1) It's mostly because you keep dragging up the text from deleted posts like it actually matters. 2) Plus, you haven't offered a single shred of actual substance to back up that proposal of yours. 3) And let's be clear: Anderson and I are the ones who decide whether or not I'm stepping down.
Posts like those just aren't allowed on this forum—it’s clearly laid out in our rules, so I went ahead and cleared them out. Thanks for flagging that! Honestly, all that drama over "just rename the PDF" because of a couple of posts was totally unnecessary. Moving forward, just hit that little triangle icon, and if you don't see any movement after more than a day, feel free to start a new thread right here.
Usually, once these threads hit about the 10,000 post mark, they tend to get locked down. We’ll likely end up spinning off some of the best parts of this discussion into a brand-new thread before closing this one out. Thanks so much for flagging this! 🙂
Honestly, we don't really bother keeping a formal paper trail for this. We just kind of play it by ear and assess things on a case-by-case basis whenever the need arises.
Hey there. I know it might feel like nothing is happening on this end, but trust me, it’s not the case—the people who actually make these kinds of calls really do see your proposal as a positive step. The owner should be making an announcement pretty soon, and in the meantime, I'm planning to reach out to the PDF moderators over the next few days to see if they can double-check their archives for any related threads. Of course, I'll be doing some digging on my own too.
casualharbor9 said:Maybe it would be a good idea to roll out some extra sub-forums, like Energy sector, Theoretical physics, Mathematics, Materials, Biology, Chemistry, Archaeology, Anthropology, Practical design, maybe even Scientific speculation?... and so on.
Let’s take it slow; we might get there eventually. 🙂 Honestly, I think what the OP suggested is actually our best bet right now because, theoretically speaking, we could already pull together a pretty substantial amount of discussion topics for it. As the site continues to grow and evolve over time, the need for more specialized sections will naturally pop up. That said, we shouldn't make them *too* niche, or we risk losing both traffic and overall quality, but there's really no point in worrying about that just yet.
It’s always a bit tricky trying to pin down exact numbers when we simply don't have them, but let's be clear: it isn't like we're operating in total darkness here. We actually have several established facts to lean on, and there is a proven framework we can use to hold a legitimate debate. What I won't tolerate, though, is anyone trying to play semantics with these crimes or downplay the sheer horror of what actually happened.
If you're going to insist on throwing specific statistics around, please, just do us all a favor and link your sources. It shouldn't just be about the numbers—any "fact" you bring up that isn't common knowledge or widely accepted needs a citation. I want to see any attempts to use obscure links just to push some niche ideology without respecting actual historical research get scrubbed from these threads and PDFs.
I've moved this discussion over to the Trash bin. If someone decides to start a high-quality, well-researched thread, then we can certainly have a real conversation.
Mark Anderson68 said:User leeloo27 is out here swearing at people in the politics section.
Since the name is in bold, I’m assuming we’re looking at a moderator here—and this is the same user listed as a moderator for the "Health" subforum too.
I honestly have to ask: how can someone who gets so worked up that they resort to cursing at other users instead of actually making an argument be a moderator on this forum? I'd also like to formally suggest that leeloo27 have their moderator privileges revoked.
Look, like I already told you, that isn't a swear word. We don't expect our moderators to act like they just stepped out of some high-society gala in Manhattan every time they post. Her moderation duties have absolutely nothing to do with this specific instance, so there's no reason to strip her of her role. Leeloo does fantastic, high-quality work over on the Health board, and we're really grateful for everything she does there—we hope she keeps it up. Using a word like "ass" isn't inherently profanity; depending on how you use it, it can be, but that definitely wasn't the case here.
Look, regardless of how much you disagree with them, the moderators are absolutely spot on here. This isn't some sudden issue that popped up overnight; this has been an ongoing thing with you for quite a while now. I know they’ve tried to be patient and give you plenty of grace, but you’ve just been tuning out their warnings and stubbornly doing things your own way. Honestly, I don't have anything else to add to what they've already said.
Sorry for the delay, I’ve been pulling long hours all weekend.
So, about that deleted post. It was a bit of a mixed bag—some parts were total spam, but there were some constructive points in there too. Honestly, if you ask me, the post could have probably stayed up with just a light nudge to keep things from drifting off-topic. But, the moderator made a really fair point: there's a huge difference between when a regular, helpful contributor drops a comment like that versus someone who mostly just hangs around to stir the pot. Looking at your history on this thread and this subforum in general, it seems like you fall more into that second category; you don't pop up here very often, aside from maybe one specific discussion where you actually got pretty serious. Given that context, I get why they decided to pull the plug on it. Grace Edwards92, I mostly know you from the IRS boards, where you're actually a really solid member—you definitely know how to write something thoughtful and well-put-together, though I suppose that depends on what we're talking about. The moderator is spot on, though; mocking someone else's beliefs just isn't cool, and it would be great if we could all respect that. Hey, nobody's saying criticism is banned! In fact, things don't always have to be heavy and serious, but we just need to know where to draw the line and watch our language.
