Posts by rustydrifter10

redviper32 said:But honestly, I don't think anything was actually done here that breaks that specific rule. 🤷
I haven't broken any laws, I'm certainly not inciting hate or discrimination, and I'm definitely not justifying or praising any crimes or anything like that. 😕

I think we really need to learn how to tell the difference between an actual criminal offense and just something that happens to be prohibited by law.

Oh, yes they have; there are honestly so many posts floating around here that promote corporal punishment for kids.

Daniel White9 said:Oh boy. 🤦

Nice try, but you completely missed the mark.😁

If there’s any censorship to be found on this forum, it’s coming straight from MK. It just seems like that censorship is specifically targeted at anyone who... They aren't. The inventory over there.

If you're looking for the ultimate sensitive souls on this site, look no further than the MK section.
What should we call these types of users—the ones who constantly force moderators to step in because they resort to insulting people just because they can't find a clever comeback? It’s like they lack the wit or the imagination to actually win an argument, so they just gang up on someone ten-to-one instead of using logic. Then, the moderator swoops in, hands out a single yellow card to one person, and just wipes the rest of the posts clean.
I suppose one shouldn't go around offending anyone from the MK. 🤷

There is an entire series of examples like this; for instance, the most recent one is currently a hot topic. Divorced mothers seem to have a distinct advantage when it comes to gaining custody of their children—it’s a clear byproduct of modern feminism..
Alex Barnes8 was dealing with a massive wave of chauvinistic attacks on the forum. At first, she handled it with incredible grace, choosing to just ignore the insults from those MK users—even though their harassment wasn't being moderated. But the second she finally decided to stand her ground and fire back, she was hit with a red card.
Since they couldn't find a way to actually counter her well-reasoned arguments, the users just resorted to frustrated insults—it seems they're already used to having someone shield them from reality.

Well, that’s just plain sweet.😁

Hey Charles Fox10, I have to ask—why was Alex Barnes8 getting hit with so many red cards while those vulgar, insulting posts from that guy from MK just get deleted without any penalty? Specifically, brightcrane56 quoted her post and, apparently unable to come up with anything remotely intelligent, just wrote... Go screw yourself.That post was deleted within minutes instead of being sanctioned.

It’s honestly hilarious watching some people on this thread try to paint MK as some chill, laid-back spot that everyone else is just out to censor. If that were actually the case, they’d be complaining about the thread titled—get this—😁) How does one go about sabotaging a Pride parade?
From what I can see, that thread is sitting there perfectly fine without any moderator deletions for homophobic remarks, and the only ban issued there is—get this...😁) on this post. Basically, someone had the nerve to suggest the title sounds like hate speech and deserves a red card. I don't want to upset whatever sensitive little soul from MK is offended. 😁
That’s enough about how "laid-back and joking" MK supposedly is.

Those constant sexist outbursts that they try to pass off as "just a joke" fail immediately—as soon as some woman on the forum manages to shut them down with actual wit (which isn't hard 😁), these immature types can't dish it out. Instead, they resort to insults, swearing, and calling for the moderators. 😂

:facepalm :🤣

Alex Barnes8 just came in to troll and provoke the thread. She was being insulted, so she insulted them back, and she only ended up getting a card after she ignored a warning from the mods. It's the same old story, and that's really not what we're talking about here.

Megan Ruiz13 said:Time to give you the view from the muški kutak...😳

And there they go again, the feminists are attacking. 🤷

Honestly, with this kind of PMS-driven feminism, the mods and regular guys on this forum are fighting battles every single day.

Scanning through the subforum, I’ve realized that censorship in the muški kutak only seems to target the moody feminists. Everyone else can blather on all they want until they drive my respected colleagues crazy... and then what? You're left with nothing.🤷

Look, if you can't handle some guy banter, just shut down the muški kutak entirely....

And regarding those gay topics—come on. This is the muški kutak: grabbing beers, watching TV, porn, boobs, hookers... and then suddenly, "oh, let's bring in the gay topics or we'll be violating someone's rights." Give me a break...🙄

Just open a separate subforum for gay people and call it a day. 🤷

Feminists have their own space, but nooooooo, they just *have* to invade the muški kutak....😁

That’s the kind of nonsense going on over there.

Before the moderators stepped in, the topic we're discussing was nowhere near that state.

Daniel White9 said:😂

Well... maybe it would be helpful if you actually took a moment to look up what feminism actually means, just so we can avoid these kinds of blunders.😁

MK constantly sees attacks from some sort of feminists... much like how the Church sees communists everywhere.😬

Feminism and pie—that's just their own little internal joke, and honestly, that's perfectly fine by me.

hollowtrucker77 said:And just how far can this actually go?
Is the end goal just rolling our eyes and acting disgusted at the whole mess?

