Posts by Sophia Thomas7

shadowpanther26 said:Look, let's be real: we aren't going to get any actual answers to those questions. We'll just get the usual corporate, copy-paste nonsense instead.

I think I made my reasoning perfectly clear when explaining why something was deleted.

shadowpanther26 said:I don't think anyone was actually insulted by what was posted here. He was just stating his opinion. If someone decided to call that opinion "idiotic," they weren't critiquing the idea—they were basically calling the guy himself an idiot.

Just because someone writes something "correctly" doesn't mean their "personal opinion" actually belongs in the conversation. One of our core rules on Reddit—where we specifically ask people to stop trying to police what’s considered "normal"—has saved a lot of us from unnecessary headaches. Honestly, it's the only thing keeping us from having to delete entire threads or start handing out bans like candy.

That one "personal opinion" just triggered a massive chain reaction of over 15 posts basically asking, "Why should we care if a father and son marry and then go even further with their own child?" Seriously? That kind of stuff has no place on Reddit, and it never will.

I left that comment from Kate Ward16 exactly as it was because it directly addresses those deleted posts. It felt wrong to scrub it when she’s just pointing out why they were removed in the first place.

If someone can't tell the difference between "that was written poorly" and "you're an idiot," there isn't much I can do to help them.

shadowpanther26 said:I’m not going to go so far as to call the moderators idiots, but I will say this: an institution like this forum really needs to be more careful about who they hand the keys to, and even more careful about how those people actually choose to use them.

Thanks for the critique. I hear you, but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree.

Hey there!

Christian Watson2 said:But if the post is full of insults:
you're still staying on the thread even though you're following it—imagine that. It’s not like you didn't notice the insult or anything controversial.[/url]

There's a massive difference between saying "You're an idiot" and "That was written idiotically."

Best,

Christian Watson2 said:they're vital to the conversation and serve as a permanent record of what was once an incredibly deep and detailed Reddit discussion.

Every single reply to you and one other user has been wiped—some people even got banned.

Best,

Christian Watson2 said:So, apparently, Reddit is running like a proletarian dictatorship—if you don't say exactly what the mods want, you just get wiped out...
To be clear, when I shared my take on the topic of gay love and marriage, I was being direct and didn't insult anyone:

If the moderators decide something doesn't belong in a thread, even if it's stated clearly and respectfully, they can still pull the plug.

Christian Watson2 said:I actually wrote a reply to this post, but it was deleted within minutes. My response was straightforward; I explained that incest is actually legal in some major cultures today and that literature is full of stories about romance between blood relatives... I might have poked a little fun at the user above (within reasonable limits), noting how he loves to wrap his "logical conclusions" in a fancy little insult.
Like I said, that reply vanished almost immediately. I sent a private message to Matthew Anderson since he’s been active in the thread. Here is what he said, for those interested:

It’s pretty simple. Every once in a while, a thread pops up on Reddit regarding the gay community or marriage equality. These threads always turn into a total battlefield of insults and fighting. Almost every single time, people start drawing parallels to incest, which then drags the conversation toward pedophilia. In the last two years, none of these discussions have ever turned into a rational dialogue; they just devolve into shouting matches. Because of that, the mods often have to step in, delete dozens of posts, and ban users. Arguments involving incest or pedophilia are removed as soon as they appear—no exceptions.

Even though Reddit isn't quite as formal as some of the heavy-duty forums out there, the mods try their best to ensure that, at the very least, the threads stay free of fights, insults, and chaos. Even before your specific comment came up, we had a similar situation where we had to nuked about 20 posts. This time, it was the same story.

Because of that, those kinds of posts get deleted and will continue to be deleted, because we don't feel they belong in this discussion. If the current moderation team decides to change this policy, we’ll let everyone know.

Christian Watson2 said:I never got a reply, but the next day Matthew Anderson posted this in the thread:

A moderator can, but they certainly aren't obligated to send you an explanation for why a post was removed. When we're busy deleting 20 posts in a row, I'm not sure how much time we'd have to explain the reasoning to every single user. Since I already posted an explanation in the thread stating that discussions about incest are off-limits, I didn't see the need to send you a DM.

