Posts by Sophia Thomas7

neonfox12 said:I’m circling back to this last part, so bear with me if I end up repeating myself a little.
So, where exactly am I going wrong here? If there’s an actual rule violation, then by all means, take action. But honestly, don't you think it would be reasonable to send a quick DM before jumping straight to a strike for a first offense? (If I'm being blunt, that's my biggest gripe with how Meadow moderates—it feels like pure repression.) If someone is just reporting people for the sake of reporting, they should be the ones getting a warning for trolling. I was genuinely just joking around there; aside from those few little clashes, I wasn't being serious, and even when I was, I wasn't trying to start anything heavy...

I’m trying to point out something here: what you’re calling "harmless joking" is actually causing people to report you for harassment or trolling. If that hasn't clicked yet, let me lay it out for you:
Either you’re just guessing, or you have a really bad sense of what actually counts as shipping and what doesn't.
Either you deal with the hypocrisy of the people you're joking around with, or you don't.

neonfox12 said:He had me on read for over six months, but hey, everyone deserves a second chance, right? I took a look back at that warning below...

If you still can't manage to communicate, then honestly, you don't deserve a second chance. It just looks like you're trying to dodge the bill.

neonfox12 said:Look, I’m not saying anyone is out here begging for the chat to be babysat, but honestly? Someone who actually lives in the chat should probably be a moderator. If you're constantly around, you actually understand the power dynamics and how things flow. Plus, I really think the USA needs moderators who are strictly US-based. It’s pretty obvious that you and Meadow can't keep up with everything on your own—and hey, please don't take this as a dig, I'm just being observant.

I can't help but draw a parallel here to that LJES chat. It’s almost never reported, yet somehow, there are regular reports coming out of the US. Look, we don't necessarily *need* to have this chat, but if we’re going to keep it running for a topic that burns through ten pages a day, even an entire army of moderators wouldn't be able to keep up.

neonfox12 said:Is it really okay to just drop a partial ban on someone without so much as a heads-up that they were being inappropriate? Seriously? I haven't received a single private message suggesting I was overstepping or being out of line, whether it was in a specific thread or otherwise. Total zero on the communication front. Honestly, the level of communication you provided after my first run-in with the Ambassador was basically non-existent.

If I’ve already had to tell you once to chill out before things get messy, that should have been plenty of warning to stop whatever you're doing. Just a reminder: the Ignore function exists. Please, just use it.

neonfox12 said:Okay, so people are reporting me, and you couldn't even send me a PM to let me know everyone was complaining about me? You know what they say—if you don't realize you're doing something wrong, you aren't going to try to fix it..

We aren't obligated to do that, nor is it our policy to slide into someone's DMs to tell them they're being reported.

neonfox12 said:I'm talking about the bolding. And I've been doing it this whole time. That's exactly why I'm contesting my last ban...

Feel free to file an appeal for the bans. Send a message to the Supermod team regarding that specific thread; if the ban gets overturned or we decide it was overkill, none of the mods will have an issue with that decision.

neonfox12 said:Can you say the same thing about the bolding rule for me?

If you two are still bickering, remember that it takes two to tango. So yeah, that applies to both of you. Consequently, you've both received a warning.

neonfox12 said:Are you even listening to yourself? What's the difference between the moderation policies on LJES and the US forum? I'm pointing out the bolding specifically... How can the rules be applied so much more aggressively in one section than in all the others? It's not like these are different sites; it's the same one, you know..

I'm not sure if you've actually read the individual sub-forum rules, but almost every section, besides the general site-wide rules, has its own specific guidelines. For instance, on LJES, we hand out bans much more strictly, whereas the US forum tends to be a bit more laid back.

neonfox12 said:Look, I’m not actually arguing that he should be banned or anything—I’m just pointing out how inconsistent the rules seem to be here. I honestly don't see any justification for slapping a partial ban on someone as insignificant as me.

You might not see it, but the mods definitely do. Since we clearly aren't on the same page about handing out bans like candy, the first step is an official warning. It’s basically meant to tell you, "Hey, take a breath, you're crossing the line."

neonfox12 said:Specifically, I don't feel like I've been "persistently and systematically" breaking the rules, because in my book, that implies doing it every couple of posts. As far as I can remember, I only ignored a moderator's instruction once.

If the USA mods decide a user deserves a partial ban for disrupting the flow of the forum, they start with a warning—which is exactly what you and Amby received. Personally, I find it kind of funny that we're nitpicking over this now. I’d understand if you had actually been hit with a partial ban, but you weren't. You got a warning letting you know that if you keep this up, a partial ban is coming next.

To put it politely: you two should probably just put each other on ignore and give one another a wide berth. That's really all there is to it. If you're expecting us to go back and retract a warning, that's just not going to happen.