As for the swearing the moderator mentioned, I didn't catch any, so maybe I missed it, or perhaps they were referring to something else entirely outside of this specific post or thread.
I actually really dig the idea, and I honestly think a PDF like this could work wonders for us. Thanks so much for sharing it! 🙂 I even reached out to Anderlon to see what his take on this might be.
If we had something like this PDF, it would be so much easier to separate those off-topic discussions that tend to clutter things up. We aren't exactly huge fans of having everything lumped together into one giant thread, especially when those conversations deserve their own space to really thrive. Using this method might actually help us spin off some high-quality, dedicated topics, for instance.
Dana Fox5 said:It’s worth mentioning that you can easily end up with 50 pages of text on a single chat thread in just one evening.
Look, nobody is going to sit there and read through a mountain of posts if you guys just keep cranking them out at that rate. Usually, chat threads are only interesting to the people actually participating in them—and even then, sometimes they aren't even that engaged themselves. That's why most chat threads have to be managed primarily through user reports; it creates a massive amount of headaches, and honestly, we often have to shut them down because the group writing in them just can't seem to keep things under control. So please, just reel it in a bit.
You really have to understand that these chat threads are essentially a "gift." They aren't some fundamental necessity for the site; they exist purely because our moderators are willing to host them, especially since they usually have nothing to do with the main topics of the forum. On top of that, they tend to become little hangouts for a small group, which makes them pretty boring to everyone else, and let's face it, chat threads rarely hold any lasting value. In sections where users don't take advantage of looser moderation—which happens everywhere, by the way—to bully or insult one another, those chat threads can thrive happily for years.
If you were doing what Nathan Turner3 mentioned—basically just dragging a heated argument from one locked thread over to another—then that is a perfectly valid reason to (temporarily) lock that one too. Sometimes we can moderate things without having to shut them down, but other times, it's obvious the group just needs a breather.
On another note: we are fully aware that we're short-staffed on moderators right now, and we are working on fixing that. In the meantime, please don't make our jobs any harder than they already are. 🙂
northerntiger said:Hey, mod Lay's, since you slapped me with a 45-point penalty for "insulting users," can you actually tell me who I supposedly offended and what I said?
Was it using words like "stupid," "destructive," or "primitive"? Or was it my mention of "orgies"?
To be specific, I called out user Mike Hrakinen, whose posts both got flagged and who ended up banned. He only got a 35-point penalty for calling people "assholes"—which is actually less than what I got. 🙂 As for the "Republican pups" comment, I don't even see a penalty because that post was already deleted.
I also complained about hr1u100, who got a 35-point trolling penalty for calling political opponents sexual deviants (though he later tried to claim he wasn't talking about gay people, but rather bestiality).
Beyond Lay's, I'd like the other mods on this thread to weigh in here. It makes zero sense that I get 45 points for calling someone stupid, while that same person gets to toss around terrible insults at everyone—including me, since we don't see eye-to-eye politically.
Instead of keeping things orderly, Lay's has made this whole thing absurd. It basically implies that on this forum, you can call someone an "asshole" all day, but if you call them primitive, you're the one in trouble. 🙂 Meanwhile, just for calling a politician "Joe Biden," you only get a yellow warning card. That’s way less than 45, right? 🙂
We have a dedicated master thread for appealing penalties; we aren't going to debate this here. Please move your inquiry regarding the penalty to the appropriate section. This decision is final and won't be subject to further discussion on this thread.
Just a quick heads-up for everyone: we have a strict rule against asking for or offering advice on anything illegal. It doesn't matter if people in the real world get away with it all the time—we aren't about that here. We’re really trying to keep this community as ethical as possible, and our main goal is to make sure we're preventing fraud and keeping things above board.
Please make sure you take a moment to read through the rules first. What we really need are actual links—tangible, concrete data points that we can look at, verify, and react to ourselves. Right now, we don't even have a timestamp for when this was originally posted, so we're basically flying blind. If you see a post that’s still active on the thread, just hit that report button, and then reach out to us here or shoot us a DM if there hasn't been any movement within 24 hours. Just make sure to include the link in your message.