Christian Watson2 said:Is this actually a Reddit thread? I mean, do we actually tolerate different viewpoints here, or is this just an echo chamber? I’m asking because I’d like to know how things are run around here. If I’ve genuinely messed up or offended someone, please just tell me exactly what my mistake was. But let’s skip the nonsense like "you aren't allowed to comment on a moderator's warning"—that part only showed up at the very end.
Thanks!

If a differing opinion derails the conversation and triggers a massive chain of arguments and insults, then no, we don't tolerate it, and those posts will be removed.

As for the "nonsense" regarding commenting on moderation, that rule is laid out pretty clearly right here in this thread..

Donna Young said:I’m honestly baffled by @Sophia Thomas7. Talk about hypocrisy!!! Even though this happened a while back, I still remember it vividly. How is it that I—someone who wasn't even stirring the pot—get slapped with a three-day ban, while the actual idiots who post nonsense, provoke people, and start fights everywhere get absolutely nothing??? 😲 😲 Where is the fairness??? 🙂 🙂

You’re complaining about something from ages ago, yet you haven't even received a single warning from me, let alone a ban. Plus, you’re venting in the wrong thread. Alright, point taken.

Edit: Correction, you now have one warning for commenting on moderation in the wrong thread/PDF.

Brenda Hayes16 said:I'm not joking around.
Go ahead and keep fighting amongst yourselves. You’re clearly just trying to stop a massive wave of interested folks from this sub ever getting a vote, all so you can keep running things however you want without anyone calling you out on your nonsense. 🤷

Look, you can't call it "objective" if you aren't being objective yourself. It’s a circular argument. Besides, moderating a community isn't exactly rocket science; the job shouldn't be so demanding that one single person has to shoulder the entire load for a thousand users. 🤷
And let’s not even get started on you guys actually putting in some real work on propaganda for the moderator slots just so you'd have actual candidates to pick from—though we all know that's the last thing you want to do. 🤷 So, we’re left asking the big question: why?

Honestly, it doesn't even matter for this specific thread. I’ve seen on a few different subreddits that there were candidates who actually wanted the job—people who had the support of the majority and even went on record during the appeal process explicitly stating they wanted the position. But nope. Not a chance. That moderator didn't even blink at their statement.

So, let me get this straight: we don't even have any candidates lined up, and you guys aren't even trying to stop the whole thing from going completely south because you’re too busy protecting your own little cushy seats and pushing that propaganda around. 🤷

This is great. So, I'm "not objective" simply because I mentioned that one person impressed me. Brilliant. Thanks for the deep philosophical exchange. 😁

feralotter2 said:Because maybe it could prevent one bad choice from simply replacing another.

My bad, I didn't realize this thread was about how the LJES mods aren't up to par and we need to start scouting for replacements. Totally missed that subtext.

Timothy Davis59 said:If there's something worth mentioning, then let's talk about it... 😁

Just throwing a comment out there for the sake of it, I guess. 😁

Brenda Hayes16 said:Oh sure, it's a total secret. Just like how one of you two refuses to actually name any candidates for your subforum.

Besides, it would be easy to just pop open a thread on the subforums, maybe even pin it to the top, titled something like: "Discussion regarding potential subforum moderators" or whatever. That way, you'd see a bunch of candidates—some actually serious ones—showing up, stating their availability, sharing their thoughts on the subforum, stuff like that.
Or, if you aren't going to do that for every single subforum, you could at least have one official, working thread somewhere on the site titled: "Applying for a Subforum Moderator Position."

Then you'd definitely have more interested people. Basically, you need to work on the propaganda for your own seats and show people they're actually available.

It's easy to just claim people aren't capable or simply don't want to.

Honestly, what’s the point in even mentioning it? It doesn't change a thing about who I think would be an excellent candidate.

Brenda Hayes16 said:It’s better, sure—but not from your perspective or the view the moderators have. I mean it from the perspective of the vast majority of people hanging out on Reddit.
A system of checks and balances to keep moderators from going rogue. Anyone got an issue with that? Yeah, the mods do.
Look, let's try to be a little objective here. You can't just have a handful of people making all the calls, or one single person running the whole show. At the very least, there should be an attempt to actually shake things up. If the admins or the Anderlon family decide to shut it down, fine—whatever. Good grief, they’re the bosses. Life goes on.

Look, fine. Let them hold a public admin vote or whatever happens at Anderlon. That’s really all anyone is asking for.

