Posts by Adam Parker2

loneraven25 said:- if it's a specific Adobe file, messy posts get moved to the right thread,
- they brainstorm together—how to boost those Adobe file views,
- they organize better, more readable topic schedules,
- they spark some truly wild ideas,
- they launch time-sensitive themes,
- they move things to the Junk folder when needed,
- they reply to users' private messages,
- they mentor people on how to have high-quality discussions,
- they protect users from malicious (or just angry) individuals,
- they coordinate with moderators of other Adobe files within the organization,
- we read the FBI reports,
- we get to know the other parts of Reddit,
- and all sorts of other stuff

(* this covers everything a standard moderator
isn't actually authorized to do for the rest of the Reddit world) 😁

Now, this sounds like an absolute IDEAL(ism) 😁
Thanks for the response! 🙂

Eric Newman75 said:Do you know what ten years represents? I could have started three companies, finished two degrees, married five times... 😬

Well, why not the next 10 then? Honestly, I doubt anyone (sensible) today would jump straight into starting businesses, two degrees, and especially the rest 😁

If someone truly cares about a specific sub-forum—they hang out there often, they have the knowledge, they know how to handle people, they have support, they've been nominated... then why not?

I completely forgot to mention mental stability... because without it, one might feel personally attacked by any critique of their work, taking it all to heart and getting lost in the weeds of reality.

Or, alternatively, they might fly off the handle at criticism—acting condescendingly toward users, ignoring them, and failing to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong or have overlooked something.

melloworca6 said:They often just don't have the time—especially when dealing with a massive, high-traffic subreddit. 🙂

If they aren't actually participating in the discussions, shaping the direction of the thread, or handling deletions and sanctions while things are happening, and they aren't even moving relevant content from old threads to new ones—which is a total mess to start... then what exactly is their job description? 🙂

...unless there's some secret reason behind it, of course.

bluecyclist64 said:I honestly think CNN would have a field day with this one— I really should have gone into moderation—it would have been quite an adventure! Someone who actually cares. Regarding social sciences and their role within society—it’s hard to say who will be showing up more often on Reddit—but I suppose we shall see! It’s probably better to just stick to what’s actually been written—keeping things precise helps. In certain posts—just a few of them, really.

It isn't just about monitoring CNN—I think every moderator should be keeping a close eye on the most active threads within their own specific subreddits. There are usually only one or two such topics at any given time—so it shouldn't be much trouble to skim through them—perhaps even on a daily basis.

Generally speaking...
Some of the moderators don't even bother participating in the discussions on—well, at least the most active threads of—their own subreddits; they only ever show up if someone files a formal report, or if their ultimate goal is simply to swoop in and delete the last few pages.

What exactly is the point of moderators like that—I mean, really?
What kind of vibe do users have—both the community at large and this specific forum—aside from just having colorful text?

Eric Newman75 said: Having to repeat the same tired lines every single time things go south.

That’s why I say—if stupidity and troll posts were actually penalized (if they weren't just deleted), we'd see far fewer provocateurs and aimless drifters.

The nonsense isn't even the main issue... nor is the trolling, provided it isn't coming from the same person repeatedly—the real problem lies with the insults and those endless, blatant lies.

Sanctioning the liars (if there's no other way to help them)* would bring discussions back within acceptable boundaries.

------------
*
Or perhaps...
For instance, if someone on a forum keeps getting flagged for lying, they might want to take a moment to reflect on their own well-being and seek some outside help. It could serve as a sort of personal indicator.
Think of it as a red flag for one's mental health, perhaps?

Beyond just debate and dialogue, a forum serves to help people—so why not add a little diagnostic light to the mix?

Bradley Barnes90 said:You aren't addressing the topic—you're just targeting a specific user. Since none of the posts you find bothersome have actually been reported, there’s really no reason to make them the focus of this thread.

That is why we have the moderation team—thank God for that—so you can file a complaint there. And you're right; certain subforums are moderated a bit more loosely than others, which some people love and others can't stand. If you think someone is in the wrong, prove it with a solid argument rather than just attacking the person you're talking to. I could delete Persephone's posts if I wanted to, but they were written three days ago, so they're basically old news anyway.

Reporting a post is meant to save users from having to argue about who insulted whom.
Just report it and ignore it. Simple as that.

