Posts by Adam Parker2

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. 👎

Chloe Wilson46 said:To help clarify things here—I just wanted to mention that in one of the chat rooms over at the IRS, people weren't just debating the topic itself, but were actually targeting certain female members for their views, in a pretty negative way.

Honestly, there's no need to get bogged down in the context of those chats because:

"Since it's a chat room, people tend to be more relaxed and just joking around," says Tupelo, while Nica adds that "the chat has a completely different dynamic and purpose than the rest of the forums."

So, it's basically just some casual, semi-private banter for the enthusiasts—it carries no real weight and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Nicholas King said:—well, I certainly can't stop you from making a fool of yourself on this forum...

Exactly—so there's really no point in even trying.

By the way, just linking posts is much more practical than all this guesswork and playing games about who posted what first.

Nicholas King said:"It would be best if our daughter finds someone her own age—that way, the four of us can actually enjoy some quality time together."

I never wrote that above.

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

Your constant presence really highlights my point—it’s not a crime to state the obvious to this entire forum crowd, right?
Am I going to get penalized just for asking, "Is the Car empty, or is Nicholas King everywhere?"

I'm sorry you aren't happy with the answer, but I don't see the point in trying any harder.

Jose White18 said:Just to be clear—you started a whole new thread because you're complaining about a card you got two months ago (even though there's a specific thread for card complaints) and because of two deleted posts (despite the fact that you wrote 13 of them in just two days on that thread)?

Not quite.
That’s a pretty staggering misinterpretation of what was said—especially coming from a moderator.
This isn't a complaint, which is stated quite clearly.

It's actually a commentary on those ZUD followers, given the protection they have and the question I posed.

If I ever decide to file an actual complaint, the title will explicitly say "Complaint" followed by the username of the person I'm targeting.
Figuring out the point I'm making shouldn't be that much work.

@Henry Kim3
Perhaps the ZUD policy is simply to protect their "local" regulars—I once voiced a complaint regarding velvettrucker52 and received some truly bizarre responses...

Actually, I just read recently that velvettrucker52 holds a lifetime position here—though, interestingly, I haven't seen a single compliment directed her way, unlike the endless complaints questioning her purpose... But hey, they aren't banned, so if that's what someone prefers...

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

Nicholas King said:To start things off, let’s just tear this person down—it'll make proving our point much easier later, regardless of what that point actually is.

If you feel "attacked" (?!) by a simple observation regarding your undeniable omnipresence on this forum... well, my advice is: don't be.

Nicholas King said:...for some strange reason, people believe these kinds of posts actually contribute anything to a debate. I have no idea what that could be—aside from avoiding actual discussion through such tactics.

Well, maybe the debate will "improve"—say, via therapeutic posts; like in the thread about the 23-year-old dealing with her father leaving:

Here is another example of "improving" a discussion through therapy to achieve a goal:

It goes without saying that Chloe Wilson46 left the discussion shortly after with a farewell post—which was, of course, deleted.

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

@Brian Edwards78, brisklynx62

You haven't been labeled as ZUD regulars lately, but it's lovely to see you checking in. 🙂

It’s an undeniable fact—long-time forum veterans get away with things that regular users aren't even allowed to attempt. A perfect example is those semi-private chats where anyone unfamiliar with the unwritten rules gets labeled as an "outsider."

For instance—take our ever-present Nicholas King—he apparently takes issue with the sarcasm I liberally sprinkle throughout discussions regarding Jewish topics. Yet, I haven't noticed any of his own posts, which are practically drenched in sarcasm and cynicism, being deleted.

To the gentleman who claims what I wrote was nonsense—here is my response, which was, of course, deleted—so I'll just improvise:
"Of course, having an honest conversation is senseless... It's much more meaningful to find out from your daughter that your husband has a young mistress..."

Addressing the moderator on duty here:
Emily Martin says:
"Was my post deleted where I quoted Nicholas King and denied that the conversation was senseless, or is it just not showing up for me?"
The answer:
Deleted. There’s really no point in engaging once things cross certain lines of bickering.

A recent addition to this argument is the warning I received on the "Affairs and Infidelity" thread.
Because I dared to address another user directly—sharing a bit about myself and how I communicate—I told a certain "privileged" member that I wasn't interested in her opinion on the matter and had no intention of typing about her or her Car. (That's a nod to a famous commercial, by the way!)

And sure enough—my reply to her post, which remains perfectly intact, was wiped away. Naturally, the warning followed. I didn't bother appealing, though—I don't think appeals are any more useful than pressing a pedestrian button at a red light.

Question:
How many years of seniority or how many posts does one need to accumulate before they're allowed to use the exact same sarcasm or irony as the protected veterans?
Or perhaps—how can one respond in the same tone without being branded a bicker, a troll, or someone who isn't being serious?