Alexander Johnson10 said:If you don't start performing your duties as a moderator correctly, my next report will be escalated to much higher authorities.
I am fully prepared to take legal action against you regarding how you handle your position, and that goes far beyond the scope of this forum's admins.
What I told you about reporting relevant institutions to evaluate internet service quality stands. If you continue this behavior, things will go very far, and then you can deal with the consequences of which ISP will actually agree to sign a contract with you.
The next complaint will be a formal legal document defined by federal regulations regarding internet quality and online conduct, after which your ISP will be obligated to sanction you.
For the sake of a joke, I have to
🤣 :klap: 🤣 🙏 🤣
Where on earth do you people come from? 🤣
I highly doubt any of these "geniuses" has ever actually gone to file a lawsuit against a moderator of a private forum just because they deleted or penalized a post made under their online handle. And if anyone actually did, I would love to see the look on the face of the person being reported: 😁
"At the Los Angeles County Superior Court today, the trial began for the moderator of X. Y., who in January 2015 shamelessly deleted a photo of a strange bicycle belonging to forum member Alexander Johnson10, thereby violating regulations established by federal statutes regarding internet quality." 🤣
Matthew Anderson said:Yeah, the thread is being cleaned up regularly—sometimes upon report, sometimes a day later, and occasionally things slip through. I delete missed posts when someone points them out; I don't consider it the end of the world. If you believe "regularly cleaned" should mean "deleted within X hours," then we simply have different definitions.
I don't. But what do you (or the mods in general) consider the definition or the deadline? Obviously, there can't be a rigid boundary, but there should be a general framework. We are talking about a specific page here (the penultimate one, not some random page buried in the middle that happened to get missed months ago) that was legitimately packed with rule-breaking ads, all of which were 7 to 9 days old (or 6 to 8 since the link was posted yesterday). I even left links to three posts that were 15 and 23 days old. Fine, mistakes happen, but why not just say, "My bad, we missed it, we aren't on duty 24/7," instead of calling it "spin" when the complaint is valid?
I simply cannot accept a post titled 'Merge US and LJES groups' as anything remotely serious in any known universe.
Well, I wasn't talking about that part (just as she received a standard response, whether she liked it or not), nor was I suggesting a teenager should be forced into the teen subforum if their thread links to it.
We have explained several times why we implemented these rules. We never stated we would be on call 24/7 monitoring the Ads thread and deleting everything the moment it appears—if something is missed, it was missed. That doesn't mean they won't be deleted eventually.
You think they're right; I think it's spin. Thanks for reading.🙂
Look, it’s obvious that this thread has been neglected lately. No one expects you to be on duty 24/7, but if a significant number of posts ranging from 7 to 23 days old go "unnoticed" (especially that cluster of 7-9 day old posts on page 22), then I don't see the issue with saying, "We've been busy lately, we'll fix it now." I don't know what the "spin" is supposed to be, but fine. Regards.🙂
Emily Patel70 said:Do you have any insight into how many posts actually get deleted in Ads? A few missed posts represent a very small percentage.
I am certain they are being deleted. And at no point did I suggest the US moderators are lazy or that I think you guys are bad at this (not at all). I'm just saying I don't see the reason to get defensive just because someone pointed out that you temporarily overlooked the Ads section for various reasons. The fact remains that the famous page 22 (the penultimate one) was heavily filled with rule-breaking ads, almost as if everyone coordinated to fill it during those 2 or 3 days. This doesn't make you incompetent, nor is it meant to be dramatic, but I don't understand why it's an issue to admit, "Yeah, we missed it during that window, we're handling it now" (which, by the way, has been handled).
Matthew Anderson said:Some posts get wiped immediately after being reported, some take a few hours, others up to 24 hours. Since mods aren't obligated to jump on every single report instantly, and the thread is being cleaned properly—please stop accusing me of twisting things just because rules aren't being enforced perfectly. The link you provided had ads that hadn't been removed yet; they are gone now.