It’s not some kind of massive force or anything. It’s really just on you to pick out a few favorites based on what you actually like. Besides, nobody is forcing your hand here—the folks on Reddit usually just make their own choices anyway.

Look, the claims that everyone except for one single candidate is completely incompetent? They just don't hold water. Period. 🤷

What kind of "objectivity" are we even talking about? I told you I found one candidate suitable for my pdf. You’re insisting I need to add several more, even though I can't get behind those choices.

How exactly is that being objective?

Brenda Hayes16 said:No, you have to nominate a few others who, in your eyes, come closest to that "extraordinary" quality that one individual has.

That’s literally the whole point of an election. Not everyone is equally qualified, but people still get a choice.
Just look at any election around the world—governors, presidents, whatever.

The issue lies right there with that word "have." I don't *have* to, and I certainly don't intend to.

A system where a moderator is forced to list several candidates just to satisfy some idea of transparency—even when they don't actually agree with those choices—isn't any better than the current setup everyone is complaining about.

Brenda Hayes16 said:And I'm telling you, the issue lies with you, not with this subforum.

Anyone in power can claim there isn't a decent alternative—except for maybe that one person who's almost as bad as you lot.

I've already explained why this is your problem twice now, in a couple of posts just a little while ago.

Fine. Let's try this: why on earth do you think everyone else is too incompetent to be a moderator, aside from that one guy and, obviously, yourself?

I just feel like they're all inferior choices compared to that specific candidate, so I don't see the point in nominating them.

In other words, aside from that one person, nobody really stood out to me. So what? According to you, I'm supposed to nominate people I can't actually get behind.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Look, if you've got moderators acting like petty dictators, then the possibility of "inner circles" and cronyism becomes a very real concern that we HAVE to address.

And honestly, you guys seem terrified of people asking why certain names made the cut. That's just how the rules work, period. Subforum mods pick the candidates, and that's that. There shouldn't be any "why wasn't I picked?" whining; it's a moderator's choice. You just look at the list, vote for whoever you want, and move on.
Fair enough.

Sure, it *could* happen, but it doesn't *have* to be taken as a given. Of course, it's a possibility.

I'll say it again regarding this famous list. You're claiming there need to be several candidates. Right now, looking at my own PDF, I only see one. I'm not going to go out of my way and add two more candidates just to satisfy your obsession with "transparency" just so people have someone else to vote for.

Get it?

Brenda Hayes16 said:Voting exists specifically to curb moderator bias.
If the site needs two mods because, say, demand is high, then they should just say: "Hey everyone, this time we're voting for two out of these four candidates."
It's not exactly rocket science.
That way, we actually eliminate that sense of moderator unchecked power.

And believe me, if you look at how things are actually moderated right now, there's no shortage of potentially decent candidates. You can't just claim beforehand that someone won't do a good job.

The fact that you didn't know anyone is irrelevant. The bottom line is we need to reduce moderator favoritism and create some balance.
Give the actual users of a sub-forum a vote in who represents them.

That’s a pretty massive generalization to claim that moderator tyranny is happening across every single subforum.

Just wanted to add, I follow LjES quite a bit—and honestly, if someone told me right now that I’m overdoing it, they wouldn't be wrong. There's really only one woman on the forum who stands out to me because of the quality of her posts and just how she carries herself in a conversation. Compared to her, everyone else feels like a poor choice. So, what am I supposed to do? Scour the candidate list just to find more people to vote for?

The system sounds great on paper, but even if it were implemented, it would probably only be a tiny bit more transparent than what we have now. It might work, but it doesn't necessarily apply to every single PDF.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Look, I already explained this to dustyranger64 in my last post, so I won't bore you by repeating myself. There's only one candidate because they either have exactly one close friend or their criteria for others are way too intense (even if they aren't being hard on themselves). That’s the exact issue a new system needs to fix.

Nothing is less transparent than a bunch of mods picking someone behind closed doors. Anything else is an upgrade from that.

I still don't think there's a massive difference here, aside from the actual transparency provided by the voting process. They’d basically just propose the moderators they were going to pick anyway, chat with them beforehand, and then toss it to a vote. And then the inevitable questions would start: "Why are Mickey and Pero on the list but John isn't?"