If anyone here has actually taken the time to sit down and read through the Family Law, please, by all means, point out just ONE parent who hasn't broken it already.
And if you manage to find one, I’ll happily return the favor by pointing out a parent who couldn't care less about their kid and should probably be facing prosecution for neglect.

brightpuma said:I’m not quite sure what the definition of a debate is, but if only one side gets to share their thoughts, then it isn't a debate. It’s something else entirely.
It’s kind of like claiming you have a democracy when you can only vote for one political party. 🤷

Exactly. So what, 70-80% of us who were raised contrary to that Family Law all turned out to be delinquents, addicts, or screw-ups? 🤷

Well, actually, if you really dig into that law, you realize that’s pretty much all you can do. Because any other way, you're breaking the law. Whether you limit a kid's freedom by grounding them, withhold an allowance as punishment, or monitor where they go and who they hang out with—all of that violates that wonderful Family Law if you follow it strictly to the letter.

And which one would that be? You definitely can't hash this out on RiD.
Maybe we could talk about it here on a thread Lisa Hernandez3 linked over at Psychology, or perhaps in a legal/politics section where people actually discuss why a certain law is good or bad...

Look, you just can't go around encouraging or glorifying actions that are straight-up illegal under our laws, especially when it comes to... well, everything else we were discussing. It’s just not right. When we're talking about the core rules of the game, everything really starts to click into place. foruma piše:

Just a quick heads-up for everyone joining us here on the forum: we have some ground rules to keep this community running smoothly. To keep things civil and enjoyable for everyone, please keep the following prohibitions in mind:

Just a heads-up for everyone: please make sure you aren't breaking any U.S. laws here. We’re specifically looking out for things like hate speech, discrimination, or anyone trying to justify or glorify criminal acts. We also have a zero-tolerance policy regarding copyright infringement, child exploitation, animal cruelty, and anything else illegal. Let's keep this community safe and respectful!

Look, there’s a massive difference between just having a debate and actually crossing the line. It's one thing to sit down and hash out your personal opinions—to say, "Hey, in my book, this is wrong" or "I personally find this unacceptable." That's what healthy discussion is all about. But once you start talking about things that are strictly illegal under U.S. law? Well, then you can't use this forum to encourage those actions or try to glorify them. There's a very clear distinction between sharing a viewpoint and inciting criminal behavior, and we need to respect that boundary.

Look, we can have a discussion about parenting, but let's keep it to the designated sections for that. The real sticking point here is how far people are willing to go when it comes to commenting on corporal punishment. As it’s nicely laid out right here, we can certainly talk about the topic, but there is a massive line between discussing it and actually glorifying or encouraging violent methods. I'm not saying you can't even mention it. In fact, I think it's better if we talk about these things openly, but we absolutely cannot be out here praising or recommending methods that are illegal under US law.

We went over all of this in our discussion, so just a heads-up that some posts are going to be deleted tomorrow, and the mods should be posting an official warning about it shortly.

I mean, this thread has definitely wandered pretty far from where we originally started, but honestly, I don't think there's any reason to shut it down just yet.

morbidangel said:There you go, numismatist, I really hope everything makes sense now.😁

See, this is actually an appeal regarding his deleted post, not the one you're complaining about in your own thread. In his post over in that other discussion, he didn't actually say anything specific—he didn't even go as far as to complain that his own posts were being wiped out somewhere, nothing at all. And he hasn't said that here either. Posts get cleared out across the entire forum every single day, so if he’s actually upset because something of his was removed, he needs to just come out and say it clearly. Besides, I already explained to him exactly why that particular post was taken down over there.

The Moderator gave a really solid assessment here. Please, do me a favor and take another look at their instructions—really dive into them and make sure you're following them strictly in your future posts.

frozenowl3 said:🤦

What kind of policy are you people even running over there? I’m getting such absurd responses that there’s honestly no point in continuing this conversation; just keep doing exactly what you're doing. IT'S AS IF YOU ARE ALWAYS RIGHT

Personally, I think this is a perfectly fine explanation; those posts in the PDF aren't clutter, they aren't hurting anyone, and there's really no reason to go deleting them.

Alright then. I'll see you guys in two weeks!

Thomas Garcia91 said:So, how do I actually make a hyperlink? You know, where I paste a URL from somewhere like Google, but instead of showing the long address, it just shows whatever text I want. 😁

It's pretty simple! Just type out the exact text you want people to see, highlight it with your mouse, click on the icon, and then just paste your web address right into the box that pops up. 🙂

Thanks so much for the suggestion! I'll definitely sit down with my colleagues and run some ideas by them to see what our best move might be.

cosmicridge5 said:First off, thanks for actually stepping up to comment and finally confirming that the moderator was out of line here. I was honestly starting to get the impression that everyone just blindly backs up whatever their fellow mods decide, which would be incredibly unfair and would pretty much defeat the entire purpose of this subforum. So, thanks for that—even if I did have to bend over backwards a bit to finally squeeze that confirmation out of you (if you can even call it that). 😁I hope that isn't the case—or at least, I hope it stops being a thing from here on out.