The link she shared contained ads that were 7 to 9 days old (from January 4th to the 6th). If you look at the two pages preceding her link, there are three more ads violating the rules.
(Dec 21st) (Dec 29th) (Dec 29th)
So no, the thread isn't being cleaned properly.
It wouldn't be an issue if you just admitted you were on vacation, or caught up in work, or just plain busy lately. Instead, you respond with this suppressed hostility and aggression ("stop twisting my words") simply because someone pointed out—quite accurately—that you are currently failing to perform one part of your job. Your job, or at least it should be, is to listen to grievances and respond professionally, rather than picking fights with users just because they raised a concern.
The Classifieds are a specific example here because they involve your new rules (which I personally find unnecessary, but you implemented and vigorously "defended," which is your prerogative). It shouldn't even matter whether a specific post was reported. You should be monitoring the thread yourselves.
Michelle Phillips54 said:Mods react when they can. Everyone has a life and responsibilities; no one is required to pull double shifts on the forum or respond instantaneously.
No one is disputing that. But when a mistake or oversight is pointed out, the response should be, "Thanks, we'll fix it, things have been hectic lately" (as Herbicidna was polite, regardless of whether she nitpicks certain things or not), rather than accusing someone of "twisting words" when they are clearly right.
rustyfox192 said:Thank God someone is finally speaking the truth! I could tell from the very beginning, you know? You can just sense when you're listening to one of those shows that the whole story is basically just made up... like it's nothing more than pure works of fiction...
🤦
Sure, that's "the truth." It’s just something Hajduković drummed up once—three years ago, for reasons known only to him, and who knows what kind of state he was even in at the time—before he immediately backed down and tried to sweep it under the rug...
When it comes to the whole concept of forgiveness, the reality is pretty straightforward. People who have ACTUALLY lived through the horrors firsthand tend to forgive much more easily. They’ve seen it all, and those who endured the absolute worst realized that not everyone was the same—they saw firsthand that there were plenty of Mexicans who were ashamed of those actions and actually stepped up to help them...
The ones doing most of the hating are usually the people who haven't actually lived through anything...
It’s not just happening here in America; it’s the same everywhere. Haters generally share one common trait: they don't actually have a single legitimate reason to feel the hate they carry. I haven't heard a single veteran-camp inmate claim to pathologically hate all Mexicans. Those who suffered the most severe psychological trauma hold a hatred—which is completely understandable—toward their specific abusers, not toward Mexicans as a whole... This sweeping, generalized hatred comes from two types of people: kids who weren't even born yet when it all went down, or those armchair critics who spent '91 hiding in their rooms, too terrified to even think about stepping up to do something brave...
You don't need to be quite this rigid with the rules; you have to account for people's personal commitments and their financial realities. It isn't easy for everyone to shell out cash for an Uber or burn through their own gas just to get access to the Latin music subforum. Some people have family responsibilities that prevent them from spending an hour or two hunting down a Wi-Fi signal in some remote corner of town... It’s easy for you moderators, since you basically have free teleportation that lets you pop into the Latin music section in seconds without any overhead...
Wait, what’s this new gimmick where threads get locked after thirty minutes without any chance to reply? And then they throw out some fake excuse about things not being "substantiated." There are three posts left here that I find highly questionable. How many more do I need to provide to "substantiate" my opinion? 847? . You want another one?
And then the moderator actually claims that "Pedophilia is when an adult man uses his (life, sexual) experience to 'groom' a young girl, even if she is legally an adult" isn't a punishable offense and is perfectly normal? To accuse anyone in an age-gap relationship of being a PEDOPHILE? And then asks what the issue is? Maybe the users don't need an education, but the moderators and super-moderators certainly should. You can't just decide something is pedophilia based on your own personal definition.
But I can't even respond to that, can I? Because William Bennett7 swoops in and locks the thread the very second the moderator gives his take. As if FEC is so overwhelmed by threads that they wouldn't know how to manage if everything stayed open... This doesn't even resemble what this sub-forum used to be.
