Posts by Sophia Thomas7

northernpilot2 said:On the technical side of things, a PDF moderator can technically edit your post whenever they feel like it. That said, editing posts just to fix minor typos isn't allowed, and the moderators are well aware of that.
If a moderator is actually doing that, you should report them to a supermod or an admin.

Seriously though, are we really going to waste energy arguing because someone claims a mod went in and changed a lowercase 'c' to a 'k'? 😬

rustywalker42 said:So, you get a free pass to troll just because you're a moderator? I wasn't talking about the warning itself, but the messages leading up to it.

It's the same deal as Apophis, who used to be a mod, right?

Is that what we're calling objective moderation now?

And this right here isn't trolling?

Look, before an admin steps in and locks this whole thing down: you've got 10k posts under your belt, yet you're still intentionally flouting the forum rules.

If you want to whine about getting a strike, there's a specific thread for that. Instead, you're blowing up this thread with "why me and not them" logic. Like I told you, you didn't get flagged for trolling (that was Alexander's call), you got flagged because you kept picking at the moderator warning. You asked why you got a strike—well, there's your answer.

I’ve already mentioned that I have no interest in handing out strikes if the discussion stays civil. If sarcasm is on the table for you, it’s on the table for everyone else.

Feel free to report posts from Apophis or me if you really feel the need—we'll be happy to take the strike.

You’ve been issued a 35-point penalty for breaking the rules. Just a heads-up based on our site guidelines: moderator warnings don't count as formal infractions.

Look, everyone isn't getting a penalty, and we aren't turning this thread into a debate over "why did he get one and I didn't?"

Take care.

Lawrence Booth2 said:The movie isn't actually all that bad
it's just that he was so incredibly unattractive and lacked any real talent
honestly, if a decent actress had been cast in his role instead, you might have actually seen a decent film here 😁
and Will Smith is completely unrecognizable

What do you mean "not that bad"? It makes zero sense. You could summarize the entire plot as 'save the giant bird.'😬

Honestly, it’s been a long, long time since I sat through something this tedious and hollow. It was just a mess of a plot with zero direction and some seriously subpar acting.

Next time I’m actually in the mood for a movie about a road trip, I think I'll just stick to re-reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. 😬

Nicholas Williams7 said:Look, I’m not going to reply directly in that thread because it’d be pointless—it'll probably get locked before I can even finish my coffee. Instead, I wanted to ask: according to forum etiquette, how much time is actually allowed to pass before a thread gets "boiled" or closed? Specifically, if the person who started the thread hasn't broken any rules or offended anyone, is there an official grace period where we still have a legitimate right to chime in on their post?

Which thread are we talking about?

Your question is way too vague.

mistymason1 said:So you're saying my request wasn't polite?

😕 😕 😕

Do me a favor and actually read my request again, then look at Alexin’s response. It was sarcastic, condescending, arrogant, and frankly, pure hate—just wrapped up in a nice little layer of political correctness.

I'm pretty sure she wasn't even a moderator when I got partially banned from Reddit over a year ago. If I recall correctly, she wasn't. So, how exactly is she the one calling the shots on this now?

I was just answering the question from the original post—the one "just curious" wrote regarding the user Greenlander.

We can move everything else over to "your" thread.

mistymason1 said:I honestly don't get it—and I've been hanging around this site for a long time—how easy it is to just permaban people. It seems like the ones getting booted are exactly the users who actually have an opinion, who ask real questions, and who are clearly intelligent and well-informed. They basically just get scrubbed because they're inconvenient.

Look, having a skeptical attitude isn't the issue. The problem is when these "highly educated" users feel the need to pivot to blatant misogyny, constantly pushing that whole "a woman isn't a woman unless she has kids" nonsense along with all their other ridiculous commentary on basically every single thread. It’s also not an issue until they suddenly act like total victims, crying, "Oh my god, you guys are fascists for calling out insults sent via DM."

At the end of the day, the appeal wasn't even handled politely.

Michael Richardson18 said:It looks like Reddit 2 (for iOS) has completely stopped working on the forums.

Is it really that much of a headache to just update the API for this app? 🤷

Honestly, I don't think it's an API issue. I just reinstalled the app and everything's back to normal.

Nicholas Williams7 said:I noticed that the appeal from Green Man over in the banned users section has vanished. I’m guessing the admins scrubbed it, but it got me wondering—what's the actual criteria for just locking an appeal versus deleting the whole thing entirely?

The content was pretty problematic; he started getting really nasty and insulting, so thankfully, it was wiped.

