What's the deal with these new forums?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Look, just to get things rolling, I don't have any intention of getting bogged down here in some massive, endless debate over everyone else's sanctions or the various decisions being made about them—especially when it comes to those folks who've been banned. I’d rather just keep it brief, if we can all just agree to wrap that part up quickly.
Look, just because someone puts a complaint in a polite little package doesn't mean it’s going to be granted. If that were the case, everyone would just act however they wanted and then play the humble victim, asking nicely for their posts to be wiped clean. That’s just not how this forum works. Within a matter of minutes, the moderators identified several of her requests for permanent bans, and let me be clear: a permaban isn't some toy or a tool you use just to prove a point. The definition of that word is pretty damn unambiguous. Besides, Hunter isn't exactly the first person to have a request denied to return to the forum after being banned at their own request—just look at the history here. Here’s another one for you!I didn't even notice she had started opening a whole string of threads, and honestly, I didn't see anyone else on the forum making a huge stink about it either. Now that I've taken a closer look, I see her clone hasn't actually been banned yet, but since she hasn't really used that account to post anything else after the initial wave, it doesn't feel like much of an issue in the grand scheme of things.
Look, Schmokljan has just been relentlessly attacking people. I’ve got nothing against someone having a big personality or being a bit eccentric—honestly, that’s what makes things interesting—but we really shouldn't be mixing apples and oranges here. He was given a formal warning, he explicitly agreed to the terms, and then he went right ahead and broke them over and over again. If she ends up getting banned, she only has herself to blame.
But we certainly didn't see that play out the way we expected later on.
Well, you knew perfectly well that was against the rules. You aren't supposed to leak info from the private sections of the forum intended for staff eyes only; you were fully aware of the consequences and chose to go ahead with it anyway. That was your call.
Honestly, a six-month suspension for following the basic community guidelines shouldn't be an issue for anyone. We don't even necessarily need to jump straight to a permanent ban for a first offense—it doesn't even have to be the very first ban. Our goal is simply to ensure the person stops doing the exact thing that got them flagged in the first place, which usually has nothing to do with their personality.
It just isn't true that we punish people simply for disagreeing. Maybe we penalize the *way* that disagreement is expressed, but never the disagreement itself. The FBI is full of people who disagree with the administration and haven't faced any sanctions at all, so saying this is a pattern of targeting dissenters is neither accurate nor fair.
vividtiger922 said:I would, perhaps, like to have a little conversation about... well, just about everything...
Let’s kick things off with the Whereabout case. For those who haven't been following along, here is the situation... Reddit
Since that user already laid out her entire situation in such exhaustive detail—complete with an endless mountain of links and quotes—I don’t see much point in me trying to recap it all for you; just read the thread yourself... If you want my take, though, the whole thing feels like a classic case of "Why ask why? You already know why." Basically, she was penalized for breaking a rule that doesn't even exist, and when she calmly and logically filed an appeal through the proper channels, she was met with threats of a partial ban if she dared to speak up again. But honestly, that isn't even the worst part. The moderator's explanation was nothing short of grotesque, claiming they simply decided it would be "better" if she remained banned. Which really makes me wonder—who is this actually benefiting? Is it for the site, the community, for her, or perhaps just to protect the administration...
I find myself asking, what exactly am I to this community? Because, quite frankly, I cannot fathom a single logical reason why a constructive contributor—someone who has spent their time here volunteering and offering genuine, thoughtful critiques and suggestions—would be banned for no other reason than six months... For whose benefit is this decision actually being made? And what, precisely, is meant by the claim that this platform serves an "educational" purpose...
It’s a similar trajectory to what happened with Schmokljan, a user who was permanently banned from the forum and whose contributions were dismissed as mere garbage... He was once a moderator and the architect of several fascinating threads—sometimes provocative, occasionally incomprehensible, but always ingenious and genuinely authentic. His permanent ban finally came when he requested a partial removal of some Psychology content, during which he posed a question to the administration in his signature style. It might have been unpleasant, perhaps even rude, but it certainly didn't warrant anything more than a standard warning for trolling or insults...