I was told that during the adoption process, they hold reviews to make sure everything is looking good. I guess it’s just in the interest of helping everyone settle in, which is basically the whole point. Plus, it helps clear out all that unnecessary off-topic clutter in the process..

See, that’s exactly where the issue lies. If my post was actually off-topic—which I don't personally agree with, but whatever—then why wasn't it deleted along with the rest of the off-topic clutter in this thread? How is it that posts that are clearly, beyond any doubt, off-topic haven't been deleted yet? Is it just because they were written by forum members that the moderator—who apparently "knows" them, unlike me—decided to highlight? 😕 I honestly don't see any other reason for this. Do you actually see one? (Since you mentioned you saw the posts, I'm curious.) I mean, isn't moderating based on that kind of logic pretty unacceptable? It seems like it could be harmful, too—not just for the community members and the PDF, but ultimately for the animals they're trying to help.

Since you mentioned you’ve gone through the thread and are up to speed on the recent posts, I wanted to ask your opinion: do you think those posts where people are trying to comfort the former owner—specifically about getting Lotte back (the cat they're currently trying to rehome in this same thread)—are actually on-topic?

I don't have any issue with "spoiling" them, as my ex-owner used to accuse me of doing. My actual problem is with what potential new owners take away from those posts. I guess they just end up concluding that there's something fundamentally wrong with the cat.

So, does that actually count as being on topic? I guess we'll see. And it’s also in the interest of integration. I guess we're talking about Lotte's cats again—specifically those posts where people are telling their former owner how things are going. It's not like she did anything wrong. Honestly, maybe she should just go find herself a different cat., And then, get this—they just refuse to write it down. (and explain) I guess I'm just wondering why they ended up returning Lotte to the shelter after only a month. She was supposedly being rehomed, but now she's back in the system. Any idea what happened? 😕

Are you noticing nonsense? These posts stay on topic and actually help with rehoming Lotte, but my post where I’m just defending her—that doesn't count? 😕

Even with those posts, that cheeky moderator didn't bother deleting my entire thread—she just wiped my specific post instead. In which I am trying, in a perfectly well-meaning, polite, and well-argued manner, to demonstrate that maybe the cat isn't actually the problem...The one trying to find a new foster home, and the person who started this thread.So, she just deleted my post and then went ahead and nuked my account? A total ban? And on top of that, she actually tried to justify it by claiming my post might somehow mess up the adoption process for a specific cat?! I guess that's one way to handle things. A post where I’m essentially "defending" this cat being rehomed is considered off-topic and harmful to her adoption chances 🤦, but posts telling the former owner she did nothing wrong and suggesting she just get a different cat—all while conveniently hiding why Lotte was returned in the first place—are those posts actually helping find Lotte a new home?

To me, that's just completely illogical. Don't you think?

The posts were deleted because the moderator decided they didn't belong there and might make it harder to find the cat a home.

But it wasn't judged that the posts which *actually* make it harder to find the cat a home are the ones left by the moderator herself, specifically the posts making it obvious that the former owner returned the exact same cat after only a month, while everyone on the thread is busy comforting the former owner and telling her, again, that she isn't to blame (so the cat must be?) and that she should just pick out a different cat?! Won't those specific posts and others like them hurt Lotte? Won't any potential adopter see those posts and conclude something is wrong with Lotte, causing them to leave the thread to look for some other "normal" cat?! And those posts are still right there.

And can someone tell me (since the moderator ignored these questions, and I really think it pertains to the quality of moderation on this forum), is it actually okay to withhold the reason why the former owner returned the cat? It seems like the very first question any potential adopter would ask when they see a thread about a returned cat, especially when they see posts saying she should just get a different cat since she isn't at fault for having to return this one?? Do you see what I'm trying to point out here, or why this feels so absurd to me?

Sorry for the long rant, but I honestly don't know how else to phrase this to highlight how nonsensical this logic is and how poorly this thread has been moderated.

I get attacked immediately after asking the most logical and expected question possible— why was the cat returned and what was the actual issue if the former owner is truly blameless—only to have the moderator delete my post, give me a warning, and ban me?

You mentioned you're familiar with the topic, so tell me: does it look to you like this thread is being moderated properly, fairly, and in a way that actually helps this cat?? Because that's what's bothering me most. What kind of adopter is going to take this cat? Doesn't this drastically lower her chances of finding a new home?! How can this kind of moderation be acceptable if the goal is supposed to be helping animals get adopted?!

You can say I'm being dramatic, but please let me be extra sensitive about this, given that I have a cat myself (I'm sure I'll be accused of talking about my own pet again 😁), whom I found small, miserable, and sick. Her well-being means everything to me, and that experience living with my own cat has made me incredibly protective of cats and their fates... So, yeah, maybe I am being dramatic.