Honestly, we get reports all the time that feel like little kid whining. I hope people don't go running to an authority figure in real life every time someone disagrees with them. As a last resort, there's the ignore list, though it seems nobody actually uses it... 😁

Finally, if a post gets deleted (and believe me, that isn't the only one), it doesn't necessarily mean a rule was broken—it just means I KNOW it would lead to a total derailment of the topic.

To reiterate:
"I quoted several lines from the thread, in order to contribute to the discussion by highlighting the core issues while simultaneously suggesting a new topic within the same subforum.
After some users signed off, I did the same and thanked my interlocutors."

It's written right there—I am discussing the topic, not the user. Personally, I think her posts are a perfect reflection of the current state of the debate, which is why they were quoted. In fact, I haven't targeted the user herself at all, only the statements she presented to everyone.
I haven't asked to delete anyone's posts, nor have I reported anyone, and I certainly don't intend to ignore my conversation partners. What am I supposed to do with them? That's not your concern... but thanks for the advice, even if I didn't ask for it. 🙂

Managing moderation isn't my job—it's the job of those who accepted the role. Specifically, yours.
Personally, I don't give much weight to insults from users, especially when I know who they're coming from, so my "helping" the mods (just to punish someone) makes even less sense.

If you consider using the reporting system to be nothing but childish whining, feel free to suggest changing the title from the current one to something else, and then we can talk your way. As long as the title remains what it is and I have access to this thread, I'm going to write, whether anyone likes it or not. 🙂

Even though you've already made your point by deleting things, thanks for the reply regardless—though I'd love to hear other perspectives.🙂

You aren't obligated to comment on the quality of my discussion, my opinions, or my arguments here. Feel free to join the thread with your own views and reasoning. But!
I expect links that show me targeting a user rather than just addressing her statements, as well as evidence of attacking my conversation partners.

Piggy said:Well, we're just circling back through the last few pages—so, thanks for the company... until the next gender-war troll fest...
👋

I'm putting together a little recap of this debate to use for the upcoming thread:
"The Deafness of interlocutors regarding written words—no apologies, please"

It isn't in chronological order, but it’s easier to follow this way:
For me:

Persephone@ said:You have some serious issues.

Persephone@ said:It shouldn't be hard to grasp. You might struggle, but others here are reading too.

Persephone@ said:At first I thought you were twisting my words, but now I think you simply can't wrap your head around it.

To the second forum member:

Persephone@ said:It looks like you
have a problem with that. Take the argument elsewhere.

To the third female forum member:

Persephone@ said:Well—if you feel you need those kinds of labels just to get closer to men, be my guest.

Who's actually losing it here? 1.

Persephone@ said:One small step separates us from demanding total "equality"—where men decide they want to be fathers, and then when a woman doesn't want that, they strip away her right to an abortion.
Do you really want your daughters and sisters living in a world where a man can act recklessly and then, within some legal timeframe, decide whether your daughter or sister carries the pregnancy or terminates it?

Adam Parker2 said:This horror scenario of yours is just absurd. I won't even ask how you managed to imagine it—or why you would?!—I’ll just ask where on earth you read that!

From what I can see, she writes this—twice, and in bold, no less: ...

Now, who’s truly out of their mind? 2.

Persephone@ said:Look, this isn't the first time you've tried to label me as pathological, claim I have issues with men, or attempt to disqualify me by throwing diagnoses around. I've stayed quiet until now, letting those who should prevent a conversation from turning into a personal attack step in. Since they haven't, I'll defend myself and tell you: you seem to be trying to solve your own obvious issues with men right here—by offering yourself up as a woman who respects them, treats them as equals, and won't burden them with fatherhood after getting pregnant. I wish you luck and a full inbox.

Adam Parker2 said:I’m still waiting for that link where I supposedly label you as pathological, diagnose you, or advocate for your disqualification.

What are you even talking about? Where did I insult you? Why would you want my inbox? For what reason?
As far as I can tell, out of all the rudeness in our exchange, the only thing I've said is that "you have problems."
Can't find the link, or are you just lying?

Seriously, who is the crazy one here? 3.

Persephone— Adam Parker2 said:So, you’re essentially complaining that she might decide to bring a child into this world without your permission—quite a bold stance to take!