It’s much like the whole Lord Byron situation—that one particular user whose ban was extended by ten days over these wild accusations of cloning accounts and posting on Unknown... all that esoteric speculation that never actually held up under scrutiny, only to be revealed later as nothing more than a complete fabrication...
I actually ended up serving a two-and-a-half-month suspension for supposedly "inciting conflict and leaking moderator information," all because I dared to recount the actual events from a certain corner of the internet regarding how decisions are made on this forum, our current priorities, and the administration's overall strategy...
There could easily be several more instances of indefinite bans, threats of partial restrictions, and the actual enforcement of those very same threats, but I won't dwell on them...
I have a question for the administration: what exactly are your priorities here? It seems to me that you’re quick to ban long-standing community members for no apparent reason, often without any clear timeline, and if this isn't meant to be an educational measure, then what is the actual purpose... It’s baffling how offenses like hate speech, justifying violence, insults, or doxxing—things that truly poison the platform and its integrity—only result in a few days' suspension or a minor point deduction. Meanwhile, we see draconian punishments handed out for things that barely touch upon the quality of the content itself, where the common denominator is simply a disagreement with management. To be honest, the whole thing feels a bit like Huxley’s *Brave New World*... It appears as though you care far more about maintaining a rigid hierarchy and preserving order—ensuring everyone knows who is Alpha, who is Beta, and who is Delta—than you do about the actual substance of our discussions or the creators who provide them. I struggle to find any other explanation for why you would indefinitely sideline veteran users who, despite their flaws, are the ones actually building and sustaining the content of this site...
Look, just because someone puts a complaint in a polite little package doesn't mean it’s going to be granted. If that were the case, everyone would just act however they wanted and then play the humble victim, asking nicely for their posts to be wiped clean. That’s just not how this forum works. Within a matter of minutes, the moderators identified several of her requests for permanent bans, and let me be clear: a permaban isn't some toy or a tool you use just to prove a point. The definition of that word is pretty damn unambiguous. Besides, Hunter isn't exactly the first person to have a request denied to return to the forum after being banned at their own request—just look at the history here. Here’s another one for you!I didn't even notice she had started opening a whole string of threads, and honestly, I didn't see anyone else on the forum making a huge stink about it either. Now that I've taken a closer look, I see her clone hasn't actually been banned yet, but since she hasn't really used that account to post anything else after the initial wave, it doesn't feel like much of an issue in the grand scheme of things.
vividtiger922 said:I would, perhaps, like to have a little conversation about... well, just about everything...
Let’s kick things off with the Whereabout case. For those who haven't been following along, here is the situation... Reddit
Since that user already laid out her entire situation in such exhaustive detail—complete with an endless mountain of links and quotes—I don’t see much point in me trying to recap it all for you; just read the thread yourself... If you want my take, though, the whole thing feels like a classic case of "Why ask why? You already know why." Basically, she was penalized for breaking a rule that doesn't even exist, and when she calmly and logically filed an appeal through the proper channels, she was met with threats of a partial ban if she dared to speak up again. But honestly, that isn't even the worst part. The moderator's explanation was nothing short of grotesque, claiming they simply decided it would be "better" if she remained banned. Which really makes me wonder—who is this actually benefiting? Is it for the site, the community, for her, or perhaps just to protect the administration...
I find myself asking, what exactly am I to this community? Because, quite frankly, I cannot fathom a single logical reason why a constructive contributor—someone who has spent their time here volunteering and offering genuine, thoughtful critiques and suggestions—would be banned for no other reason than six months... For whose benefit is this decision actually being made? And what, precisely, is meant by the claim that this platform serves an "educational" purpose...
It’s a similar trajectory to what happened with Schmokljan, a user who was permanently banned from the forum and whose contributions were dismissed as mere garbage... He was once a moderator and the architect of several fascinating threads—sometimes provocative, occasionally incomprehensible, but always ingenious and genuinely authentic. His permanent ban finally came when he requested a partial removal of some Psychology content, during which he posed a question to the administration in his signature style. It might have been unpleasant, perhaps even rude, but it certainly didn't warrant anything more than a standard warning for trolling or insults...
