Posts by Sarah Morgan2

northerntiger said:The PDF Social Science section is one of those rare little havens on this forum where actual experts—mostly linguists—still try to give serious answers to questions. It’s also one of the few spots that hasn't turned into a total playground for everyone and their mother.

Look, I don't care about swearing. You can curse all you want; what actually gets to me is stupidity, shallowness, and this idea that literally anyone can just chime in on any topic.

They can't. And honestly, they shouldn't.

This whole tabloid-style craze that hit the forum has become pretty terrible. Not every PDF needs to be left wide open to a free-for-all, especially when it has "science" right there in the title.

If we're talking Social Science, then the moderation should be handled by people in those fields who actually know their stuff. We have plenty of great contributors here who bring so much to the table because they're well-educated and actually think before they type. It's a shame that even here, we've seen this kind of "encroachment," where the wild crowds end up chasing away the professionals.

Completely wrong. In the law, natural science, economics, health, literature, and plenty of other subforums, we have experts answering questions; in fact, most of them moderate too.

northerntiger said:The PDF Social Science section is one of those rare little havens on this forum where actual experts—mostly linguists—still try to give serious answers to questions. It’s also one of the few spots that hasn't turned into a total playground for everyone and their mother.

Look, I don't care about swearing. You can curse all you want; what actually gets to me is stupidity, shallowness, and this idea that literally anyone can just chime in on any topic.

They can't. And honestly, they shouldn't.

This whole tabloid-style craze that hit the forum has become pretty terrible. Not every PDF needs to be left wide open to a free-for-all, especially when it has "science" right there in the title.

If we're talking Social Science, then the moderation should be handled by people in those fields who actually know their stuff. We have plenty of great contributors here who bring so much to the table because they're well-educated and actually think before they type. It's a shame that even here, we've seen this kind of "encroachment," where the wild crowds end up chasing away the professionals.

This isn't some specialized academic journal; it’s a general interest forum, meant for whoever wants to join in. One fundamental assumption of a place like this is that people at least follow basic etiquette. Honestly, I don't get how someone could be offended by someone else's stupidity 🙄 but fine, that's off topic anyway.

northerntiger said:The PDF Social Science section is one of those rare little havens on this forum where actual experts—mostly linguists—still try to give serious answers to questions. It’s also one of the few spots that hasn't turned into a total playground for everyone and their mother.

Look, I don't care about swearing. You can curse all you want; what actually gets to me is stupidity, shallowness, and this idea that literally anyone can just chime in on any topic.

They can't. And honestly, they shouldn't.

This whole tabloid-style craze that hit the forum has become pretty terrible. Not every PDF needs to be left wide open to a free-for-all, especially when it has "science" right there in the title.

If we're talking Social Science, then the moderation should be handled by people in those fields who actually know their stuff. We have plenty of great contributors here who bring so much to the table because they're well-educated and actually think before they type. It's a shame that even here, we've seen this kind of "encroachment," where the wild crowds end up chasing away the professionals.

I already gave you my answer on that.

northerntiger said:The PDF Social Science section is one of those rare little havens on this forum where actual experts—mostly linguists—still try to give serious answers to questions. It’s also one of the few spots that hasn't turned into a total playground for everyone and their mother.

Look, I don't care about swearing. You can curse all you want; what actually gets to me is stupidity, shallowness, and this idea that literally anyone can just chime in on any topic.

They can't. And honestly, they shouldn't.

This whole tabloid-style craze that hit the forum has become pretty terrible. Not every PDF needs to be left wide open to a free-for-all, especially when it has "science" right there in the title.

If we're talking Social Science, then the moderation should be handled by people in those fields who actually know their stuff. We have plenty of great contributors here who bring so much to the table because they're well-educated and actually think before they type. It's a shame that even here, we've seen this kind of "encroachment," where the wild crowds end up chasing away the professionals.