American Psycho said:Why would you even say something untrue? There really isn't any need for that—honestly.

I made myself clear in my opening post — ...

The millionth accusation—or should I say, the latest attempt at planting false evidence:

The north wind—it’s certainly picking up! Adam Parker2 said:Are you really trying to project your own baseless assumptions onto me again? Cut that out—it’s honestly not a good look for you, man.

Iksti failed his attempt at getting this thread back on track—not quite there yet!

ZgSash Adam Parker2 said:Goodness, those trolls are incredibly cheap—really!
🤦
Do you actually believe there's substance to these posts—or is the goal just to write a book and muddy the waters of communication?

Because things are getting way too loud around here—honestly—I think I’ll pass on the company for now... let's just stick to the topics suggested above. 👋

God bless 🙂

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=766952

I quoted several lines from the thread—where they were located—just to help move the discussion along by highlighting the core issues; I also took the liberty of suggesting a follow-up topic within the same sub-forum.
After a few users left, I decided to sign off myself—giving everyone a quick thanks—and then the post was deleted.

I honestly can't wrap my head around what was controversial about that post because the quotes weren't "taken out of context"—they were pulled directly from the thread—I just gathered the facts, cited them properly, used multi-quote, and signed off just like the others did...I would truly love to understand why the post was removed.

It seems like the moderation in this sub-forum is a bit "softer"—which I don't mind at all, provided we don't have to scroll endlessly to find a sensible post.
So, it’s especially confusing to me why this one (single?) post was wiped from the entire thread?

Well, here I am—on this topic, as the name implies—stating that I'm confused by the deletion, voicing my grievance, and requesting an explanation for the following question:
What exactly was problematic about the bolded section above? Please explain so I can avoid making the same mistake again.
Thanks 🙂

p.s.
Having been taught by past experiences with deletions, I saved a copy of the unedited post—just so I wouldn't bother the mods by begging for its return—since I wanted to review it and gather some thoughts.

Carol Johnson4 said:Back when I was a moderator on the unknown forum, I had to tell users multiple times to skip threads that were just "dumping nonsense meant to insult their intelligence," to use your words. I don't find any of this funny. If you think a thread is just trolling, why even bother wasting your time on it? 🤷

Spamming a few posts to try and prove some "absolute truth" isn't going to help the discussion, and I don't see the point in it. Plus, it just drives the whole thing off-topic.

I won't lecture anyone on how to spend their time online—if a topic is sitting right there at the top of the feed, you're going to click it...

I certainly support moderation when a thread starter gets branded a troll right out of the gate. I'm definitely not a fan of that paranoid hunting for anonymous handles.

But, once a thread hits a certain length and devolves into pure nonsense—just total fantasy, weird turnarounds, and impossible missions—why should the server even host it?

There’s no actual substance or real discussion left; it’s just a string of penalties and stupidity... and honestly, it isn't even funny anymore.

GENERAL OBSERVATION:
While this forum has a duty to protect personal data, the issue arises when certain moderators prioritize protecting the "feelings" of posters and their supporters—being overly sensitive toward anyone sharing a "difficult situation"...

Good grief—is this a medical clinic or a public forum?

Something that might hurt an emotional poster during a tough time isn't necessarily universally offensive.
Plus, there are ultra-sensitive individuals facing hardships who aren't being aggressive jerks about it.

There are far better ways to redact private info than just dumping a bunch of vague, incoherent facts that leave you scratching your head.
It’s honestly ridiculous to expect people not to react to that.
By penalizing or deleting sensible posts, isn't the message essentially: "smart people should leave, while the fools should rush in"? Correct me if I'm misreading the situation.
Such a practice is unacceptable. Where does that leave the overall quality of this forum?

ps:
The post above is meant to be general.
I won't be commenting on my own lack of specifics, nor will I mention those women, the nonsense, or Nicholas King.
I wasn't addressing the banned user, nor am I seeking a comment or a reply,
but her praise for the moderator only reinforced my opinion of her.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Help me understand your logic here, if you don't mind. Almost every PDF has a chat section where, within certain boundaries, you can pretty much say whatever you want. Why does communication need to be "easier" on other threads? What exactly is supposed to be facilitated?