Lately, I've been spending more time on the Pets forum and planned to keep trying to help other cats, but this whole situation with Lotte's thread has been exhausting... That's why I don't want to just let it go (if I had just received some random warning elsewhere, I probably wouldn't be writing about this for weeks), but I want the moderation on this forum to be reviewed. I want answers to these questions and for it to be determined if the moderation policy used on Lotte's thread is actually acceptable. If it isn't, it needs to be reported to the people in charge so we can improve the quality of the forum and, ultimately, better serve these animals.

That’s really my main concern, mostly because I feel a bit foolish—or maybe just intimidated—by the idea. I guess what I mean is that moderation over there should probably stay strictly professional. Given all the existing friendships and connections within the community, it feels like the only thing worth policing should be whether people are actually looking out for animal welfare. At the end of the day, we're talking about lives and well-being, so that's really where the focus ought to be. Living beings....not about cars or interior design (and I really don't mean to offend those subforums). 😁So, I guess you really have to watch out for that kind of stuff over there.

With the other PDFs, I honestly didn't care much about whether a moderator would take sides just because someone is their friend or not. But here? Given everything that’s gone down, it actually stung quite a bit. It wasn't just about me, either—even if I did manage to survive a three-day ban. 🙂 😁It’s not just about being annoying; it’s that this kind of policy—the exact same stuff we saw in Lottin's thread—actually hurts the animals. It honestly just lowers their chances of finding a new home.

Maybe there should be some kind of explanation on their profiles when someone adopts an animal only to end up returning them later? It feels like we should probably know why they were brought back. I guess potential new foster parents joining this thread can just judge the situation for themselves. Who's to blame?And does anyone actually care, or are they just going to breeze in here and skim through everything I’ve already laid out?

If we’re really going to insist that the reason the cat was returned is strictly confidential, then wouldn't it make sense to just scrub the posts where people clearly mention she was sent back? Especially those comments telling the former owner to "just go get a different cat." As it stands, this thread doesn't feel like it's actually about Lotta anymore. It feels more like a commentary on the former owner, which makes it seem like all the talk about her is on-topic while anything regarding Lotte's own temperament is somehow off-topic. I guess it also ends up making it look like there's something wrong with the cat itself.

If we’re claiming the reason the cat was returned is a secret, then shouldn't all those posts telling the former owner to just go get a different cat be scrubbed from the thread? Those comments don't really have anything to do with Lotta, and honestly, they might just end up hurting her. I guess it doesn't make much sense to leave them up. That's exactly the question. Sent a message to the moderator. I guess someone should probably just delete posts like that too.So, I got a warning, and then I got banned. Just my luck, I guess. 😕

Once those posts get cleared out, there’s hardly anything left, and honestly, I don't think we're losing much. Most of them aren't just empty words of comfort, either. The whole point of this thread was to emphasize that nobody is at fault—it's not the cat's fault, and it's certainly not the owner's fault. Sometimes, you just don't click, and the connection isn't there. The moderators are just trying to keep things from spiraling into deep, heavy territory because that's not really what this specific topic is meant for.

cosmicridge5 said:First off, thanks for actually stepping up to comment and finally confirming that the moderator was out of line here. I was honestly starting to get the impression that everyone just blindly backs up whatever their fellow mods decide, which would be incredibly unfair and would pretty much defeat the entire purpose of this subforum. So, thanks for that—even if I did have to bend over backwards a bit to finally squeeze that confirmation out of you (if you can even call it that). 😁I hope that isn't the case—or at least, I hope it stops being a thing from here on out.

I was told that during the adoption process, they hold reviews to make sure everything is looking good. I guess it’s just in the interest of helping everyone settle in, which is basically the whole point. Plus, it helps clear out all that unnecessary off-topic clutter in the process..

See, that’s exactly where the issue lies. If my post was actually off-topic—which I don't personally agree with, but whatever—then why wasn't it deleted along with the rest of the off-topic clutter in this thread? How is it that posts that are clearly, beyond any doubt, off-topic haven't been deleted yet? Is it just because they were written by forum members that the moderator—who apparently "knows" them, unlike me—decided to highlight? 😕 I honestly don't see any other reason for this. Do you actually see one? (Since you mentioned you saw the posts, I'm curious.) I mean, isn't moderating based on that kind of logic pretty unacceptable? It seems like it could be harmful, too—not just for the community members and the PDF, but ultimately for the animals they're trying to help.

Since you mentioned you’ve gone through the thread and are up to speed on the recent posts, I wanted to ask your opinion: do you think those posts where people are trying to comfort the former owner—specifically about getting Lotte back (the cat they're currently trying to rehome in this same thread)—are actually on-topic?

I don't have any issue with "spoiling" them, as my ex-owner used to accuse me of doing. My actual problem is with what potential new owners take away from those posts. I guess they just end up concluding that there's something fundamentally wrong with the cat.