As for the whole "friends" thing—unless there's hard evidence, which I can't really claim since I don't know every single moderator on this forum—it's all just pure speculation.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Nah, you've got it backwards. The mods suggest the candidates, and then the users vote on them.

The problem?

You're operating under the assumption that there are always five high-quality users willing to step up for moderator roles. (Or maybe just two or three).

What happens if the current mods only see one viable candidate? Last time we were hashing out the expansion of LjES, if I remember correctly, there were only about three potential candidates—and two of them actually turned down the chance.

The truth is, no matter which way you slice it, no method is ever going to be perfectly transparent to everyone.

Brenda Hayes16 said:I mean, what else were you going to do besides talk down to people on certain subforums? It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually read your post. Fine, let's say you think they're just "lesser" members—so much so that they need to be silenced when it comes to having a say.

They need a vote because it affects them; they're active participants in the very subforum where we're looking for a mod. Just like how citizens get to vote for the government and the President, even if they aren't perfect or "ideal" voters.

Here’s the catch. Take the LjES and xyz threads, where people were basically arguing that a woman’s only value is her ability to have kids. Based on those discussions, there’s definitely a critical mass of people who feel that way. Now, imagine if they're the ones proposing a moderator who actually shares those views.

The current mods are saying "no way." And once again, some people are going to claim the system isn't being "transparent" enough.

Brenda Hayes16 said:The regulars in a specific sub-forum, as well as any mod going through the impeachment process, know everything about everyone there.

Because of that, they’re the ones best qualified to choose. Post count definitely isn't a measure of authority. Sure, let's say popularity plays a role—that makes sense. People naturally gravitate toward popular figures, but being popular doesn't mean someone is a clown just performing for the crowd to keep a sub-forum entertained. Most popular users earn their status through objectivity and smart posts, things people actually value. Besides, nobody actually wants a clown in a moderator position.

Let me give you a concrete example:

Mods for a particular section should nominate five candidates from within that section and notify all the forum members who have voting rights.
They’ll be the ones who know who actually shows up regularly, and those are the people with the right to vote.
Then a public vote happens. Simple as that.

Why would that be considered bad? And why would appointing a moderator's buddy be any fairer?

Also, why are you assuming the forum would turn into Yahoo! or some endless chat room? First of all, enforcement there is almost non-existent, off-topic posts happen on every single thread, and the principles are totally different. Here, we actually have penalties and reports, which is the fundamental difference.

So, yeah, your arguments don't really hold water.

Were you ever a moderator over at Yahoo!? Because I used to be a Supermod, and at one point, I was managing a pretty massive collection of PDFs. Back when they introduced that new system where anyone could become a mod just by hitting a certain post count on the PDF section and then getting a vote from the community—the best part of the staff vanished from the forum forever.

I won't even get started on how a specific group of people were appointed just to go on personal vendettas against everyone else. Or how often it happened that two mods on the PDF section had totally opposing views, leading to one banning someone while the other unbans them, or one locking a thread while the other unlocks it.

How are you even going to prevent people from voting using clone accounts? And if the voting is public, what stops a group of people who aren't even active on the PDF section from casting votes? At the end of the day, just because someone has racked up 232,352 posts and is "popular" doesn't mean their contributions are actually objective or high quality.

Admins are marked in purple, and supermods show up in red.

Sam Wright21 said:Well, I actually went ahead and requested a permanent ban from Lies just to escape that moderator who refuses to follow any actual logic.

But even then, he manages to haunt me over at Linguistics. It feels like a lost cause 🙂 The man is simply immune to reason.

I’m asking if you could please reverse my Permaban on Lies; I used to find such fascinating psychological discussions there, and unfortunately, they aren't available here in the USA, which leaves me with nowhere to ask questions or offer advice.

As for Philosophy, I took a permanent ban there too, though the Executioner operates with a much more sophisticated level of malice.

dustyranger64 isn't quite like that, so I suspect I could easily bypass him just for the sake of my own amusement.

What’s your take on all this?

Best,

If I’m reading you right, you’re having issues with dustyranger64. Because of that, you sought out a partial ban on Lies. Now you're running into trouble on other subreddits where he's a moderator, yet you're asking to have the partial ban removed from Lies where he's also a moderator?

What exactly would be the reasoning for moderators to collectively agree to lift a partial ban?