Wait, you're telling me Sátántangó is actually almost eight hours long? 🙂

goldenscout14 said:One of the female agent's specific assignments within the squad was to lure in and eliminate that drug lord at the very beginning, a task she executed flawlessly precisely because of those "feminine qualities"—namely, the underhandedness and scheming you mentioned—so... 😁 Surely there’s room for at least one woman on a team? Any perceived shortcomings in terms of raw physical strength or pure stamina can easily be compensated for by other skill sets, depending entirely on what the mission requires.

The movie isn't bad, per se, but it certainly could have been handled better and felt much more convincing in certain aspects...

I mean, obviously, she had to seduce him. If they had just staged a frontal assault on the house and wiped everyone out—like they did five minutes later—wouldn't that have worked? 😬 Her entire role in the movie is basically just a plot device; it was pretty obvious from the jump that she was going to be the 'traitor.'

Grace Edwards said:Honestly, this movie was shockingly bad.
I knew who took the payoff right from the jump, so that final showdown felt incredibly underwhelming.
I’m usually not a fan of that PG-13 nonsense, but if there isn't at least five "fucks" per minute, I'm basically losing my mind.
I don't even know what to say—the trailer promised some spectacular action, but the fights actually look like they're still in pre-production.
2/10

I think it's been a long time since I've sat through something this disjointed, especially with such terrible chemistry between the entire cast.

Thomas Morgan67 said:Chaos would just bleed into the other subforums, and within a month, the whole forum would be torn apart.

I mean, how could they tear apart a forum that’s clearly already falling apart? 😁

rowdyotter12 said:The 100x100 size seems to be the standard everywhere.

With file sizes capped at 20kb, God help us... 😛

I mean, there are plenty of forums where avatars aren't even allowed, so saying it's "everywhere" isn't exactly accurate.

/nitpicking

Sarah Doyle54 said:I’ve always wondered what actually happens to your LastPass data if someone manages to swipe your laptop. 😁

LastPass has its own online and offline modes, plus it uses a separate master password on top of everything else. If someone actually manages to swipe your laptop, you can just hop onto their website, reset your password, and call it a day. Problem solved.

Susan Price30 said:Nah, I think he's doing fine. 😁

To be fair, you were actually the first one to bring up changing the password—so yeah, you called it. 🙏(I had to swap mine out last time this happened, too... looks like I'm due for another reset.)

If you're just browsing on your own laptop, you might want to grab a LastPass extension to make things easier.

Susan Price30 said:Basically, Sophia Thomas7—who actually knows her way around a computer—is getting pretty close to cracking the code here.🙏

With a password like this, I guess some people might have a fighting chance at guessing it (it’s not quite as glaringly obvious as 😁 suggests, though it could definitely be more complex).

So, here’s the simplified version of how it works. When you log in, you can check that 'remember me' box, which tells your browser to hang onto your session. Unless you manually log out, you should technically stay logged in indefinitely. I say "should," because I can't rule out the possibility of a glitch somewhere on the forum itself. But if you reinstall your browser or decide to clear your cache (you know, clicking that 'delete cookies, forms, whatever' button), you'll be logged out.

Also, if you're jumping between multiple devices and stayed logged in on one of them, it's entirely possible you'll still show up as active on the forum even if you logged out of your desktop.

I'm not sure what setup you're using, so I'm just shooting in the dark.

Susan Price30 said:Also, I’ve noticed that if you don't log out manually, the forum automatically kicks you off after a certain amount of time. So, it doesn't really seem like it's totally unlimited after all...🤷

It’s basically unlimited. The only way they actually catch you is if you clear your cookies or just go ahead and reinstall the browser entirely.

The odds of someone actually cracking into your account are incredibly low. Honestly, you’re mostly just asking for trouble if you use predictable passwords—like if Susan Price30 uses "SusanPrice30" as her password. Beyond that kind of obvious stuff, it isn't exactly easy to just waltz into someone's account.

brightcrane56 said:The real question is how someone with a track record like yours even gets partial credit.

Well, since you're going to troll without any consequences, why not?

Actually, I’m not trolling at all. I’m just pointing out that what you've done would be a pretty slick way to bypass the partial credit rules on a specific PDF. You grab the credit, then immediately ask to have the thread you opened moved elsewhere.

brightcrane56 said:The OP isn't actually asking for anything.
The OP has been locked out of the threads, which basically means they can't participate in the discussions anymore. We're talking about 59 threads here. With over 15,000 replies and nearly 600,000 views, let's be honest—that’s no small feat.

I’m still standing my ground on this: either move them or just delete them.

Honestly, this would be a pretty clever way to sidestep the primaries. 😁

Ashley Smith24 said:I actually didn't know—I think I asked about this back during my third post here. I was under the impression it wasn't allowed.

Alright then, I'll give it a shot. Hopefully, I don't end up with a strike!