So, does that actually count as being on topic? I guess we'll see. And it’s also in the interest of integration. I guess we're talking about Lotte's cats again—specifically those posts where people are telling their former owner how things are going. It's not like she did anything wrong. Honestly, maybe she should just go find herself a different cat., And then, get this—they just refuse to write it down. (and explain) I guess I'm just wondering why they ended up returning Lotte to the shelter after only a month. She was supposedly being rehomed, but now she's back in the system. Any idea what happened? 😕

Are you noticing nonsense? These posts stay on topic and actually help with rehoming Lotte, but my post where I’m just defending her—that doesn't count? 😕

Even with those posts, that cheeky moderator didn't bother deleting my entire thread—she just wiped my specific post instead. In which I am trying, in a perfectly well-meaning, polite, and well-argued manner, to demonstrate that maybe the cat isn't actually the problem...The one trying to find a new foster home, and the person who started this thread.So, she just deleted my post and then went ahead and nuked my account? A total ban? And on top of that, she actually tried to justify it by claiming my post might somehow mess up the adoption process for a specific cat?! I guess that's one way to handle things. A post where I’m essentially "defending" this cat being rehomed is considered off-topic and harmful to her adoption chances 🤦, but posts telling the former owner she did nothing wrong and suggesting she just get a different cat—all while conveniently hiding why Lotte was returned in the first place—are those posts actually helping find Lotte a new home?

To me, that's just completely illogical. Don't you think?

The posts were deleted because the moderator decided they didn't belong there and might make it harder to find the cat a home.

But it wasn't judged that the posts which *actually* make it harder to find the cat a home are the ones left by the moderator herself, specifically the posts making it obvious that the former owner returned the exact same cat after only a month, while everyone on the thread is busy comforting the former owner and telling her, again, that she isn't to blame (so the cat must be?) and that she should just pick out a different cat?! Won't those specific posts and others like them hurt Lotte? Won't any potential adopter see those posts and conclude something is wrong with Lotte, causing them to leave the thread to look for some other "normal" cat?! And those posts are still right there.

And can someone tell me (since the moderator ignored these questions, and I really think it pertains to the quality of moderation on this forum), is it actually okay to withhold the reason why the former owner returned the cat? It seems like the very first question any potential adopter would ask when they see a thread about a returned cat, especially when they see posts saying she should just get a different cat since she isn't at fault for having to return this one?? Do you see what I'm trying to point out here, or why this feels so absurd to me?

Sorry for the long rant, but I honestly don't know how else to phrase this to highlight how nonsensical this logic is and how poorly this thread has been moderated.

I get attacked immediately after asking the most logical and expected question possible— why was the cat returned and what was the actual issue if the former owner is truly blameless—only to have the moderator delete my post, give me a warning, and ban me?

You mentioned you're familiar with the topic, so tell me: does it look to you like this thread is being moderated properly, fairly, and in a way that actually helps this cat?? Because that's what's bothering me most. What kind of adopter is going to take this cat? Doesn't this drastically lower her chances of finding a new home?! How can this kind of moderation be acceptable if the goal is supposed to be helping animals get adopted?!

You can say I'm being dramatic, but please let me be extra sensitive about this, given that I have a cat myself (I'm sure I'll be accused of talking about my own pet again 😁), whom I found small, miserable, and sick. Her well-being means everything to me, and that experience living with my own cat has made me incredibly protective of cats and their fates... So, yeah, maybe I am being dramatic.

Lately, I've been spending more time on the Pets forum and planned to keep trying to help other cats, but this whole situation with Lotte's thread has been exhausting... That's why I don't want to just let it go (if I had just received some random warning elsewhere, I probably wouldn't be writing about this for weeks), but I want the moderation on this forum to be reviewed. I want answers to these questions and for it to be determined if the moderation policy used on Lotte's thread is actually acceptable. If it isn't, it needs to be reported to the people in charge so we can improve the quality of the forum and, ultimately, better serve these animals.

That’s really my main concern, mostly because I feel a bit foolish—or maybe just intimidated—by the idea. I guess what I mean is that moderation over there should probably stay strictly professional. Given all the existing friendships and connections within the community, it feels like the only thing worth policing should be whether people are actually looking out for animal welfare. At the end of the day, we're talking about lives and well-being, so that's really where the focus ought to be. Living beings....not about cars or interior design (and I really don't mean to offend those subforums). 😁So, I guess you really have to watch out for that kind of stuff over there.

With the other PDFs, I honestly didn't care much about whether a moderator would take sides just because someone is their friend or not. But here? Given everything that’s gone down, it actually stung quite a bit. It wasn't just about me, either—even if I did manage to survive a three-day ban. 🙂 😁It’s not just about being annoying; it’s that this kind of policy—the exact same stuff we saw in Lottin's thread—actually hurts the animals. It honestly just lowers their chances of finding a new home.

Maybe there should be some kind of explanation on their profiles when someone adopts an animal only to end up returning them later? It feels like we should probably know why they were brought back. I guess potential new foster parents joining this thread can just judge the situation for themselves. Who's to blame?And does anyone actually care, or are they just going to breeze in here and skim through everything I’ve already laid out?