I agree there; a moderator should at least have a basic grasp of the subject they are overseeing. However, no matter how many credentials someone has, they aren't exempt from following the basic rules of the forum.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:I basically spend half my time poking at different people on these forums just to see how they’ll twitch—it’s like there’s constant thunder rolling around in my head, you know? I use their reactions as a sort of litmus test to decide if I even want to bother talking to them anymore. I did the exact same thing to Andrew Sanchez572 once, back when we were constantly clashing over certain topics. Well, she hit me with a response so incredibly sharp and spot-on that it actually managed to make me feel embarrassed.
Honestly, appointing someone to moderate any PDF—whatever that means—is just gonna make the whole Forum run better. Period.

LNP20 is an absolute legend of a mod—seriously, top-tier stuff—and if he ever finds a spare second in his life to breathe, it would be killer if he could swing by and keep an eye on the Social Science section once in a while.

Hey there!

Exactly 👍that.

Michelle Sanders72 said:Yeah, I think that’s exactly where the issue lies.

See, the job of a moderator in the Social Science section shouldn't really be about validating linguistics as some heavy-duty academic discipline; it should mostly be about stepping in when people start being insulting or acting out in ways that just aren't okay.
A moderator in Social Science shouldn't be busy pushing aside people just because they insist that a fact—which might be scientifically wrong according to the textbooks—is actually true based on their own personal experience or whatever.

At the end of the day, a forum is a place where anyone should be able to say whatever they want about a topic, provided they aren't disrespecting their interlocutors or crossing those lines of what's socially acceptable. That’s when a moderator should step in, not when someone crosses a line regarding scientific accuracy or how well-grounded an argument is in a specific field.

Anyway, I won't ramble too much:

So, in that same vein, I guess the question is: why would a future moderator for Social Science even need to be a top-tier expert in every single subject within that field?

Shouldn't the most important thing, really, be how they treat others and how decent they are in a discussion, rather than just raw expertise? Like, having a sense of social etiquette and being able to spot when someone is stepping outside those bounds.
And obviously, they should probably at least follow the topic and actually care about it.

Exactly! 👍🙏🙏

Carol Nguyen63 said:I couldn't agree more. She’s exactly the same way over in the French section—always ready to lend a hand, but she does it with this incredibly humble, zero-ego vibe. Honestly, you get the sense that she knows her stuff inside and out, even when we move well beyond just linguistics.
Since linguistics is her main specialty, she unfortunately doesn't stand a chance at a moderator position, which is honestly such a huge shame.😢

Honestly, if you just take a quick look at the first page of the DZa, you’ll see that I haven't even said much—if there's even one single thread there that isn't related to languages, then I've gone way overboard. 🤷
If you ask me, we probably shouldn't have someone whose main background is in Social Science running things, because they wouldn't actually have much to moderate. 😁

I honestly don't think laypeople should even be weighing in on things like Social Science, mostly because people find psychology or history much more captivating—and those fields have their own entirely separate sets of complexities to deal with.

We shouldn't forget that half-baked idea about creating a dedicated linguistics PDF. It’s pretty obvious that language makes up about 90% of what people actually care about when we discuss Social Science, so I’d honestly vote for bringing on another moderator who specializes specifically in linguistics.👍

Agreed. I think Colbert is also a solid choice within the linguistic framework; she's polite, decent, and clearly knowledgeable.👍

However, I disagree with your pessimism regarding bringing on another moderator who isn't a linguist. In fact, that's exactly the kind of expert who would elevate the other topics. For instance, I feel like sociology is completely neglected on this forum.😢

Since I’m the one who kicked this thread off, I’ll take the liberty of suggesting we get back to the actual problem this topic was created for. It feels like the core issue is getting watered down here. What bluerider2 is writing is a story we've heard plenty of times before regarding Social Science, and frankly, it isn't getting us anywhere. We are searching for a consensus—something bluerider2 eventually admitted and admin Jerry Garcia promised—so let's focus on specific sub-moderator candidates. Otherwise, we’re just stuck in empty lamentation because it seems bluerider2 either doesn't want to or simply can't grasp the essence of why we're even talking about this.