Here is some constructive feedback:

Adam Parker2 said:I have to say, I’m feeling pretty frustrated with how boldwalker12 is handling moderation.
On a thread about a mother waiting for her child—which was completely innocent—I received a warning for no apparent reason.

Unless, of course, responding to people who quote you is somehow forbidden at certain times?
Is there actually a time limit on using the quote function?

Are users expected to be glued to a thread constantly just to avoid a warning when replying? If a discussion shifts direction, how are we supposed to address questions from earlier in the thread?

Does this mean anyone joining a conversation late loses their right to weigh in because they "missed the window"? What is the actual expiration date on a post?
for example:

----------------------------

Furthermore, the arguments used to justify deleting the last 30 or so posts are just silly. Any meaningful discussion naturally branches out—it explores broader aspects of the core issue and brings in vital facts and diverse perspectives that are essential to the topic itself.

Are we meant to have real discussions here, or just provide one-sentence replies while watching the clock? If it’s the latter, then honestly, why bother saying anything at all? Only those who haven't already given a two-line answer should even speak up.

Roughly cutting off the most recent posts is unprofessional—it kills the conversation, guts the topic, and is totally unfair to those who just joined in.

Some posts were left up that seem to follow the moderator's own personal house rules rather than actual community standards.

It’s a poor judgment call—and frankly, a poorly executed job regarding the overall sense of purpose in moderation. 👎

Steven Chavez2 said:I'm with you on that.

Generally speaking, one of the reasons (aside from the fact that I have way too much going on in my actual life to get sucked into endless internet debates) that I don't enjoy posting here is this overly rigid approach to moderation. Look, I get it. You have to penalize blatant insults, doxxing, advertising, spam, or bot garbage. That makes sense.

But when someone starts hovering over you like a hawk, throwing warnings and threatening bans like they're wielding a stick, just because you thought a post was funny and responded with a laughing emoji? That is, quite frankly, nothing more than mindless authoritarianism. What’s the big deal? Someone says something, you find it funny, you drop an emoji. It’s not rocket science. Online discussions are supposed to mirror real life, where someone says something and the other person just laughs. Or am I supposed to write out, "Haha, yes, I find your comment incredibly witty, I also ________ (insert whatever the author said here)." Give me a break. It's ridiculous.

On the flip side, I actually agree with the mods that off-topic clutter should be cleared out. If the thread is about a favorite craft beer, there’s no reason to pivot into a debate about fuel efficiency in a Ford F-150. But, if the topic is about a conflict between a non-smoker and her boyfriend who smokes, and the conversation drifts toward the broader dynamic between smokers and non-smokers, then you really ought to show some flexibility. Looking at the bigger picture can actually help the original poster navigate her specific issue. It’s the same logic as how a broad discussion about the pros and cons of Japanese versus German engineering might actually help someone deciding between a Mazda or a BMW.

Bottom line: whenever I come here to type something, I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. Don't get me wrong—I'm not advocating for chaos or lack of etiquette. In fact, I value discipline and order immensely; even digital spaces shouldn't be a free-for-all. But you mods could really benefit from a little more nuance.

I don't have any illusions that this post will change anything, but since this section was created for complaints and feedback regarding moderation, I believe I have a democratic right to voice my opinion—and I think I've done so politely enough. I just hope no one hits me with another infraction because I went off-topic by having boldwalker12 veer into a critique of the entire moderation team instead of sticking to the original point. Yes, there's a bit of irony in that. Life happens everywhere, including on internet forums.

Best regards. 🙂

Nicholas King said:I am praying to every god—whether they belong to this forum or elsewhere—that this never becomes the norm here.

Honestly, I fail to see how scrolling through endless likes, rofls, and signatures contributes anything at all to "spontaneity and relaxation."

So, the point isn't really about the smiley itself, but rather the sense of ease and spontaneity that we're missing here.

How? When? Where?

In my view, true spontaneity and a relaxed atmosphere are achieved by not forcing discussions through a "narrow hallway"—both in terms of topic and level of seriousness—rather than by allowing mindless "I agree" posts, which, if you look closely, are nothing more than elementary ego trips.

rustydrifter10 said:Trust me, running this forum with a "hands-off" approach just doesn't work; we've been there, done that. About a year ago, we tried loosening the reins a bit, and within just a few weeks, things spiraled into absolute mayhem, forcing us to step back in and tighten everything up again. Not every sub-section is created equal, either—you can't just allow the same level of casualness or off-topic chatter everywhere. This community is incredibly sensitive and high-energy; a heated argument can ignite in a heartbeat. Our job as moderators isn't just to play firefighter and put out the flames after they start; it's about preventing the spark from catching in the first place.