If we’re really going to insist that the reason the cat was returned is strictly confidential, then wouldn't it make sense to just scrub the posts where people clearly mention she was sent back? Especially those comments telling the former owner to "just go get a different cat." As it stands, this thread doesn't feel like it's actually about Lotta anymore. It feels more like a commentary on the former owner, which makes it seem like all the talk about her is on-topic while anything regarding Lotte's own temperament is somehow off-topic. I guess it also ends up making it look like there's something wrong with the cat itself.

If we’re claiming the reason the cat was returned is a secret, then shouldn't all those posts telling the former owner to just go get a different cat be scrubbed from the thread? Those comments don't really have anything to do with Lotta, and honestly, they might just end up hurting her. I guess it doesn't make much sense to leave them up. That's exactly the question. Sent a message to the moderator. I guess someone should probably just delete posts like that too.So, I got a warning, and then I got banned. Just my luck, I guess. 😕

I’ve really come to realize that if we want this thread to actually succeed, we need to keep things clear and easy to follow. It starts getting messy fast when we dive deep into the specific reasons why a cat was returned—especially if those reasons aren't exactly objective. From an outsider's perspective, I don't think it should be that hard to just give a brief, general explanation of why a match didn't work out. Honestly, doing that is just common courtesy; otherwise, you risk making another potential foster parent feel unnecessarily guilty or bad about themselves if their own match doesn't pan out later on.

Look, that PDF is incredibly sensitive and carries so much heavy emotional weight, so I honestly think the moderator's decision to crack down on off-topic chatter is completely justified. It just makes sense given how intense the subject matter is.

cosmicridge5 said:

Then a warning popped up. Ignoring it or trying to argue with a moderator's warning is actually against the rules and carries a 30-point penalty, though in your case, they just deleted the post. Why on earth did you go and bring that deleted post back?That’s just another rule violation that probably falls under persistent harassment. I guess you only just received your 100-point penalty.

Just so we're clear on this: I didn't actually restore that deleted post like you're claiming. It’s more that I happened to be right there in the middle of things at the exact moments the moderator was deleting it. I edited my post to add an explanation. - ovo: Maybe they should just go ahead and wipe those other posts too, just so potential foster parents don't walk away with the wrong impression.I was actually planning on adding that sentence to my post just to provide a bit more clarification. I guess, well, basically... I went ahead and edited my post before I even realized—since I was typing out an "edit" note—that the moderator had already deleted it! If you actually look at the timestamps on my posts (edit) versus when she started deleting stuff, you’ll see what I mean. I wasn't trying to repost something that had been wiped out; I was just editing my own post—which, for the record, was still live on the thread at the time! It only popped back up because I hit edit, you know?

The moderator actually saw my post while I was attempting to edit it—right at the exact moment she was deleting it. It popped back up because of that edit attempt, not because I was trying to resurrect a deleted message. I guess it would have been fair if she’d taken that timing into account before deciding on the warning and the ban.

So, it wasn't actually a case of me ignoring warnings—and it certainly wasn't some sort of "persistent ignoring," if that’s what people are implying.

Since I personally care quite a bit about how things are written and presented, I don't really think a ban was necessary here. I could see some good intentions behind your posts. In my opinion, maybe instead of treating everything the same way, it would make more sense to just dock some points in cases like this—especially when compared to those posts that exist solely to stir the pot.

Standard procedure is to let the moderator explain themselves first. I don't hang out on that PDF very often, but I guess you deserved some kind of penalty. I didn't want to toss you into the ban corner until I heard back from the moderator. Unfortunately, our schedules just didn't align, and by the time we actually got around to discussing your case, your ban was already about to expire.

I still think a hundred points was overkill, but I guess you earned some kind of penalty.

I mean, if they hadn't already handled it, shouldn't they have just reached out to me? Maybe they should've even replied once my ban expired in the ban corner. 😕 I’d rather not just be left hanging here looking like an idiot, especially since we've already established that my ban was totally unjustified. If we're going to be fair about it, I guess it would make sense to actually get an answer over in the appeal thread where I voiced my concerns. Especially considering the ban period has already run its course—meaning I basically had to sit through an unfair penalty for nothing.

Look, I won't make a habit of teasing you, especially since you’re apparently the only one who actually decided to be fair in the end. So, despite the fact that I'm still pretty annoyed about this whole situation, I guess I owe you a thanks for that. 🙂

So, I took a look at everything. That post where you were talking about how things are being moderated went up at 10:29 PM. It was taken down just five minutes later, at 10:34 PM. Then, you posted essentially the exact same thing—just with one extra sentence tacked on—at 10:41 PM. You actually received the warning for it around 11:24 PM, which is pretty much right when it was deleted anyway. And if my memory serves me right, if you try to edit a post that’s already been wiped, you’ll either get an error saying it doesn't exist or the system just won't let you save the changes. So, what really happened was that you ended up posting two separate messages with nearly identical content, with the second one being slightly longer. This basically means you reposted what had already been deleted, and since both posts were critiquing the moderation, they both fall under the same umbrella. Neither of them shows that little "edited" tag at the bottom you usually see when someone tweaks a post after a couple of minutes have passed.

cosmicridge5 said:

Then a warning popped up. Ignoring it or trying to argue with a moderator's warning is actually against the rules and carries a 30-point penalty, though in your case, they just deleted the post. Why on earth did you go and bring that deleted post back?That’s just another rule violation that probably falls under persistent harassment. I guess you only just received your 100-point penalty.

