Posts by Bradley Sanders4

Exactly. 👍

dustyranger64 said:Partials have been removed from the organization regardless of when they were earned. We won't be issuing refunds upon request.

The following users had their partials stripped:
walther-P38 Carlos Il Bestione lord Byron Lastan Mcaucliffe snowleopard Manchild

Carlos

Il Bestione

Nicholas King

Lastan

Mcaucliffe
snowleopard Manchild
All of them have been notified via PM. (Well, Byron and Manchild obviously already know, and Lastan is still under a general ban—he’ll get his notice once that clears up.)
We didn't touch the partials for anyone who is permanently banned. It makes sense both technically and logically. (Let's face it, any partials earned after a permanent ban were basically "earned" by causing total chaos during those messy mass-download sessions involving saints, mothers, and other relatives—basically just being totally inappropriate.)

That specific part of the decision
is
not open for debate or review. So, saying "Hey guys, we don't have the technical tools to do this perfectly, so we're asking the community if we missed anyone on this list—if we did, please let us know"—is actually a pretty solid move. It keeps things transparent and cuts down on all the random questions hitting our inbox.

justcurious says: Conclusion:

If you know someone who should have had their partials removed from the organization but isn't on this list, please shoot the admins a PM. Your help is much appreciated!

Since the list is still pretty short and this thread has already hit over 2,000 views, I don't think we need to make a massive forum-wide announcement just yet.
However, we might end up doing that if things change significantly—like if more names pop up thanks to your tips.
I’ll take this chance to ask one more time: please actually read the new rule of the organization at the top of the PDF. I noticed it has about a third of the views this thread has!
Thanks for listening and for understanding.

Honestly, you could just pin that as a notification for the whole sub-forum for a week and call it a day. I don't get why you guys keep ignoring that option just to obsess over view counts, list lengths, and whatever else. We've used that method to announce way less important stuff on here before, so it's only logical to use it for this. You're coming off as unprofessional, and frankly, it makes people question if you're actually being sincere. Is the real issue just that you didn't think of it first?

Just put out a site-wide announcement already. We’ve done it before for charity drives and when the rules for specific subforums changed, so there’s no reason we can't do it for this too. 🤷

Sorry for crashing Byron's thread, but since everyone is already debating lifting bans, I figured there wouldn't be a better place to ask this.

Is there actually a list of users who have partial bans, or was the whole unbanning process just handled somewhat randomly? I noticed this question popped up in the thread before, but it got deleted—instead of being answered or moved to a different section if it was considered off-topic—and I'm honestly dying to know the answer. Given the general amnesty, knowing who is still essentially "serving time" is a pretty, well, significant question.

Also, in a deleted post, someone made an excellent suggestion on how to handle this if a formal list doesn't exist, so here it is. If I'm not allowed to ask why such a constructive post was wiped out (since I don't want to get accused of playing lawyer), I assume I can at least ask what the administration is doing about notifying people when partial bans from the organization are being lifted. It’s the 28th today, the thread started on the 26th; surely a quick few-sentence announcement isn't asking for much. Either there's a lack of will to do it, or it was just overlooked. Since you guys explicitly stated you wanted to moderate this place better and clean up the organization by removing partial bans, I'll choose to believe it was just an oversight. So, I'm just throwing this out there as a friendly reminder that you really could make that happen.

Thanks for the reply.

This is just stupid and totally lacks common sense. What’s the point of capping how many messages someone can drop in thirty minutes on a chat? It isn't going to stop actual spammers. On top of that, think about the people who actually have a legitimate issue—someone needing urgent help or asking a quick question. Are they supposed to be forced to flood the boards with useless posts just to get permission to start a new thread in the job and career subforum?

...so I'm not even allowed to relink it using a URL shortener? Even when it isn't spam and doesn't contain anything harmful to the forum—in fact, it actually adds value to the discussion (like that article about Z in the thread about Z)?

So, look, I had no idea that Straight Down was blocked, and honestly, I wouldn't even know where to go to find out. That’s exactly why I’m asking for the list.

From what I can gather, it’s not actually against the rules to use a URL shortener to link to a site that's been censored. I mean, unless you’re some spammer using the service to blast ads constantly until both the site and the service get blacklisted—which clearly happened to TinyURL—this hasn't been an issue before. Honestly, it shouldn't be either, especially since there isn't even a definitive list of which sites are officially banned. Personally, my biggest gripe with re-linking is the lack of transparency. I have no idea what I'm actually clicking on unless some Random Redditor tells me beforehand. When I click a bit.ly link, I'm flying blind. I don't know if it's taking me to the All the Way Down news site, a "So you've been bitten by a zombie" article, or some sketchy page loaded with malware. If I can see the actual URL, at least I can make an informed choice about whether to click or not.

And look, I'm not suggesting we ban fifty different URL shortening services. I'm just saying we should get rid of those pages that some guy used to promote through aggressive spamming from his basement.

Paul Green31 said:Oh, there are other clauses too. And actual laws. When it comes to leaking email addresses, one person is responsible for the other. It seems like you’re having a hard time concentrating on what you’re reading today, but hey, it’s fine—I’ll let it slide.