Thanks for the help! 🙂

I mean, look, if people use those PDFs for formal proceedings, why should saying hello to someone be an issue? 😬

Ashley Smith24 said:Also, try looking at this from a different angle—as a courtesy to those who want to say a final goodbye but aren't banned themselves. Remember, nobody is a total monster. Everyone’s done some good things in their life (and on this forum!), and for those good deeds, they deserve a little bit of grace. 🙂

I don't see any need for "reconsidering" when the situation is crystal clear. If you let people start replying and interacting from a permanent ban, even if it's just within one thread or a single post, you completely defeat the whole purpose of having bans in the first place.

Right now, on this thread, you can already send a farewell to someone who's been banned; it's just that they won't be able to write back.

Ashley Smith24 said:If direct messaging is off the table, is there any other way to reach out to someone who's been permanently banned? If not, I’ve got an idea. Along with the current "banned users" list and maybe a space for anyone who just wants to send one last message—a goodbye, a thank you, or whatever else is on their mind... What if we added a section on the user's profile where they can leave a note? It wouldn't give moderators the headache of having to police it as off-topic clutter, and it would prevent everyone else from jumping in with replies.

Look, if someone gets hit with a permanent ban, it's pretty clear they aren't welcome here anymore. Why should we go out of our way to provide them with any kind of special privileges?

Sophia Smith29 said:Does it even make sense to report someone for twisting another user's nickname in the chat threads—like what happened with "finger of fate" over in the Lonely Hearts subforum? Especially since the mods don't really monitor those specific threads closely enough to catch all the subtle social dynamics playing out between the regulars there?

Look, I’ve said this a few times now: if you're having issues in the chat, just report it. You want me to drop a link to that post?

Matthew Castillo5 said:Personally, I don't buy it (and honestly, I’d love for the admins or supermods to take a look at this one)—the idea that a moderator is allowed to stir the pot just to shut down the debate with their powers once they realize they're losing the argument. It’s one thing to moderate, but using those tools to forcibly end a discussion just because someone actually backed up their points? That feels less like management and more like picking on dissenters. 🤮

In a situation like that, I really think either another moderator on the subforum or someone from upper management should step in and address it.

I think you’re just missing how the process works here. This isn't about whose arguments were better; it's the simple fact that there were two official moderator warnings to wrap things up. I made it very clear that we—and yes, I include myself in that—simply aren't in a position to keep debating this without it spiraling into full-blown politics.

The posts weren't deleted because of the points being made, but because rules were broken right after the first warning. The penalties were handed out strictly for rule violations and because people showed up clearly intending to troll, using lines like, "I know I'm going to get flagged, but..."

Matthew Castillo5 said:Personally, I don't buy it (and honestly, I’d love for the admins or supermods to take a look at this one)—the idea that a moderator is allowed to stir the pot just to shut down the debate with their powers once they realize they're losing the argument. It’s one thing to moderate, but using those tools to forcibly end a discussion just because someone actually backed up their points? That feels less like management and more like picking on dissenters. 🤮

In a situation like that, I really think either another moderator on the subforum or someone from upper management should step in and address it.

Thanks for the feedback. Point taken.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Look, I wasn't even complaining about my own reputation hit. Nor was I begging to have my deleted posts restored. I simply wanted to clarify my reasoning behind what happened. Personally, I think neonfox12 was punished way too harshly with that ban.
Maybe it’s because the title of this thread is actually pretty spot-on. To me, this whole situation reeks of a lack of transparency and basic ethics. I’m not being dramatic—I’m actually quite happy with how the mods handle this sub most of the time—but in this specific instance? Yeah, it’s definitely an issue.

Ahem. He wasn't just banned because of my report; he actually racked up over 100 points. In this case, we're talking three separate reports (and no, I didn't file them). He ended up getting an extended ban because he tried to open a burner account just to keep spamming this thread.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Look, I wasn't even complaining about my own reputation hit. Nor was I begging to have my deleted posts restored. I simply wanted to clarify my reasoning behind what happened. Personally, I think neonfox12 was punished way too harshly with that ban.
Maybe it’s because the title of this thread is actually pretty spot-on. To me, this whole situation reeks of a lack of transparency and basic ethics. I’m not being dramatic—I’m actually quite happy with how the mods handle this sub most of the time—but in this specific instance? Yeah, it’s definitely an issue.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one.

Matthew Castillo5 said:You play the victim and act like you don't know any better whenever it suits you. But let's be real—you're sitting in a position of power, and that’s exactly why nobody is holding you accountable.

Sure, that just goes to show we actually know the forum rules inside and out. We just decided to take the hit and risk an extended ban because we were chasing something bigger—the greater good, if you will. But hey, I guess that kind of selfless logic is a bit hard for an opportunist like you to wrap your head around. 🙄

Actually, it just proves that warnings don't do squat, which makes deleting posts the only logical move. I don't have much else to say on it—if the admins want to clear the warnings, they can, but the posts stay gone.

🙂