Just so we're clear on this: I didn't actually restore that deleted post like you're claiming. It’s more that I happened to be right there in the middle of things at the exact moments the moderator was deleting it. I edited my post to add an explanation. - ovo: Maybe they should just go ahead and wipe those other posts too, just so potential foster parents don't walk away with the wrong impression.I was actually planning on adding that sentence to my post just to provide a bit more clarification. I guess, well, basically... I went ahead and edited my post before I even realized—since I was typing out an "edit" note—that the moderator had already deleted it! If you actually look at the timestamps on my posts (edit) versus when she started deleting stuff, you’ll see what I mean. I wasn't trying to repost something that had been wiped out; I was just editing my own post—which, for the record, was still live on the thread at the time! It only popped back up because I hit edit, you know?

The moderator actually saw my post while I was attempting to edit it—right at the exact moment she was deleting it. It popped back up because of that edit attempt, not because I was trying to resurrect a deleted message. I guess it would have been fair if she’d taken that timing into account before deciding on the warning and the ban.

So, it wasn't actually a case of me ignoring warnings—and it certainly wasn't some sort of "persistent ignoring," if that’s what people are implying.

Since I personally care quite a bit about how things are written and presented, I don't really think a ban was necessary here. I could see some good intentions behind your posts. In my opinion, maybe instead of treating everything the same way, it would make more sense to just dock some points in cases like this—especially when compared to those posts that exist solely to stir the pot.

Standard procedure is to let the moderator explain themselves first. I don't hang out on that PDF very often, but I guess you deserved some kind of penalty. I didn't want to toss you into the ban corner until I heard back from the moderator. Unfortunately, our schedules just didn't align, and by the time we actually got around to discussing your case, your ban was already about to expire.

I still think a hundred points was overkill, but I guess you earned some kind of penalty.

I mean, if they hadn't already handled it, shouldn't they have just reached out to me? Maybe they should've even replied once my ban expired in the ban corner. 😕 I’d rather not just be left hanging here looking like an idiot, especially since we've already established that my ban was totally unjustified. If we're going to be fair about it, I guess it would make sense to actually get an answer over in the appeal thread where I voiced my concerns. Especially considering the ban period has already run its course—meaning I basically had to sit through an unfair penalty for nothing.

Look, I won't make a habit of teasing you, especially since you’re apparently the only one who actually decided to be fair in the end. So, despite the fact that I'm still pretty annoyed about this whole situation, I guess I owe you a thanks for that. 🙂

Look, that part is on me. I didn't say anything because my ban was already wrapping up. I know, I know, that's probably not the best excuse, but it just felt a bit pointless to speak up if I couldn't actually fix the situation anyway. Though, I guess I didn't stop to think that pointing out how excessive the penalty was might actually be a way of helping to set things right.

I'm sorry about that.

I actually reached out to the Pet Forum moderators to chat about your ban. Personally, I felt like a hundred-point penalty for what you did was way over the top, so I wanted to dig a little deeper to see if I was missing some crucial context behind the decision.

They explained to me that they keep the adoption threads strictly organized because keeping things streamlined is vital for finding homes for the animals—which is the whole point of those threads—and it helps clear out any unnecessary off-topic chatter.

The posts were removed because the mods felt they didn't belong there and might actually make it harder for someone to adopt a cat. After that, a warning was issued. Now, ignoring or arguing with a moderator's warning is a direct rule violation that carries a 30-point penalty, but in your case, they just deleted the post. Then, you went ahead and reposted that deleted content, which counts as another violation under the "persistence" category. That’s when you ended up getting hit with that 100-point strike.

Since I care quite a bit about how we communicate here, I don't think the massive strike should have been for the initial post itself, especially since I could clearly see you had good intentions in what you wrote. It seems to me that in situations like this, there should be room for lighter penalties instead of treating everyone the same as the trolls who post just to provoke people.

Usually, the standard practice is to let the moderator explain their reasoning first. Since I'm not on that specific forum all the time, but I knew you definitely deserved some kind of reprimand, I didn't want to push back against your ban until I heard back from the mod. Unfortunately, we weren't online at the same time, so by the time we finally hashed out the details of your strike, your ban was already about to expire.

I still maintain that a hundred points was overkill, even if you did deserve some sort of consequence.

Hey, could someone from the mod team take a look at this PDF? I noticed the topic is actually open. 🙂

I’ve been catching up on this whole thread, and honestly, I think the moderators made all the right calls here. They let the conversation flow naturally and kept things open, but the second people started acting like trolls or veering completely off-topic, they stepped in with those warnings. In my opinion, nothing should have been sanctioned earlier than it was, and nothing was punished unfairly. It was handled perfectly.