I won't bother commenting on anything else, because if you think what I'm saying is funny, go complain to the lawmakers.

And what exactly are you right about? I mean, maybe you are, but could you explain?

As for needing to be a lawyer... Well, it's the same in real life.

My buddy runs a small auto shop that has a restroom. An inspector came by and hit him with $1667 hygiene violations. There's soap in the restroom, and his wife changes the towels several times a day (it's a small family business). It baffled me, because I know everything there is spotless; even though it's a greasy job, the shop is top-notch.

So he asked for clarification and got it in writing. Apparently, restroom towels have to be paper, and the soap has to be liquid.

The guy left to get more details, basically thinking: why the f***ing hell are you nitpicking over details?

Then he got his answers. For example, if someone with a contagious skin condition washes their hands and dries them on a towel, and that towel isn't paper and the soap isn't liquid, there's a massive chance the next person picks up that infection.

So, not everything written in the law is nonsense (which is what both he and I thought), because some things actually make sense. The fact that we don't know about them is our own problem if someone decides to hold us accountable.

Because the law assumes that if you're on the road, you know the rules of the road. If you run a business with a restroom, you have to know the rules. If you participate in the online world, you have to know the rules. Or rather, you don't *have* to, but the moment someone holds you responsible, "I didn't know the rules" isn't going to help you dodge the consequences of breaking them.

Look, I used to be a moderator on this forum, and the closest thing to the contract you're describing was a PM from a former head moderator that explicitly said, "don't give out anyone's IP address." Honestly, I couldn't care less about the lawmakers, but if you actually believe users have legitimate grounds for a lawsuit because of this, well, hey, who am I to tell you you're wrong? 😁

rustydrifter10 said:🙂

From what I can gather, the whole thing boils down to this: the only real difference between posting an email address and an MSN handle is that one is actually against the law while the other isn't. It’s basically a massive loophole, and honestly, our legal system is a complete joke—which, if you ask me, says a lot about how things are run in this country. Of course, a forum is stuck following the rules, no matter how much they resemble a tangled mess of red tape, so they have to block email addresses while letting people post their MSN handles just fine. I know, I know—it sounds totally debatable and makes zero sense to the average person, and frankly, even to a lot of the moderators. 😬 And at the end of the day, who can you even complain to? Just our dear old Jaca & co., I guess. 🤔 Btw, let's just drop all this political talk, alright? 🙂

Where am I getting this wrong?

As I understand it, those privacy laws about leaking info are meant to stop people from doxxing others, not from posting their own damn details. Is there a lawyer on this forum who can make sense of this mess?

Paul Green31 said:Look, I’m really not in the mood to explain things that have already been explained. Sorry.

The rule is called the regulation law, and it covers absolutely everything, including moderation. If a moderator receives a set of rules via email, they’ve essentially signed a contract with an electronic signature. That carries the exact same weight as signing four physical copies in front of a notary public.

If you don't get that, I feel for you, but I am not dragging myself back to the 90s to teach you how electronic signatures work. And if that doesn't click, then it’s pretty obvious why you think this whole email topic is so "fluid."

Look, the regulation law also has provisions about good faith business practices. Based on that, you can't exactly sue a forum when you're the one who went ahead and posted your own email address right there for everyone to see.

All this nonsense about moderators, rulebooks, and electronic signatures would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. 🤣

melloworca6 said:And how can you actually be sure you're leaking your own data instead of someone else's?

Look, you have access to the email address I used to register. Just go compare them.

goldengull3 said:I have nothing further to add here. 🙂

An email address constitutes personal information. Since we lack a robust user identification system—unlike the rudimentary methods used back in the BBS era, where a sysop would at least know a user's handle for authorization purposes—we have no way of verifying that person XY is actually the individual who chose to make their email public. Therefore, email addresses are not posted. Websites, blogs, and similar platforms are inherently public. Similarly, handles for Skype, ICQ, and other services are public; they can be easily retrieved through service searches.

The only exception might be business addresses such as: "Contact that firm at reklamacije@example.com", but even then, personal addresses like ante.antic@example.com are off-limits.

If anyone finds this unacceptable, they are under no obligation to post on this Forum. Most other communities operate under the exact same rules.

So, it’s actually a pretty easy fix. If a user wants to put their email out there, they could just link to their own website or blog where their address is listed. Cookie, you reading this?

Susan Price30 said:🤣 Morticia won because she has the longest legs—she's nearly 6'3", so that's why. We actually ended up deleting some photos that were pretty stunning back when those "fan clubs" were starting to form on Reddit 😉 and things like that...

On topic—what I'm actually wondering about is whether mods are allowed to give out a user's IP address to someone else. Is that even something that's permitted?

It doesn't pass. Seriously. One of the first things they told me when I stepped up to be a moderator was that we never, ever hand out IP addresses to anyone. Period. If it's true that some mod actually leaked someone's IP, that's a massive breach of privacy. In my book, that's grounds for getting kicked out of the role immediately.