It’s much like the whole Lord Byron situation—that one particular user whose ban was extended by ten days over these wild accusations of cloning accounts and posting on Unknown... all that esoteric speculation that never actually held up under scrutiny, only to be revealed later as nothing more than a complete fabrication...
I actually ended up serving a two-and-a-half-month suspension for supposedly "inciting conflict and leaking moderator information," all because I dared to recount the actual events from a certain corner of the internet regarding how decisions are made on this forum, our current priorities, and the administration's overall strategy...
There could easily be several more instances of indefinite bans, threats of partial restrictions, and the actual enforcement of those very same threats, but I won't dwell on them...
I have a question for the administration: what exactly are your priorities here? It seems to me that you’re quick to ban long-standing community members for no apparent reason, often without any clear timeline, and if this isn't meant to be an educational measure, then what is the actual purpose... It’s baffling how offenses like hate speech, justifying violence, insults, or doxxing—things that truly poison the platform and its integrity—only result in a few days' suspension or a minor point deduction. Meanwhile, we see draconian punishments handed out for things that barely touch upon the quality of the content itself, where the common denominator is simply a disagreement with management. To be honest, the whole thing feels a bit like Huxley’s *Brave New World*... It appears as though you care far more about maintaining a rigid hierarchy and preserving order—ensuring everyone knows who is Alpha, who is Beta, and who is Delta—than you do about the actual substance of our discussions or the creators who provide them. I struggle to find any other explanation for why you would indefinitely sideline veteran users who, despite their flaws, are the ones actually building and sustaining the content of this site...
Look, Schmokljan has just been relentlessly attacking people. I’ve got nothing against someone having a big personality or being a bit eccentric—honestly, that’s what makes things interesting—but we really shouldn't be mixing apples and oranges here. He was given a formal warning, he explicitly agreed to the terms, and then he went right ahead and broke them over and over again. If she ends up getting banned, she only has herself to blame.
vividtiger922 said:I would, perhaps, like to have a little conversation about... well, just about everything...
Let’s kick things off with the Whereabout case. For those who haven't been following along, here is the situation... Reddit
Since that user already laid out her entire situation in such exhaustive detail—complete with an endless mountain of links and quotes—I don’t see much point in me trying to recap it all for you; just read the thread yourself... If you want my take, though, the whole thing feels like a classic case of "Why ask why? You already know why." Basically, she was penalized for breaking a rule that doesn't even exist, and when she calmly and logically filed an appeal through the proper channels, she was met with threats of a partial ban if she dared to speak up again. But honestly, that isn't even the worst part. The moderator's explanation was nothing short of grotesque, claiming they simply decided it would be "better" if she remained banned. Which really makes me wonder—who is this actually benefiting? Is it for the site, the community, for her, or perhaps just to protect the administration...
I find myself asking, what exactly am I to this community? Because, quite frankly, I cannot fathom a single logical reason why a constructive contributor—someone who has spent their time here volunteering and offering genuine, thoughtful critiques and suggestions—would be banned for no other reason than six months... For whose benefit is this decision actually being made? And what, precisely, is meant by the claim that this platform serves an "educational" purpose...
It’s a similar trajectory to what happened with Schmokljan, a user who was permanently banned from the forum and whose contributions were dismissed as mere garbage... He was once a moderator and the architect of several fascinating threads—sometimes provocative, occasionally incomprehensible, but always ingenious and genuinely authentic. His permanent ban finally came when he requested a partial removal of some Psychology content, during which he posed a question to the administration in his signature style. It might have been unpleasant, perhaps even rude, but it certainly didn't warrant anything more than a standard warning for trolling or insults...
It’s much like the whole Lord Byron situation—that one particular user whose ban was extended by ten days over these wild accusations of cloning accounts and posting on Unknown... all that esoteric speculation that never actually held up under scrutiny, only to be revealed later as nothing more than a complete fabrication...