I’m fully on board with the plan to wipe the warned posts (and maybe even some of the ones that didn't get flagged) and just reset the whole discussion, exactly like the moderator announced.

So, should you just start mimicking that specific phrase? From what I can gather, the issue isn't even really about that one word—it’s more about the whole communication style you seem to lean toward.

coppermarlin13 said:Hey, brightpuma, could you please move over to the other thread? 🙄 I’m asking nicely, let's just leave this one alone. 🙄

Look, if they actually have the data to back it up, they have every right to speak their mind.

Nicholas King said:Do you have any posts over at the R&D section? If there’s an existing thread I missed, then please accept my apologies—I clearly overlooked it. However, if you don't actually contribute to R&D, then I have to wonder: what exactly is your authority for leading the charge on this specific topic? I’ve checked the list, and your username isn't among the moderators for the main forum. Honestly, banning someone without cause and then lecturing them about "attention-seeking" is—well, it's just a joke. By the way, what would actually change if we just spun this off into its own separate thread?

My assumption that you aren't familiar with the R&D section itself stems from the fact that you seem unaware that the restructuring of R&D actually began—quite specifically—with the overhaul of the moderation team. You see, the shift in the "direction of the wind" within R&D was triggered by changing the makeup of the moderators; the technical reorganization (the establishment of new sub-forums) is, one might argue, merely the second step in this entire process.

Let me reiterate: the manner in which that sub-forum is moderated affects its "restructuring"—and I suppose it shouldn't be that difficult to grasp that term in a sense much broader than just "rearranging the furniture"—far more than any simple shuffling of sub-forums. In a situation where the individual most responsible for this "change in course" is no longer moderating R&D, and the co-author of these changes likely has less time to dedicate to R&D due to other forum duties, this very discussion becomes the deciding factor in whether the intended goals succeed or fail.

We aren't going down that road, folks. Anyone is welcome to chime in as long as they actually have some insight to offer or a constructive perspective, regardless of whether people agree with them or not. Honestly, I know plenty of other users who love to nitpick how people communicate or how things are moderated on various PDFs without even contributing anything themselves! 🇲🇰

Tomisličak, since you’re acting as part of the forum administration here, this kind of tone and attitude is really more than unnecessary.

A quick request to everyone: please, let's dial it back a notch. Read through your posts before you hit send, and try to step into the shoes of the person actually reading your words.

Nicholas King said:Do you have any posts over at the R&D section? If there’s an existing thread I missed, then please accept my apologies—I clearly overlooked it. However, if you don't actually contribute to R&D, then I have to wonder: what exactly is your authority for leading the charge on this specific topic? I’ve checked the list, and your username isn't among the moderators for the main forum. Honestly, banning someone without cause and then lecturing them about "attention-seeking" is—well, it's just a joke. By the way, what would actually change if we just spun this off into its own separate thread?

My assumption that you aren't familiar with the R&D section itself stems from the fact that you seem unaware that the restructuring of R&D actually began—quite specifically—with the overhaul of the moderation team. You see, the shift in the "direction of the wind" within R&D was triggered by changing the makeup of the moderators; the technical reorganization (the establishment of new sub-forums) is, one might argue, merely the second step in this entire process.

Let me reiterate: the manner in which that sub-forum is moderated affects its "restructuring"—and I suppose it shouldn't be that difficult to grasp that term in a sense much broader than just "rearranging the furniture"—far more than any simple shuffling of sub-forums. In a situation where the individual most responsible for this "change in course" is no longer moderating R&D, and the co-author of these changes likely has less time to dedicate to R&D due to other forum duties, this very discussion becomes the deciding factor in whether the intended goals succeed or fail.

Yes, Tupelo and I are the ones who kicked off the changes on Rhode Island. She stepped away because she just couldn't balance moderating two different PDFs anymore, and frankly, my own schedule is getting tighter too—sometimes days go by before I can actually sit down and focus on a PDF. I feel bad about it and wish I could give it more of my time, but right now, my role there is mostly centered on launching new PDFs and coordinating with my colleagues to figure out the best way to roll everything out.

If you (or anyone else) have a grievance or a question regarding a moderation decision, please, just provide a link and a specific example. I’ve mentioned several times now that we shouldn't be leaving vague, undefined accusations lying around, and I'm certain that hasn't gone unnoticed.

As for that comment about moderation decisions not applying to you, I believe they were specifically referring to someone else's warning card, which had caused some confusion for the moderator.

My personal take is that moderators should explain their reasoning if users ask, because that's how we can potentially prevent the same mistake from happening to someone else. That hasn't been the standard practice on this forum for a long time, so the moderators have been trained a certain way, and I realize my approach might feel a bit jarring to some. I suppose we all just need a little more time to adjust; maybe then we can all start talking to one another with a bit less antagonism.