Regarding the unknown, looking at the big picture, I find myself agreeing. Most topics are delicate, though certainly not all of them.
One really needs to recognize those nuances, along with the natural flow of a discussion.

Roughly speaking, cutting off a massive thread of posts—where the debate is actually flowing, well-argued, and stays on track despite strong opposing views—is just unnecessary, especially when people keep their tensions within civilized bounds.

Demanding such rigid adherence to a topic, without allowing any tangential connections (that infamous off-topic behavior), basically turns a conversation into a series of monologues.
It becomes: "this is my view," "well, here is mine," "it’s like this for me..."—and by the time everyone on the forum has had their say, we might as well just hand over the keys.
At that point, you aren't having a forum discussion anymore; you're just reading comments.

If a discussion crosses the line of politeness, a moderator should be able to evaluate the specific problematic posts and remove only those—rather than nuking the last 50 messages.
It's particularly odd, given the current practice here, to leave the insulting posts visible while punishing and deleting the response.
That essentially sends the message that you shouldn't respond to someone who insults you; instead, you should just hit that "report" button.
It's a bit of a silly way to handle things.

If they have to pluck ten pages out of a single thread just to "bring it back on track," then what is the point of moderation? A simple automated script could probably do that job just fine, and nobody would complain.
--------------------------------------

As for emojis, I haven't seen rows of icons on the unknown, as boldwalker12 mentioned. I don't go overboard myself, though I do use them occasionally to set the tone.

Using them in moderation helps the atmosphere—since they act as a tonal guide for the person you are actually addressing, rather than just every reader. A dry sentence can be misinterpreted in a dozen different ways, which can send a conversation off the rails.
There isn't any form of social communication via text where emojis aren't a valid option.
I assume no one expects you to type out "grrr" or "hahahhaa" to modulate your tone, nor do they expect everything to be written like a legal deposition.

boldwalker12 said:That is straight-up false. That post wasn't even multi-quoted.

Here are some examples of your supposedly "multi-quoted" posts:

I'm done with this.

By "multi-quote," I mean addressing more than just one person on the forum—it could be two or three people at once...
The button itself is completely irrelevant, which is pretty obvious looking at this thread.
So, it's just one post that responds to both you and unknown.
Basically, a single post can address both the "troll" and the author.
Two different people in one post—whether you use the button or not.

I've shared my thoughts on your moderation, commented, laid out my reasons, provided examples and links, thanked everyone for their replies, and...

Goodness, I really hope we are finally finished here.🙄

boldwalker12 said:That off-topic mess you were replying to has already been wiped out, along with your specific question. Both the site moderator and the admin can verify that.

If you see something that actually violates the rules, feel free to report it.

That is exactly what I meant.
Basically—if you multi-quote a few posts and happen to find one that you personally deem off-topic, spammy, or otherwise punishable—you just wipe the whole lot. It doesn't matter if it's important or trivial, new or old, on-topic or off-topic.
And along with those, you end up deleting another 30, maybe 50 other random posts from everyone else too.

The report button has nothing to do with this situation.

boldwalker12 said:Yeah, it was definitely deleted.
It was basically a massive wall of off-topic rambling and laughing at other people's off-topic posts, all wrapped up in this thin layer of trolling. But yeah, it's gone.

Feel free to ask her anything relevant, as long as you aren't being a total provocateur.

Someone else's "off-topic" comment wasn't removed, and frankly, I don't even see it as off-topic—besides, I'm replying to others using the multi-quote feature, which was actually recommended to me.
I was told to use multi-quote, so that's exactly what I'm doing.

I have no way of knowing what you personally consider off-topic or "wrapped in cellophane."
And by the way, a "ROFL" is just one little icon—it isn't an entire line of text.
I don't have any more questions for you. 🙂

unknown said:Which topic are you referring to?

http://www.americanforum.com/showthread.php?t=762283

unknown said:This is easily the best—and most expert, comprehensive—analysis of the topics on this board. The moderation is top-notch; honestly, I think managing this flood of pathetic threads is quite a feat.