So, my stance is that we need:
1) Another linguist, which is why I suggested Sarah Garcia46.
2) I agree it would be wise to bring in someone whose specialty isn't linguistics, so I’m proposing the forum member Andrew Sanchez572. By the way, the absolute perfect solution would be the brilliant scholar LNP20, but from what I know, he can barely manage to moderate Philosophy, so unfortunately, that wouldn't help much anyway.😢

The other suggestions were: Colbert as a linguist and Lila_sun as an expert in other Social Science disciplines.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

You say that I answer the actual topic with a single, direct sentence, only to spend the next fifty sentences rambling about everything else. 😵 And now, naturally, even with that theory of theirs. 😂 🙄

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

This is off-topic and pure fiction. Nobody ever claimed they knew anyone personally. ☕

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

Off topic. ☕

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

off topic. anyway, it would be nice if everyone possessed such personal animosity as Sarah Garcia46 holds toward Paul Price34—an attitude based on completely ignoring him regardless of how much she insults or provokes him.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

Sarah Garcia46 was proposed primarily because she's a linguistics expert and a model example of how a moderator should communicate and manage things; therefore, I agree we could certainly consider someone else whose specialty isn't linguistics.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

You're trivializing the situation and throwing sand in my eyes. Don't worry, a consensus exists regardless of how much you try to downplay it. On the other hand, consistency is impossible when we are all individuals writing from our own unique perspectives. So, despite your obvious paranoia regarding clones and such, this isn't some organized attack on anyone personally. If you were acting in good faith, you would see that as the person who started this thread, I insisted we focus on solving the obvious problem rather than attacking individuals (take the moderator redmarlin3, for instance).

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

It is, and even a blind man could see that. People complain most about Abyssus.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

Pontius Pilate 🙄 Besides, since you're pointing out how demanding moderation is, I don't see any issue with our initiative to assign you some co-moderators to help clear up the anarchy in this sub-forum.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

You seem way too concerned about Abyssus. Honestly, it feels like your claim that you two aren't on good terms isn't quite hitting the mark. Instead of actually addressing the specific complaints and grievances from the majority of people here, you keep spinning these imaginary tales about this person's private issues—issues that, as you put it, affect all of us. 🙄 To me, it's baffling how you can act like you know their life while somehow being oblivious to my own personal struggles, for instance. 🤣

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

Yes, bringing in a head moderator will definitely pull the Social Science board up from the gutter it's fallen into👍. And we have you to thank for that.

redmarlin3 said:This whole thread caught my eye, so I did a little digging through Social Science, and I’ve concluded that I wouldn't turn to Abyssus for help even if my life depended on it.

I don't want it to seem like I'm just talking nonsense without any backing; if anyone is actually interested, feel free to check out my posts (and the posts of others, like sal mirabilisa, morbidangela, gotterdamerung, etc.) over in the Chemistry-help and Biology-help threads, or in those big top discussions about snakes and other animals. Without being modest, I truly believe that's how you should approach someone who "doesn't know" something, especially in the specific forums meant for that purpose. 🙂

On the other hand, our moderator bluerider2 isn't to blame for this situation. There isn't a penalty for being irritating. 😬 There’s absolutely no basis for sanctioning Abyssus. Honestly, the best solution is just to hit that ignore button if she bothers you. It doesn't bother me, since I don't hang out in those corners 🤷 and if I ever actually need advice from a linguist, I'll just go ask steelskipper5. 🙂

You noticed and concluded everything correctly, except for one thing: the profanity and harsher insults that Abyssus throws at users are often eventually deleted by bluerider2 anyway, so what remains is really just softcore 😉 But we also have to highlight what Thomas Stewart4 is pointing out—that bluerider2 is actually fueling this situation 😢 so I think the only real fix is to appoint a sub-moderator who might try to bring some order to that sub-forum.