I actually ended up serving a two-and-a-half-month suspension for supposedly "inciting conflict and leaking moderator information," all because I dared to recount the actual events from a certain corner of the internet regarding how decisions are made on this forum, our current priorities, and the administration's overall strategy...
There could easily be several more instances of indefinite bans, threats of partial restrictions, and the actual enforcement of those very same threats, but I won't dwell on them...
I have a question for the administration: what exactly are your priorities here? It seems to me that you’re quick to ban long-standing community members for no apparent reason, often without any clear timeline, and if this isn't meant to be an educational measure, then what is the actual purpose... It’s baffling how offenses like hate speech, justifying violence, insults, or doxxing—things that truly poison the platform and its integrity—only result in a few days' suspension or a minor point deduction. Meanwhile, we see draconian punishments handed out for things that barely touch upon the quality of the content itself, where the common denominator is simply a disagreement with management. To be honest, the whole thing feels a bit like Huxley’s *Brave New World*... It appears as though you care far more about maintaining a rigid hierarchy and preserving order—ensuring everyone knows who is Alpha, who is Beta, and who is Delta—than you do about the actual substance of our discussions or the creators who provide them. I struggle to find any other explanation for why you would indefinitely sideline veteran users who, despite their flaws, are the ones actually building and sustaining the content of this site...
But we certainly didn't see that play out the way we expected later on.
vividtiger922 said:I would, perhaps, like to have a little conversation about... well, just about everything...
Let’s kick things off with the Whereabout case. For those who haven't been following along, here is the situation... Reddit
Since that user already laid out her entire situation in such exhaustive detail—complete with an endless mountain of links and quotes—I don’t see much point in me trying to recap it all for you; just read the thread yourself... If you want my take, though, the whole thing feels like a classic case of "Why ask why? You already know why." Basically, she was penalized for breaking a rule that doesn't even exist, and when she calmly and logically filed an appeal through the proper channels, she was met with threats of a partial ban if she dared to speak up again. But honestly, that isn't even the worst part. The moderator's explanation was nothing short of grotesque, claiming they simply decided it would be "better" if she remained banned. Which really makes me wonder—who is this actually benefiting? Is it for the site, the community, for her, or perhaps just to protect the administration...
I find myself asking, what exactly am I to this community? Because, quite frankly, I cannot fathom a single logical reason why a constructive contributor—someone who has spent their time here volunteering and offering genuine, thoughtful critiques and suggestions—would be banned for no other reason than six months... For whose benefit is this decision actually being made? And what, precisely, is meant by the claim that this platform serves an "educational" purpose...
It’s a similar trajectory to what happened with Schmokljan, a user who was permanently banned from the forum and whose contributions were dismissed as mere garbage... He was once a moderator and the architect of several fascinating threads—sometimes provocative, occasionally incomprehensible, but always ingenious and genuinely authentic. His permanent ban finally came when he requested a partial removal of some Psychology content, during which he posed a question to the administration in his signature style. It might have been unpleasant, perhaps even rude, but it certainly didn't warrant anything more than a standard warning for trolling or insults...
It’s much like the whole Lord Byron situation—that one particular user whose ban was extended by ten days over these wild accusations of cloning accounts and posting on Unknown... all that esoteric speculation that never actually held up under scrutiny, only to be revealed later as nothing more than a complete fabrication...
I actually ended up serving a two-and-a-half-month suspension for supposedly "inciting conflict and leaking moderator information," all because I dared to recount the actual events from a certain corner of the internet regarding how decisions are made on this forum, our current priorities, and the administration's overall strategy...
There could easily be several more instances of indefinite bans, threats of partial restrictions, and the actual enforcement of those very same threats, but I won't dwell on them...