Look, banning isn't some kind of rehab program for addicts. It’s just about kicking someone off the forum who’s either a professional troll or someone who let their emotions get the better of them and lashed out. For those second types, a 24-hour timeout is plenty of time to cool off and clear their heads. As for the actual trolls? A long-term ban won't do a damn thing for them, but short temporary bans actually help the mods sweep up the mess they leave behind so the rest of us can actually enjoy a decent atmosphere. Long bans are honestly counterproductive—they just end up creating more work when those people start making burner accounts to come back anyway.

hollowmason64 said:Is it Herp? Or is it Africa?
Did anyone else here take note of how she was actually feeling today when she had to go ahead and ban those girls?
Do you really think Herp wouldn't pull something like that off?
I honestly feel like this whole thread should have been locked down ages ago...

Call me stupid if you want, but I’m still sitting here scratching my head. I honestly don't get what the goal was with that whole thing. What were you all actually trying to achieve there?

So, what, you guys aren't a fan of some of the rules around here?
It feels like nobody around here actually closes a thread when someone lays out a smart argument or offers something genuinely constructive. Everyone just lets them sit there. And honestly, whether there’s any actual benefit to posting this stuff or not... well, I don't think you're going to change anyone's mind by continuing down this same path you started on. 🤷

So, what did you guys end up getting this time?
Man, they really just shut us down. The thread is locked, and honestly, we all look like a bunch of old hens who got all worked up over nothing—especially since, let’s be real, we’re all just acting a bit high-strung here. In the end, none of us actually walked away with anything. 😢

moralan satisfakcija. Being able to look in the mirror without wanting to spit on my own reflection is worth more to me than the chance to keep posting on this site and pretending everything is fine. I’m not gray-haired yet, but I feel like I am.

hollowmason64 said:Sure, but on the flip side, you've got Voden over there calling out Africa, asking where her sense of humanity went—and look, I’m sorry, but what does that actually have to do with anything?
Was that okay to say to her? The woman was just doing the job she was hired to do here 👎

I think I know what you're getting at—you wish she could hand out cards to the mods or the admins too, but she just doesn't have that authority. That's just how the system works, and you've known that since your very first day here.

Is it normal to me that they get a pass on more things than we do?
Yep.
And that's the part you're ignoring.
You can think whatever you want about me because of that, but like you said, the beauty of our thread was that we were tol'ko different. And I honestly think that's more than a positive thing.

But you guys said it in the wrong place!
And that's why nothing was actually achieved besides making everyone turn gray... damn it.🙂

If you're going to claim that everyone has a right to their opinion, then respect ours too—the opinion that this should have been handled differently and in a different space.

No, they didn't. This whole thing is a farce. It's the administration's fault because they mock the users, lock threads, and threaten bans if anyone tries to discuss things in what's supposedly the "right" place.

mellowraven22 said:Doubt we're publishing that list. Yeah, we block some portals here and there when they go overboard with self-promotion, but most of the stuff on the blacklist is just old-school referral links—you know, like those ancient Bytefiles clones or your typical spam sites. Honestly, there’s nothing interesting on that list.

Linking is fine, but advertising isn't.

Alright, so is there any actual willingness to unblock the sites that haven't even tried to spam us in months?

Not because I’m trying to promote anything, but if you’re talking about what you wrote over in that JL thread, you should just drop a link to the controversial post.

@mellowraven22, sorry for drifting off-topic here.

mellowraven22 said:Why do you think we aren't already doing that? Honestly, I'm scrolling through that list all the time just checking if there's anything that needs to be cleared out. I'm constantly adding things or taking them off. It's part of the job.

Well, I certainly didn't get that impression, if you actually are doing all that. Can I ask what's been removed so far, what kind of criteria you're using, and whether this list of censored sites is ever going to be made public?

Samuel Morgan40 said:I will merely add that, for me, that portal isn't actually hated. I stated quite clearly above that the site itself isn't bad. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally spent 12 years working in journalism (which is why I write so infrequently for Other media 😁). What you and Christian Taylor3 have written—well, we all know that part very well. As for whether things will stay this way, or if this "penalty" will have an expiration date where linking to said portal becomes allowed again, that is not up to me; it lies with the forum leadership.

I was simply attempting to briefly describe how irritatingly persistent that individual was—so much so that he triggered nothing but a counter-effect and mockery among users. Some even went as far as to say the portal is great, but that his behavior only pushes people away; because if the portal is supposedly serious, unique, or different... then it certainly doesn't need that kind of childish spam which only serves to degrade the image of the people working there—people who, frankly, didn't earn that reputation to begin with.

If I remember correctly, the site leadership used to actually listen to what their moderators had to say when making big decisions. I don't know if they've changed that policy lately, but if most of the people following this thread agree that a permanent ban on linking is doing more harm than good, maybe the idea of redefining the rule should be brought up at a moderator meeting.

Look, I get it. The situation you described isn't exactly rare, and I already told you I understand why links get censored in cases like that. My point here is just about trying to turn what the community calls a "permaban" into something with a time limit instead. That last paragraph in my previous post wasn't meant as a personal attack on you, and I'm sorry if it came off that way; it was supposed to illustrate how ridiculous internet censorship can be. Even though it was directed at you, it was really more of a response to Sashev's argument about "link terror" than your actual post.

Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?