If that's the case, just shut the whole sub down. Why keep it going if you've turned it into a place where you can barely ask a question before being told to bow down and agree once the moderator speaks? (Don't get me wrong, hats off to phiber; regardless of whether we agree, at least he always replies. But since he's bold enough to hold his own, he shouldn't need someone holding his hand and locking threads just so no one accidentally talks back to him).
I'd appreciate a response from rustydrifter10, thanks.
Perhaps this approach makes more sense than leaving the thread open indefinitely just so someone can respond to false accusations.
The point is precisely this: I DID back up my claims. Claiming I didn't is simply a lie. Whether anyone agrees with my conclusions is a different matter entirely, but stating that I failed to provide evidence is false. I provided four distinct examples. So, let me ask again: how many examples does the administration require to be satisfied? 200? 2,000?
I supported my stance with these specific instances and links:
(imagine a discussion about sexual orientation where someone remarks: "to some people, pedophilia seems normal")
("it's a little sick that you're gay, but hey, to each their own")
(throwing around insane personal "definitions" of severe disorders and criminal acts, which indirectly brands a large portion of the participants as pedophiles)
Furthermore, without even needing a link, I referenced the case regarding the Eiffel advertisement. That ad wasn't any more explicit or overt than countless others, yet it was sanctioned simply because it didn't involve a "standard" heterosexual or homosexual relationship.
So, there are four examples. Is that not sufficient? By what logic does that fail?
If it is no longer permissible to develop a debate on this platform—if users are no longer allowed to argue their positions, and if a moderator's word is final and everyone else is expected to shut up—then just say so plainly. It's your forum; ultimately, you have the right to run it that way. But stop lying and claiming things aren't substantiated when they clearly are.
If Dorian had simply written, "The moderator answered you, end of story, locking the thread," I would personally find that quite pathetic and pointless. I probably wouldn't even bother appealing, as it would clearly signal your new policy. But here, as in the other thread, completely false claims were made that I hadn't supported my views with examples.
Matthew Anderson said:I am personally reviewing both of those "controversial" PDFs, so I can address these sweeping accusations directly. I apply a very consistent set of criteria when moderating any posts regarding diagnoses. I’ve handed out bans for posts involving the swing crowd being "sick," the BDSM crowd being "sick," and even posts where homosexuals were targeted. So, this criticism simply doesn't hold water.
In my view, it does. I’m not saying nothing has ever been banned, but when it comes to anything deviating from an imagined heterosexual "normality," more subtle insults are permitted—insults that, frankly, wouldn't have flown if they were directed at homosexuals (and rightly so).
No, you haven't seen it "many times." But feel free to provide links to posts that weren't banned; we can examine them together. Unfortunately, there aren't "very many" such posts.
I didn't do that for two reasons. First, as far as I know, older posts aren't subject to disciplinary action, so why bother? Second, I make it a point not to fabricate things or claim I saw something I didn't.
A report alone doesn't mean moderators will act. The whole point of moderation isn't to hand out bans instantly, but to look at the context of the entry. In this specific case, there is no reason for a ban.
Fine. However, I am convinced that a comment like "sure, you're sick, but hey, live and let live" on a thread about some homosexual individual would result in a ban. I am absolutely certain of it. Perhaps you wouldn't issue it, but such a post would be banned, and moderation is supposed to be consistent...
Where exactly does it say he's a pedophile? Send me a link.
It had nothing to do with the linked example.
The only thing that seems hypocritical is your sweeping view of moderation, where you don't hesitate to lie by using phrases like "I've seen it many times."
Sorry, but I don't have the time to hunt down "many posts." We've already had discussions here before, like that legendary thread involving Eiffel's, where in the end, you guys couldn't (because you weren't able to) give a meaningful explanation for why his ads were deleted. Now you've changed the rules for ads, which is fine, but back then different rules applied, and simultaneously, ads from "ordinary" heterosexuals and homosexuals—which were clearly just ads for sex—were passing through without issue, while his ad, which wasn't even explicit, was wiped.
