Posts by Sophia Thomas7

Nicholas King said:

Susan Price30 Asks:
Potential legal liability—it’s one of those things that people just seem to gloss over until it’s too late, I guess. There's this constant, nagging question hanging over everything: where does the responsibility actually lie? Maybe it's a gray area, or maybe we just don't talk about the consequences enough. It's a messy subject, honestly—full of nuances and "what-ifs" that can turn a simple situation into a total nightmare if you aren't careful. One wrong move, one oversight in following the Law of the USA, and suddenly you're staring down a massive headache that could have been avoided with a little more foresight. It’s a heavy topic, but it bears repeating—you really have to consider the fallout before you dive headfirst into something. Honestly, I’ve got to say—Reddit is absolutely killing it lately. It makes those old-school message boards look like ancient history..

I don't think you're quite right on this one—if I may be so bold.

Pretty much spot on. As far as I know, our current laws haven't really caught up to make platform owners liable yet; for now, the buck still stops with the end user.

Henry Kim3 said:

And why is that?

Now you're treating me like I'm the absolute LAST PIECE OF TRASH

on this entire planet...!

There are actually a few reasons. Before the split even happened, you were asked several times to tone down your rhetoric, but you just wouldn't listen. Then, once the split went through, you ended up opening a clone account.

So, honestly, I don't see any point in removing the partition from the main forum.

It’s staying on the NYSE; there’s honestly just no logical reason to pull a partial liquidation now.

Drew Lee7 said:I mean, just look at who’s even left among the long-time users on LJS: Apophis, @Phiber, Miki1988, and div, who basically just pop in to drop their mindless comments.

Every single one of the "controversial" regulars was kicked out ages ago, or they just lost the will to deal with this subforum entirely.

If by "controversial" you mean people who think they have a free pass to insult others, troll, or just be generally obnoxious, then honestly, I'm glad the troublemakers are gone. Besides, LJS remains one of the busiest boards here, so claims about people leaving don't really hold much water.

Anyway, everyone's entitled to their own take. I'll let you know what the mods decide.

Nicholas Williams7 said:Look, this thread is actually constructive. It’s a decent spot for people to hash things out and trade perspectives, so I honestly don't see any legitimate reason why it should have been locked up in the first place!

Look, the reasons have already been laid out. Once I have a chance to sit down with the moderators and hash out the specifics of what happened with her, maybe we can reopen it. But for now, while everyone is still worked up—it stays closed.

Wrong thread for an appeal. ->

Besides, since this entire thread has been pretty much fueled by your blatant misogyny—which honestly crossed the line a long time ago—I’m actually surprised it hasn't been locked yet. But don't worry, we'll get that sorted out.

Henry Hernandez7 said:Honestly, they should probably check in with the technical admins about sending out some kind of system alert since a user actually replied inside that PDF. Or something along those lines.

Why though? You think this is spam? The forum only pinged me because Henry Hernandez7 decided to write a reply inside a troll PDF.

Henry Hernandez7 said:1. It’s mostly about keeping the clutter down in the main thread.

2. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. We aren't trolling the master thread; everyone stays happy.

3. Fair enough, we could tackle that on the side, though I don't think it's a dealbreaker. Hey, feel free to be the moderator of that thread if you're that eager.

1. You're starting from the assumption that everyone actually wants to move the conversation to a new thread, which isn't necessarily true. I don't see a massive crowd of people wanting to run two parallel discussions on the exact same topic.

2. Like I said before, the trolls—or those who swear they aren't trolls—are just going to keep posting in the master thread regardless.

3. No thanks, I haven't lost my mind.

😁

Henry Hernandez7 said:3. It’s not a bad idea for those of us who enjoy stirring the pot a little.

In other words, your proposed subreddit serves no purpose other than giving you and your crew of troublemakers a private corner where you can be moderated even less than we are here.

The whole thing is fundamentally flawed. You won't even be on the main sub, yet someone on some troll thread will quote a post from the main site, and nobody will respond—except for the specific group that calls the troll sub their home base.

Henry Hernandez7 said:4. I’d actually volunteer to moderate that sub myself under Admin’s mentorship. We’d target stuff like "you're an idiot" or "go to a strip club," rather than punishing people for just being incredibly sarcastic. That’s the whole point of a sub like that.

Given your track record of drama, I highly doubt anyone would ever back you for a moderator position.

Henry Hernandez7 said:Just send a link if that's how they want to argue. Or, if the author isn't feeling it, they can just vent their frustrations "from the heart" instead.

If we go down that road, you’re looking at a real mess:
a) any post saying "I replied via the link" would basically be flagged as spam.
b) even if those don't get nuked, what happens when the person you actually decided to reply to in a new thread just... ignores you?