I have a question for the administration: what exactly are your priorities here? It seems to me that you’re quick to ban long-standing community members for no apparent reason, often without any clear timeline, and if this isn't meant to be an educational measure, then what is the actual purpose... It’s baffling how offenses like hate speech, justifying violence, insults, or doxxing—things that truly poison the platform and its integrity—only result in a few days' suspension or a minor point deduction. Meanwhile, we see draconian punishments handed out for things that barely touch upon the quality of the content itself, where the common denominator is simply a disagreement with management. To be honest, the whole thing feels a bit like Huxley’s *Brave New World*... It appears as though you care far more about maintaining a rigid hierarchy and preserving order—ensuring everyone knows who is Alpha, who is Beta, and who is Delta—than you do about the actual substance of our discussions or the creators who provide them. I struggle to find any other explanation for why you would indefinitely sideline veteran users who, despite their flaws, are the ones actually building and sustaining the content of this site...
Well, you knew perfectly well that was against the rules. You aren't supposed to leak info from the private sections of the forum intended for staff eyes only; you were fully aware of the consequences and chose to go ahead with it anyway. That was your call.
vividtiger922 said:I would, perhaps, like to have a little conversation about... well, just about everything...
Let’s kick things off with the Whereabout case. For those who haven't been following along, here is the situation... Reddit
Since that user already laid out her entire situation in such exhaustive detail—complete with an endless mountain of links and quotes—I don’t see much point in me trying to recap it all for you; just read the thread yourself... If you want my take, though, the whole thing feels like a classic case of "Why ask why? You already know why." Basically, she was penalized for breaking a rule that doesn't even exist, and when she calmly and logically filed an appeal through the proper channels, she was met with threats of a partial ban if she dared to speak up again. But honestly, that isn't even the worst part. The moderator's explanation was nothing short of grotesque, claiming they simply decided it would be "better" if she remained banned. Which really makes me wonder—who is this actually benefiting? Is it for the site, the community, for her, or perhaps just to protect the administration...
I find myself asking, what exactly am I to this community? Because, quite frankly, I cannot fathom a single logical reason why a constructive contributor—someone who has spent their time here volunteering and offering genuine, thoughtful critiques and suggestions—would be banned for no other reason than six months... For whose benefit is this decision actually being made? And what, precisely, is meant by the claim that this platform serves an "educational" purpose...
It’s a similar trajectory to what happened with Schmokljan, a user who was permanently banned from the forum and whose contributions were dismissed as mere garbage... He was once a moderator and the architect of several fascinating threads—sometimes provocative, occasionally incomprehensible, but always ingenious and genuinely authentic. His permanent ban finally came when he requested a partial removal of some Psychology content, during which he posed a question to the administration in his signature style. It might have been unpleasant, perhaps even rude, but it certainly didn't warrant anything more than a standard warning for trolling or insults...
It’s much like the whole Lord Byron situation—that one particular user whose ban was extended by ten days over these wild accusations of cloning accounts and posting on Unknown... all that esoteric speculation that never actually held up under scrutiny, only to be revealed later as nothing more than a complete fabrication...
I actually ended up serving a two-and-a-half-month suspension for supposedly "inciting conflict and leaking moderator information," all because I dared to recount the actual events from a certain corner of the internet regarding how decisions are made on this forum, our current priorities, and the administration's overall strategy...
There could easily be several more instances of indefinite bans, threats of partial restrictions, and the actual enforcement of those very same threats, but I won't dwell on them...
I have a question for the administration: what exactly are your priorities here? It seems to me that you’re quick to ban long-standing community members for no apparent reason, often without any clear timeline, and if this isn't meant to be an educational measure, then what is the actual purpose... It’s baffling how offenses like hate speech, justifying violence, insults, or doxxing—things that truly poison the platform and its integrity—only result in a few days' suspension or a minor point deduction. Meanwhile, we see draconian punishments handed out for things that barely touch upon the quality of the content itself, where the common denominator is simply a disagreement with management. To be honest, the whole thing feels a bit like Huxley’s *Brave New World*... It appears as though you care far more about maintaining a rigid hierarchy and preserving order—ensuring everyone knows who is Alpha, who is Beta, and who is Delta—than you do about the actual substance of our discussions or the creators who provide them. I struggle to find any other explanation for why you would indefinitely sideline veteran users who, despite their flaws, are the ones actually building and sustaining the content of this site...