One relatively recent example is this one:
It’s not even a direct shot at any specific user, but honestly, you’re accusing me of lying for no reason. Let's be real—posts containing this kind of content regarding homosexuality would generally face heavy moderation regardless. One of the moderators was actively participating in the thread at that exact moment, so there is no way that post went unnoticed, whether someone reported it or not.
edit: okay, fine, the moderator wasn't actively posting in that thread at that precise second, but the entire discussion is borderline at best, and some posts clearly cross the line entirely. I highly doubt anyone missed it...
Just so there's no misunderstanding regarding the title, I am an absolute supporter of LGBTQ+ rights. I’ve been active in those discussions on this platform since they first became relevant. That part of my stance is non-negotiable.
However, the same set of standards isn't applied when the topic falls outside of some strictly conservative, preconceived rulebook.
Anyone who even indirectly suggested that homosexuality is a sickness or that homosexual individuals are "unwell" was handed a ban immediately. Like I said—that's fine by me.
But if someone decides it's "sick" that people swing, have open marriages, or have an age gap of more than three or five years... then suddenly, it's acceptable?
I've witnessed this far too many times. I don't usually make a habit of reporting posts, but the lack of moderator intervention has become genuinely baffling. Today, I finally filed a report:
And nothing happened. Someone calling a guy "sick" just because he's in a relationship with a 19-year-old when he's 29. No matter how "politely" or "civilly" it was phrased. Let's be honest: if the subject had been homosexuality, an identical post would have resulted in an instant ban.
It’s not about the specific individual here, but whether you look at Reddit or even a major site like CNN, there is far too much tolerance for this kind of rhetoric regarding things that are not only perfectly legal but often completely normal. On a similar general thread on Reddit, there was a fair amount of unpunished nonsense regarding pedophilia. Very indirect comparisons equating homosexuality with pedophilia (things like: "next they'll be asking for rights for pedophiles") were strictly penalized, and rightly so. But calling a heterosexual man a pedophile because he's dating a 20-year-old? That's allowed? It's madness.
It ends up looking incredibly hypocritical. The entire administration of this site has been intensely focused on LGBTQ+ rights, yet when it comes to the rights of heterosexuals to live any way that isn't a traditional marriage with partners within two or three years of each other—then it doesn't matter...
Like I said—this isn't about me making arbitrary calls on what qualifies as social media trash. I have no intention of getting dragged into a debate like that.
Anyone with even a halfway decent vocabulary could sit around and manufacture reasons why a photo is garbage according to their own personal standards.
Besides, in one part of my own post—and I’m not trying to twist your words, even if it seems like that’s how you feel—you actually mention Facebook as a highly private space where people share their full names, personal details, and PHOTOS.... The issue isn't just the photos themselves; it's the mockery that follows them. To me, knowing someone like John Doe from Chicago means absolutely nothing if I don't personally know him. And if I do know him, I'll recognize his face in a photo regardless of whether his name is attached to it. In either case, the privacy violation is exactly the same.
Sure, there are those extreme cases that are undeniably pure social media trash—like some old photo of a deceased grandfather in a casket, or those blatant Photoshop jobs where a girl gets an exaggerated chest or a guy gets massive biceps while the bedroom background looks completely warped. But 90% of the photos being discussed here are precisely what you pointed out: deeply personal matters. Mocking someone because they dyed a few strands of hair red, or a girl because you don't like her eyebrows, or a woman for daring to be thick and dance, or some guy just drinking a beer... that's pathetic, and it's straight-up cyberbullying.
We were posting at the exact same time, so let’s avoid bickering over what qualifies as social media trash and what doesn't. And honestly, if you think red-dyed bangs are enough of a reason to mock someone, then you're clearly living in some backward, regressive corner of the world—which I sincerely hope isn't the case here in America. To me, the much larger, more systemic issue is the fact that taking photos from someone's private profile and reposting them elsewhere is straight-up cyberbullying. It might be a milder version most of the time, but that doesn't change the reality of what it is. It is.
