delete or censor threads all you want, but they'll just end up published and archived somewhere else anyway...

Rest assured, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. As for "censorship," I'll reiterate: you are more than welcome to start a thread like this over in the Politics subforum. I suspect it would thrive there in all its glory. The Law subforum simply serves a different purpose.👍

granitegull51 said:"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn...

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovič is one of the finest books ever written; I'm glad to see we share the same taste.👍