Honestly, a six-month suspension for following the basic community guidelines shouldn't be an issue for anyone. We don't even necessarily need to jump straight to a permanent ban for a first offense—it doesn't even have to be the very first ban. Our goal is simply to ensure the person stops doing the exact thing that got them flagged in the first place, which usually has nothing to do with their personality.
vividtiger922 said:I would, perhaps, like to have a little conversation about... well, just about everything...
Let’s kick things off with the Whereabout case. For those who haven't been following along, here is the situation... Reddit
Since that user already laid out her entire situation in such exhaustive detail—complete with an endless mountain of links and quotes—I don’t see much point in me trying to recap it all for you; just read the thread yourself... If you want my take, though, the whole thing feels like a classic case of "Why ask why? You already know why." Basically, she was penalized for breaking a rule that doesn't even exist, and when she calmly and logically filed an appeal through the proper channels, she was met with threats of a partial ban if she dared to speak up again. But honestly, that isn't even the worst part. The moderator's explanation was nothing short of grotesque, claiming they simply decided it would be "better" if she remained banned. Which really makes me wonder—who is this actually benefiting? Is it for the site, the community, for her, or perhaps just to protect the administration...
I find myself asking, what exactly am I to this community? Because, quite frankly, I cannot fathom a single logical reason why a constructive contributor—someone who has spent their time here volunteering and offering genuine, thoughtful critiques and suggestions—would be banned for no other reason than six months... For whose benefit is this decision actually being made? And what, precisely, is meant by the claim that this platform serves an "educational" purpose...
It’s a similar trajectory to what happened with Schmokljan, a user who was permanently banned from the forum and whose contributions were dismissed as mere garbage... He was once a moderator and the architect of several fascinating threads—sometimes provocative, occasionally incomprehensible, but always ingenious and genuinely authentic. His permanent ban finally came when he requested a partial removal of some Psychology content, during which he posed a question to the administration in his signature style. It might have been unpleasant, perhaps even rude, but it certainly didn't warrant anything more than a standard warning for trolling or insults...
It’s much like the whole Lord Byron situation—that one particular user whose ban was extended by ten days over these wild accusations of cloning accounts and posting on Unknown... all that esoteric speculation that never actually held up under scrutiny, only to be revealed later as nothing more than a complete fabrication...
I actually ended up serving a two-and-a-half-month suspension for supposedly "inciting conflict and leaking moderator information," all because I dared to recount the actual events from a certain corner of the internet regarding how decisions are made on this forum, our current priorities, and the administration's overall strategy...
There could easily be several more instances of indefinite bans, threats of partial restrictions, and the actual enforcement of those very same threats, but I won't dwell on them...
I have a question for the administration: what exactly are your priorities here? It seems to me that you’re quick to ban long-standing community members for no apparent reason, often without any clear timeline, and if this isn't meant to be an educational measure, then what is the actual purpose... It’s baffling how offenses like hate speech, justifying violence, insults, or doxxing—things that truly poison the platform and its integrity—only result in a few days' suspension or a minor point deduction. Meanwhile, we see draconian punishments handed out for things that barely touch upon the quality of the content itself, where the common denominator is simply a disagreement with management. To be honest, the whole thing feels a bit like Huxley’s *Brave New World*... It appears as though you care far more about maintaining a rigid hierarchy and preserving order—ensuring everyone knows who is Alpha, who is Beta, and who is Delta—than you do about the actual substance of our discussions or the creators who provide them. I struggle to find any other explanation for why you would indefinitely sideline veteran users who, despite their flaws, are the ones actually building and sustaining the content of this site...
It just isn't true that we punish people simply for disagreeing. Maybe we penalize the *way* that disagreement is expressed, but never the disagreement itself. The FBI is full of people who disagree with the administration and haven't faced any sanctions at all, so saying this is a pattern of targeting dissenters is neither accurate nor fair.