I assume you can see the flaw in that logic—that we should blur out Pero Perić's face if he says something stupid, yet we're perfectly fine with reposting his photos just to make fun of him.
And before anyone starts arguing that those photos were set to "public," let me make two points. First, every time Facebook updates its interface, it seems to automatically reset almost everything to public settings; besides, there are countless people who simply don't understand how these privacy toggles work and genuinely believe only their friends can see their posts. Second, a huge number of these images aren't even direct links to Facebook; they're hosted on sites like TinyPic, ImageShack, or Imgur, which means people are essentially reposting photos that were explicitly set to private on Facebook.
Jack Moore90 said:We've already covered this before...
It looks like nothing has changed. Once again, it’s all just trashh.
And it isn't just one thread, but at least three. Unfortunately, yes, there has been zero progress on the most critical issue.
Everything else is essentially beyond what the moderators can control. The reality is that Trash has long since been flooded by people who have absolutely no clue what trash actually is (some are quite literally trash themselves, which is a rather interesting irony), but all of that happens in other threads and remains benign—at worst, just irritating if you wake up on the wrong side of the bed. 😁
However, the "social media trash" thread sits right on the edge of cyber-bullying in its purest form, and more often than not, that line is openly crossed. The very idea of posting someone else's photos specifically to mock them is cyber-bullying. I assume that much is obvious to everyone. Why it is permitted, however, is certainly not. To make matters even more bizarre, when people post various statuses or stupid comments from Facebook, names are blurred or redacted (which is justified, of course). Yet, posting someone else's photos for the purpose of ridicule is allowed. It is truly strange.
What Brandon Lopez6 is saying or asking is also a valid point. The "forum" has long since devolved into a mindless chat interspersed with the occasional on-topic post; it's also packed with nonsense that has nothing to do with trash. But on the forum, at least everyone is anonymous, so you can't compare that to posting someone's actual photos. That said, there used to be a rule—which now seems largely ignored—stating that Health and Psychology shouldn't be touched due to the sensitive nature of those topics, despite the anonymity.
And yeah, whenever you get a moment, take a look at how nonsensical the rules regarding Facebook and the three-seater actually are. I’m talking strictly about the policy—the idea that direct profile linking isn't allowed on the three-seater... even though, if you look at the latest post, it serves as a perfect example of content that no moderator would ever dream of flagging. They’d probably feel perfectly comfortable deleting anything that doesn't have a single thing to do with social media trash.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying someone is being mocked directly for being, say, a Rom. What I mean is that for some people, simply being a Rom is enough reason to toss them into the social media trash because they find it hilarious. The same logic applies to anyone perceived as overweight or "unattractive."
As for your other point, I get where you're coming from, but in my view, that's precisely the core issue with that sub-forum—specifically these types of threads. It's not that you're talking nonsense, but it creates this vicious cycle. My take is that the moderators there should function by removing anything they deem isn't true trash. You'll never reach a total consensus on what qualifies, but if we're going to allow digging through another social network, then at least let it be at a level where silly photos with glittery captions or ridiculous Photoshop are acceptable... rather than stuff like this (just a random jump to page 71): https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n..._7761986_n.jpg
The exact same thing goes for photos like this one (page 72): View on imgur (I mean, the woman has strange eyebrows, so let's all mock her on the forum—honestly, I think you see how close this is to cyberbullying, and I bet you've noticed how photos behind certain links "mysteriously" disappear. I just stumbled upon three "missing" ones within fifteen clicks; clearly, people find this uncomfortable, if not something worse)
I could easily dump a pile of links like these here, but this is just a quick, random sampling. And we both know it 😉 I understand your desire to stay as far away from this as possible, but I believe that approach is wrong for that sub-forum. It basically gives every idiot permission to drag any photo they dislike or find "hilarious" just because—hahaha, look at this fat girl, how dare she post a photo on her own Facebook profile.