vividcyclist11 said:Yet he, in his capacity as a "distinguished professor," feels entitled to "conclude" whatever he pleases—including dismissing this very grievance...🤣

Well, obviously. 🤣

I'm siding with my colleagues regarding the problematic user known as Paul Price34. To highlight the absolute parody of an "esteemed professor" we're dealing with here, I'll quote this particular sentence: 😂 😂

Paul Price34 said:Alright, let's keep this short and sweet. I am 100%—and I mean absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt—standing behind bluerider2. Honestly, there are just a few people here who are being totally malicious, twisting things around, digging for dirt, and basically weaponizing bluerider2's genuine kindness and good intentions. In my book, those complaining are really just the outcasts and the losers—you know, the ones who can't handle things and now they're trying to vent their own frustrations and failures on someone else. Bluerider2 is—well, I'd say they're truly exceptional, capable, patient, responsible, and honestly, just way more evolved than most of the folks in a discussion forum like this. So, yeah, that’s my take—this whole complaint is completely baseless, totally pointless, and just plain ridiculous.

Jerry Roberts15, what you’ve laid out there is honestly top-tier stuff. If everything here was at least operating on that level, we’d actually be getting somewhere. 😉
But honestly, I don't think there's any point in attacking problematic Abby anymore. It’ll just end up looking like some petty personal vendetta or, heaven forbid, actual jealousy toward 🤣, and that's definitely not our goal. I think our admin, Jerry Garcia, has handled the situation. Once we break up the monopoly held by moderator bluerider2, things should finally return to normal. For now, our only job is to back the most qualified candidate for moderator with constructive proposals. Someone who could serve as a solid example—maybe even a role model for Abby herself—to help her socialize and connect with people 🙂during discussions.

Jerry Garcia said:Just so you don't say this complaint went unnoticed: I've read everything you wrote. I agree with some parts, but not others...

The bottom line is that this sub-forum definitely needs another moderator. Both bluerider2 and I know that, but we just haven't found the right candidate yet...

Regarding expertise, none of us moderators demand a resume. Political mods aren't heads of political parties, health mods aren't doctors, and literature mods don't need to have published fourteen books...😉. Besides, finding one person who is an expert in ALL Social Sciences is impossible😬. How many degrees would they need to hold for that?

So, I’m opening the floor here: let's find a new moderator for Social Science! Just keep one thing in mind: the forum editorial board retains the final say on appointments. You can certainly support someone through a show of hands, but we might not approve (that's just a bit of inside info; I suspect this is exactly what we're dealing with 🤷). Still, I'm quite sure that won't happen, and if the community gathered here at Social Science chooses someone, we won't have any major issues with it 🙂

I’m putting forward Sarah Garcia46. Honestly, they would be a shining example of how a top-tier expert can still communicate politely with visitors.👍

vividcyclist11 said:Has there been even a SINGLE warning issued toward her? Has anyone actually seen or read one?

Or does the moderator feel that nothing has been said so vile as to warrant even a simple nudge to suggest a kinder tone?

I believe that is exactly what Sarah Morgan2 is trying to point out—not once has a moderator warned Abyssus about her communication style.

Exactly. In fact, I think Abby herself will benefit the most if she realizes and learns the value of tactful communication—basically, basic manners—especially if she hopes to go into teaching someday. That’s why I intentionally focused this thread on the fundamental issue: the moderation itself, which is actually fueling these problems. After all, Social Science is far too broad an area for a single person to moderate, especially if they're expected to be an expert in every discipline.😉

Tyler Grant76 said:Hey, Vojky The budo 🙂

Look, if bluerider2 had to address every single complaint about Abyssus... we could probably fill an entire PDF just for the Complaints section 🤷 I get why she deletes stuff or moves it to SIM, or even suggests starting a thread here; honestly, that’s all part of being a moderator.
As for those controversial posts, I imagine everyone would struggle to filter through every single one just to strip out the insults. Besides, even a perfectly clean sentence—meaning, zero literal slurs—can still be loaded with a malicious tone. And then you have to craft a response too. It's a total pain. 😁 😉
Either Abyssus will moderate herself or she'll just leave. 🤷 I doubt bluerider2 can do much to help.