You're absolutely right—though I was specifically commenting on the moderation within one particular thread that isn't pathetic at all. Not even close.
I believe it's a lifelike, everyday discussion that touches on some vital factors for the whole sub-forum—things like tolerance, selfishness, empathy, and so on.

It might catch us off guard 🙂

Deletion? 😕

thanks

...I'm actually curious—just wondering why my post was removed when I was simply addressing the author with a question?
Is it okay to ask if her silence is just... well, her thinking things over—or perhaps the deadline passed and that's why it was taken down?

Nicholas King said:The fundamental issue with these cock-teasing (I’ll elaborate on that later) threads is that they are perpetually kept on life support, even when it crosses every reasonable line of suspicion that someone might just be playing games. Despite being completely useless as a case study—and let me be clear, this wasn't one of those "if it isn't true, it's at least entertaining" topics that are clearly fabricated just to provide fuel for a debate—it still happened. Moderator warnings have mostly focused on banning "troll-hunting" and "staying on topic," but regarding troll-hunting, there are actually two distinct rules at play. The first is "don't go hunting for trolls," and the second is "we will handle it for you instead."

It’s a rather unfortunate solution where people are being disciplined and forced back onto a topic that—well, doesn't actually exist. In reality, the subjects shifted as quickly as our authors could churn them out: moving from pregnancies with deadbeat partners to incompetent doctors, then to car accidents, or strangely brief hospital stays due to hemorrhaging, and so on—all punctuated by those classic, long silences between posts, which is a tried-and-true recipe for building tension :milena:. The most logical conclusion in the world is that people are naturally going to start posting whatever nonsense comes to mind. One important note here: it wouldn't be fair to single out any specific moderator as the culprit for this or that; in this particular instance, boldwalker12 was doing exactly what I believe any other moderator would have done if they were holding the reins; all her actions were strictly within the lines of how we moderate the site.

Cock-teasing troll threads follow a very rigid structure. First, there is the presentation of a tragic story designed to tug at the heartstrings of many (usually from a brand-new user who, amidst the chaos of their own life, decided the best course of action was to register and open a thread)—then, they begin layering on more heartbreaking details (much like adding kindling once a fire starts to die down), which no serious person would overlook initially. Then comes the division of participants into those the author favors and those they despise—offering thanks and hugs to some while absolutely tearing others apart—which inevitably leads to infighting. And finally—most importantly—there is that aforementioned dramatic pause in posting, after which a spectacular new revelation is invariably dropped, kicking off "another round."

Personally, I don't have anything (effectively 😬) against these trollish threads, provided they remain somewhat logically coherent (for instance, until the number of fetuses in a pregnancy starts fluctuating wildly). However, I don't think it's a wise strategy for the moderation team to allow these topics to persist past the point of reasonable doubt—that is, until someone loses their cool and starts trying to unmask the troll. It isn't good for the community: not every click is a good click, and not every post is a quality post.

I realize that my opinion is likely just my own personal problem 😁.

Exactly.
It's either a way to lock a thread and pivot to something else—provided there's enough substance for a real discussion—
or it's just locking the door while waiting for some melodramatic topic to break out with intense factions fighting over birth rates.

Deleting recent posts, handing out bans, or just documenting the drama within American forum households... it's all pretty pointless.

edit: forum households*

Nicholas King said:The fundamental issue with these cock-teasing (I’ll elaborate on that later) threads is that they are perpetually kept on life support, even when it crosses every reasonable line of suspicion that someone might just be playing games. Despite being completely useless as a case study—and let me be clear, this wasn't one of those "if it isn't true, it's at least entertaining" topics that are clearly fabricated just to provide fuel for a debate—it still happened. Moderator warnings have mostly focused on banning "troll-hunting" and "staying on topic," but regarding troll-hunting, there are actually two distinct rules at play. The first is "don't go hunting for trolls," and the second is "we will handle it for you instead."