Benjamin King2 said:Yeah, it’s probably just a connector issue—likely they didn't want to deal with the headache of a larger PCB just to squeeze in one extra port. You can just grab an adapter like this to plug in your TOS-link cable:

So, you're saying this black TOS-link combo plugs right into one of the slots, and then the optical cable goes into that?

Thanks a ton.

northerncyclist2 said:Honestly, this whole principle feels a little ridiculous. What, you have one bad night, grab a drink, and suddenly you're banned from the forum for life? It’s wild. I mean, even if someone actually commits a felony, that eventually gets wiped from their record after enough time passes, but apparently, this forum is an untouchable institution. 😁

I’m no legal expert, so I won't pretend to know the specifics regarding the murder charge. As for that other issue, though? I honestly think the rules are going to shift, especially since you pointed out how flawed that whole principle is. 🙂

As for the whole thing about the revelations, I already gave you my take on that once. No sense in me going in circles and repeating myself.

northerncyclist2 said:I mean, how on earth are you supposed to "change your mind" if a permanent ban is permanent (whether it was requested or not)? Are you even reading what’s written here? 🙄

Thanks for assuming people are actually rational actors.

🤣

There's no such thing as a "permanent" ban. It’s easy to just change your password to something insane or set it to a non-existent email—problem solved.

If you really want to bait a permanent ban, be my guest. (Or anyone else, for that matter.) But look, experience has shown that someone who gets banned on request often comes back with a fresh account and starts arguing that since they asked for the ban, it shouldn't count against them, so their new account should be safe. Fine, if you want to provoke a ban based on your logic, we'll just terminate your clones the second we spot them.

It's not quite the same thing.

northerncyclist2 said:Look, that might be easier for you and anyone else on the forum looking for perm status. But hey, logic isn't always a given, is it? 😁

And here we go again—the crowd that keeps changing its mind. Since when did "perm status upon request" even become a thing?

northerncyclist2 said:Wouldn't it make more sense to just implement permutations without any way to undo them?🤷

Isn't it even simpler to just log out and stay out?

northerncyclist2 said:The rule is honestly kind of silly. Any user hunting for permanent status can pretty much bait the admins into triggering it.

Look, they implemented the rule because so many people kept asking for it, only to change their minds later and realize they didn't actually want it after all.

Some folks have even done it multiple times.

Benjamin King2 said:Look, you've got all that Asus gear right there—roughly 520 bucks if I recall correctly—$177: http://www.asus.com/Sound_Cards_and_...specifications

The thing about those Asus cards that’s tripping me up is whether it uses a combo cable or what. I'm looking at the photo and I don't see a dedicated optical input.

1 x S/PDIF out (1 x Optical (Toslink)/(combo with analog in))

I'm looking for some recommendations for a new soundcard in the same ballpark as the Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D. I can't seem to find the Recon anywhere in the US anymore.

Here’s what I’m specifically looking for: (The Recon had all this, and it cost me about $40 $167).

- Somewhere in that same price range
- I absolutely need an optical SPDIF port
- Must support DDL (Dolby Digital Live)

Any ideas? Where should I look? (Ideally somewhere that ships easily within the States). 😁

Matthew Fox4 said:😕

Look, I’m not giving anyone advice here, especially not you.

So don't quote me then.

Reading comprehension? Zero points there.

My little gray cells send their regards from vacation 👋

Basically, you wrote a ton of inaccuracies and you're peddling them as facts.

That kind of blanket statement could have been slapped under anyone's post on any subreddit.

In the future, try using actual arguments instead of attacking people personally—because, to quote you, that "really isn't cool."

I have a 19'' monitor. Should I tell it to stop acting like a 15'' brat and start behaving like a big, smart screen? 🙂

800*600 definitely messes with the page layout. I'll leave it to chance that maybe, through some weird glitch, it only does that on my monitor. Anyway, like I mentioned in my last post, it's up to the admins to decide on photo sizes.

I've said my piece on this thread and I don't plan on dragging this out further, since apparently I'm not just failing at reading comprehension, but I'm also failing at looking at things correctly—it's like I can't even process what's right in front of me on the screen.😵 😵 😁

It really depends on what resolution you're running—whether it's widescreen or not.

Matthew Fox4 said:I’m really not feeling the whole idea of bumping up photo sizes past the usual 640*480 pixels (though I won't count those contest shots people mentioned earlier).

The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.

As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.

Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.

Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.

Trying to force higher image resolutions just because some guy posting from a smart coffee maker wants them is honestly absurd. On this site, we allow larger images until someone goes overboard—if we see an extreme case, we just edit it and drop a link back to the source. That’s pretty much our whole philosophy. Sure, maybe 800x600 might give some trouble to people still rocking prehistoric 17" monitors, but honestly, that's their problem to deal with.