So, according to you, we should just let one person terrorize the majority? I am convinced that decent moderation—starting with warnings and moving to bans—would straighten out a problematic student. After all, that is how this forum functions. If not, then there is no need for Rules or moderators. This isn't some private chat room.

Tyler Grant76 said:Well, maybe it’s actually a good thing that Abyssus lets off steam here because, let's not forget, she's basically working for the students 😬 Since you can actually squeeze some useful information out of her famous, rather insulting posts—and considering she's still very young—engaging with the forum might help her develop the social skills needed to become the kind of expert she clearly aims to be 👍 As much as I find her communication style crude or even ridiculous, I can't deny she's cleared up a few things for me. I guess I'd actually miss her if she were gone 🤷

You might have missed this, but the person in question is still just a student; the issue is that she’s misrepresenting herself 😉 But honestly, I don't think anyone is questioning anyone's intelligence. In fact, the whole point of this appeal is exactly what you mentioned: socialization 👍 And that is something only the moderator can regulate, by the way. There are people here who aren't students; in fact, there are quite a few individuals with top-tier academic degrees who still respect the forum rules and communicate politely 🙂 Take Vojky The budo, for example. The man is a PhD, yet he is always helpful and provides legal advice in a cultured manner. Despite being busy with his scientific work, he maintains patience and self-control; he isn't hysterical or rude. So, I see no reason why a single student (who, aside from studying, doesn't have many major responsibilities) couldn't exercise more control. However, since my goal wasn't to call out any specific individual—because I believe the core issue lies with the moderator who allows and even encourages this behavior—I won't dwell on the root cause everyone keeps pointing to. Instead, I'll focus on what needs to be done from a moderation standpoint. 🙂

Jerry Roberts15 said:Sarah Morgan2, honestly, this is just a losing battle from the get-go...
arguments, logic, or common sense don't carry much weight around here
just wait until the next post, then the other side will drop their ultimate trump card
(it popped up once in a Lingy-cup or a Language Advisor session, and my wife uses it all the time—she’s also a total sweetheart from FF): you're wrong!
short & sweet 🤷

We'll see. 😉 In any case, I've noticed that the problematic Abby, despite all the criticism, is trying extra hard to be polite now, 👍 so I still think there's some merit to this. 🙂 Then again, the whole thing stinks from the top down, so I believe the issue of moderation is vital—more important than any single problematic individual. To be honest, we haven't had a sub-moderator like Potale for over a year now, so bluerider2's complaint about needing a sub-moderator doesn't hold water. If someone actually wanted a sub-moderator, they could reasonably ask for at least another year 😉 before making a real demand. If the goal was truly to fix this current state of anarchy, a dedicated thread would have been opened, just like how things were handled in Philosophy or all the other sub-forums. 😉

While I wait for those two or three more mentions of bluerider2's friends, colleagues, or acquaintances—which should hopefully be packed with concrete details and constructive ideas—I’m going to keep poking around and digging into the 🤣mess 🙄. Consequently, I’m tossing out one more vague contribution just to ☕keep things interesting
.

bluerider2 said:@ Sarah Morgan2

Before you rush ahead and drift away from the actual point of our discussion, I thought I might gently nudge you back toward the essentials.

First off, you haven't actually addressed the two questions I posed, both of which were rooted directly in the claim you made in your opening post. I really think it would be best if we could establish the reasoning behind those claims before we try to move any further along. Honestly, just throwing out empty words doesn't get us much anywhere, and while I've spent years honing my ability to play with language—and believe me, I can certainly hold my own in a battle of wits if I truly felt like trying—I simply don't have the energy for it right now.