It’s a rather unfortunate solution where people are being disciplined and forced back onto a topic that—well, doesn't actually exist. In reality, the subjects shifted as quickly as our authors could churn them out: moving from pregnancies with deadbeat partners to incompetent doctors, then to car accidents, or strangely brief hospital stays due to hemorrhaging, and so on—all punctuated by those classic, long silences between posts, which is a tried-and-true recipe for building tension :milena:. The most logical conclusion in the world is that people are naturally going to start posting whatever nonsense comes to mind. One important note here: it wouldn't be fair to single out any specific moderator as the culprit for this or that; in this particular instance, boldwalker12 was doing exactly what I believe any other moderator would have done if they were holding the reins; all her actions were strictly within the lines of how we moderate the site.

Cock-teasing troll threads follow a very rigid structure. First, there is the presentation of a tragic story designed to tug at the heartstrings of many (usually from a brand-new user who, amidst the chaos of their own life, decided the best course of action was to register and open a thread)—then, they begin layering on more heartbreaking details (much like adding kindling once a fire starts to die down), which no serious person would overlook initially. Then comes the division of participants into those the author favors and those they despise—offering thanks and hugs to some while absolutely tearing others apart—which inevitably leads to infighting. And finally—most importantly—there is that aforementioned dramatic pause in posting, after which a spectacular new revelation is invariably dropped, kicking off "another round."

Personally, I don't have anything (effectively 😬) against these trollish threads, provided they remain somewhat logically coherent (for instance, until the number of fetuses in a pregnancy starts fluctuating wildly). However, I don't think it's a wise strategy for the moderation team to allow these topics to persist past the point of reasonable doubt—that is, until someone loses their cool and starts trying to unmask the troll. It isn't good for the community: not every click is a good click, and not every post is a quality post.

I realize that my opinion is likely just my own personal problem 😁.

I think it's actually less fair to comment on all the mods of this unknown site if I haven't personally noticed anything worth mentioning here.
It’s much more honest to just point out the specific moderator involved.

— regarding a specific moderator, nothing personal, obviously.

Joshua Jones13 said:Warnings exist to keep the discussion within the scope of the specific sub-forum. They're mostly just a nudge for when users get carried away and wander too far from the topic. If you ignore them, well, expect a ban.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by editing posts, because we don't edit them. If a post breaks the rules, it gets a penalty.

Here is my take:
Deleting roughly thirty or fifty posts indiscriminately after a warning—it doesn't matter the number—isn't "steering the conversation back on track." It just isn't.

Furthermore:
The posts left behind actually have less to do with the discussion than the ones that were wiped.
To be specific—arguments rooted in selfishness or intolerance *are* relevant to the topic. Those posts are more constructive than those where users start listing their own household rules or lifestyle choices—which have absolutely zero connection to the author or her situation.

A capable moderator could monitor the direction of the thread and perhaps spin off a separate discussion, for instance.
(I noticed someone else did this once before)
Or, they could prune the fluff while keeping the substance—preserving the thread's core purpose without turning it into a series of random life updates from various forum members.

In my opinion, boldwalker12 seems unable to distinguish between what is relevant and what isn't, even though she clearly wants to project an image of being a responsible authority figure.
Sorting out the signal from the noise shouldn't be handled by butchering the end of a thread or issuing warnings for things like "not responding fast enough"—that's just nonsense.
IMHO, absolutely. 🙂

The issue is that the original post I was responding to—the one that actually got me flagged—was part of a thread I was typing in when it suddenly vanished into thin air.
I tried to flag it and grab the link, but everything just turned into a complete mess—I honestly have no idea what went wrong.
Anyway, it doesn't matter; I've said my piece, so that's all from me.

boldwalker12 said:If you're referring to that mess where everyone was venting about "selfish people," debating non-smoking cafes, arguing over semantics regarding tolerance, and all that other off-topic nonsense that happened after I explicitly warned everyone to get back on track, then yeah, I did kill that conversation. You guys were blatantly ignoring the warnings.

But isn't "selfishness" actually central to the core topic? It’s deeply intertwined with the whole subject when you look at it from different angles—I'm sorry if that isn't coming across. Not to mention how often that specific term pops up in almost every single post.

Generally speaking, I just tend to share my own perspective.

Warnings feel a bit pointless sometimes—after they happen, some posts get deleted, some users get penalized, and others get corrected, yet most of the off-topic stuff just lingers. Or else, a huge chunk of posts gets wiped out entirely.