I know this has been brought up before. There have been announcements about initiatives or changes meant to fix things, and they happen briefly, but ultimately nothing changes—especially when it comes to the "social media trash" thread. I’ll give credit where it's due: the moderator Isadora left a perfectly polite and reasonable message following the recent outbursts, but the reality remains that this entire topic is pathetic and offensive. If we pretend to actually care, it’s an embarrassment to this forum.
You will occasionally find actual garbage on the thread; for instance, toward the end, there were photos of some "small-town" fingernail clipping, which is fine—it's definitely trashy for someone to post something like that.
However, a huge portion of the thread is dedicated to mocking people for being unattractive, overweight, or overly made-up. And God forbid a Rom has a Facebook account; they immediately post every single one of his photos because, oh my God, he's Rom, hahaha, look how ridiculous and trashy he is. I am talking about completely ordinary photos someone posted on Facebook, yet these legendary "trashers" find them hilarious just because the person isn't conventionally attractive or something along those lines. Even when discussing things that truly fall under the category of trash, it frequently escalates into disgusting cyber-bullying against individuals, involving hundreds of statuses and photos, or even live-tracking everything they have ever said on Facebook.
To add to that, one of the few decent rules in that thread—which the moderators enforce strictly—is the ban on direct links to profiles. Yet, it is frankly laughable that just a bit further away, there is the Three-Seater thread, which has essentially consisted of nothing but links to other people's profiles for quite some time now. They have absolutely nothing to do with trash, by the way.
That is the crucial point, the thing that should actually be addressed, even though it has been written about a few times already and almost nothing has happened. The second part is less important, mainly because the moderators can't do anything about it: the sub-forum is practically half-dead anyway, flooded by people who haven't the slightest clue what "trash" even means—ranging from the "pearl of illiteracy" thread, which is dominated by the illiterate (the absolute highlight was the mockery of someone using perfectly correct grammar, alongside those who naively tried to point out that the spelling was actually fine 🙄), and so on.
No, in America, calling someone a "character" doesn't mean they're an outlier. You get what I'm saying?
In a mature, functioning democracy, rights are inextricably linked to responsibilities. An individual possesses the right to their own opinion. A virtual persona—a non-existent pseudonym—does not. You don't actually exist, which means you carry no responsibilities, and by extension, you possess no human rights because you aren't a person...
I’m not going to start a whole new thread here. I think Carl Sanchez40 is an excellent moderator, but I have to take issue with your post—especially since you’re sitting here playing the innocent victim and twisting things to make them sound more benign than they actually were. Specifically, this part:
people walking around the city are absolutely suspicious; you can't even speak without getting stabbed or shot immediately.
The moderator left it unbanned because, in my view, it deserves a ban and a total deletion. I won't go into a long-winded explanation that you clearly wouldn't grasp anyway, but suggesting that you can't utter a single word in Washington, D.C. without being shot or stabbed isn't "personal opinion." It's something else entirely, which I'll leave unsaid to avoid making a medical diagnosis.
But fine, the moderator was being far too lenient, and that's why you ended up with your complaint... 😍
The transformation of the Trash subforum from a place meant for laughs into a dumping ground for people who actually embody everything "trash" stands for... It truly is the most pathetic decline of any online community I've ever witnessed.
Look, it’s pretty obvious. This forum operates under a specific set of rules.
For instance, if I were to claim right now that people who think pedophiles (and the rest of that lot) constitute some kind of privileged class in American society, and then follow it up by asking, "What part of that was untrue?"—well, that would be half-witted. Or, let's stop pretending: it would be retarded.
And unlike your post, that would be an entirely truthful statement.
Of course, it would likely get flagged, and rightfully so, because it violates the rules just the same. But at least I wouldn't feel bad about it, nor would I start a whole new thread to whine about why I got penalized.
Just as you aren't allowed to call someone retarded (even if they are), equally moronic posts get deleted. It would be insane to expect the mods to leave every single piece of absolute idiocy posted here, especially when such nonsense insults the other users and forces them to waste energy trying to counter every brainless thought someone happens to scribble down.
So, believe it or not, that is a very honest answer. And a correct one at that.