Secondly, you don't actually know anything about my professional background; all you know is what I choose to share here on this forum, specifically the bits and pieces I want people to see. Based on everything I've shared thus far, I'm quite certain there isn't enough evidence to support your assumption that I am merely a novelist.

Thirdly, we have been looking for at least one co-moderator for the Social Science section for quite some time now, so while I appreciate the sentiment, please don't feel like you need to worry about the management of this sub-forum.

So, if you wouldn't mind being a bit more direct, please tell me exactly where you see the issue. If you're feeling stuck, by all means, lay it out.

Edit: I wasn't intending to quote anyone, but since Jerry Roberts15 replied in the meantime, I'm adding an "address" here just to make sure there isn't any confusion about who I'm speaking to.

Look, I'm not playing this game. 🙂 I have no intention of wasting my free time the way you're trying to bait me. Besides, I'm sure there are younger, more ambitious people ready to jump into these endless complaints because, mind you, plenty of users have been complaining about the Social Science sub-forum for ages—all while you systematically delete their posts. (Actually, if you weren't so focused on bickering—or if you actually had good intentions—you'd realize why they're appealing; after all, the forum archives hold everything you've scrubbed regarding visitor dissatisfaction.) Anyway, let them join the discussion. I have zero interest in debating someone who carries themselves the way you do. Sorry, but that's just how it is. 👋

bluerider2 said:First off, I want to express my sincere gratitude to God and all the saints that we have finally figured out the proper way to open a discussion here. Secondly, because I would hate to present anything in an inaccurate or one-sided manner—regardless of how much that might affect things—I would kindly ask you to precisely

• what actually constitutes poor moderation;
• and what those frequent, uncomfortable situations look like, perhaps by providing some specific examples.

If you’re so eager to start with thanks, try thanking me first instead of God and the saints; trust me, they had nothing to do with opening this thread. 😉

Poor moderation stems primarily from the fact that, as a novelist, you aren't even remotely qualified to moderate a sub-forum this demanding and expansive. I'll just copy the list of core topics listed under the sub-forum header: Linguistics, Sociology, Anthropology, Ethnology so hopefully you'll finally realize you lack the depth of knowledge required for such broad fields—btw, aside from linguistics, you barely moderate anything at all, which is why we see various threads and posts that have zero connection to the sub-forum you oversee. That is the foundation of your poor moderation. You only need to look at other sub-forums—take some with much narrower themes, for instance, where they employ at least two, often three or more moderators. Honestly, it's a shame you aren't aware of this yourself; you clearly overestimated your own expertise and capabilities.
The next thing I'd point out regarding bad moderation is that certain spam posts manage to linger on the sub-forum for two or three days, which many people find repellant. To avoid rambling further under this heading, I will also include bias and lack of objectivity as forms of poor moderation, which leads directly into my next point. Yes, you are biased. You allow certain acquaintances, colleagues, or friends to get away with things that are not only utterly disgusting but explicitly forbidden by the forum rules. I don't think I need to be explicit here; everyone who reads or writes in Social Science knows exactly what I'm talking about. 😉

I’ve noticed that the Social Science section is being moderated quite poorly. This lack of quality control leads to frequent, awkward situations where the moderator bluerider2 acts in a very biased and unprofessional manner. To improve things here, I suggest appointing an additional moderator, assuming more radical changes aren't feasible on this forum—which, based on my experience so far, seems likely. Thanks for listening.

hiddenhound3 said:This sounds like someone who’s been on this Forum far too long and has developed a whole second personality to cope.

Look, I don't want to go completely off-topic here, but those complaints about steelridge58 are totally baseless. It’s rare to find someone who puts that much effort into their PDFs—plus, they're actually tolerant and diplomatic.

Nobody is questioning whether they're tolerant or diplomatic; the issue is that they simply aren't competent. But then again, that seems to be the common thread among most moderators on this Forum.🤷