I'm honestly worried that some trollish PDF would end up with its own little fanbase—people who don't actually contribute anything except waiting for a fight just to fan the flames. How on earth would an Admin manage that?

Henry Hernandez7 said:Why not? Anyone can chime in!

Seriously though, feel free to throw out whatever suggestions you've got.

How is anyone supposed to tell if a post was actually moved over to the new PDF?

Henry Hernandez7 said:It’s pretty much the same thing—you aren't starting a whole new thread, just replying to the quoted post with your own take.

And you're just leaving a link on the main thread?

Would that PDF include trolling attempts from every single subforum, or are we just talking about specific ones?

If I’m following your logic correctly, I stay polite when I’m posting on one thread—but then I decide to be a jerk, jump over to a different thread, and start trolling there instead?

Michelle Alvarez8 said:The real issue is—honestly?—even the admins don't seem to get it.

Of course nobody is checking file sizes when most of the community has been on high-speed unlimited data plans for years! Seriously—it's not like we're stuck on dial-up or ISDN where every kilobyte counts. If we can stream music on YouTube or download torrents without breaking a sweat, why shouldn't we be able to load an 800x600px photo that’s probably barely 200KB?

As for moderation, it's all about the rules. If there's a limit on image size, then anyone pushing past it should just get a warning. Besides, it shouldn't be that hard to teach gamers how to use thumbnails from a hosting service, right? 🤷

I went ahead and settled on 800x600 images. Honestly, I don't mind if they're all identical. 😉

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Yeah, we all know that.

Same here.

It’s not "might" render—the client's browser *actually* renders it. No photo is sitting on the forum's servers eating up resources, nor is there some massive load that would crash them.

Aside from the fact that I've never seen an animated GIF at 640x480 resolution, users really need to realize—hopefully through experience—that opening huge files takes longer to load. Also, the admins should remember that the rule against images larger than 640x480 was made years ago, back when we were using much smaller monitors. They also need to acknowledge that image size doesn't actually strain the servers, so they should really just penalize posts that mess up the forum layout—which is easy enough to do even with images smaller than 640x480.

Look, we don't "all" know this. On a subreddit where half the crowd can't even figure out how to set up a signature or use the multi-quote tool, what I just laid out is strictly advanced stuff. Just because you and I are on the same page doesn't mean everyone else is.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Yeah, we all know that.

Same here.

It’s not "might" render—the client's browser *actually* renders it. No photo is sitting on the forum's servers eating up resources, nor is there some massive load that would crash them.

Aside from the fact that I've never seen an animated GIF at 640x480 resolution, users really need to realize—hopefully through experience—that opening huge files takes longer to load. Also, the admins should remember that the rule against images larger than 640x480 was made years ago, back when we were using much smaller monitors. They also need to acknowledge that image size doesn't actually strain the servers, so they should really just penalize posts that mess up the forum layout—which is easy enough to do even with images smaller than 640x480.

The comment was basically saying that people don't really care about how heavy the image files are. Honestly, if you look at PC gaming, where everyone is constantly demanding these massive, high-res textures that take up gigabytes, we can definitely expect the same kind of thing here on Reddit. That said, if you decide to allow higher resolutions—which, personally, I’m fine with since I’m long past the era of using a tiny 14" CRT monitor—you should probably prepare for a lot more huge files hitting the threads.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Before we vote or make any final calls, wouldn't it be helpful to actually understand how this thing works?


Look, since these images aren't even hosted on our own servers—they're just pulled from external hosting sites or random websites that have nothing to do with us via URLs—the forum doesn't actually care about the image size at all. It's not the forum doing the rendering; it's just your own browser! The site is basically just a middleman placing the image on your screen, and you'll find all those photos sitting in your local cache folders anyway, not on our servers.

So, my vote is YES for larger images. There’s zero technical reason or objective logic to say no.

Technically, you could host stuff directly on the forum servers, but Reddit doesn't have that enabled, though a few other sites do. If you just drop an image in using a URL tag, you won't run into any issues.

However, if you use an IMG tag, even if your browser manages to render it, it’s still going to drag things down. Like I said, if you try to shove a massive 10 MB photo through an IMG tag, you're definitely going to notice a lag while that 10 MB loads, at least until it hits your cache.

I doubt most people will actually do it, but there are plenty of unoptimized animated GIFs floating around out there being used by idiots.

northerncyclist2 said:Under the current Reddit rules, the maximum image size is capped at 640 * 480 px. I guess that rule probably dates back to when monitors were tiny and most Americans were still stuck using slow dial-up connections.

But things are totally different now, I mean, almost everyone—probably 99.9%—has high-speed broadband or fast mobile data, plus big high-res monitors, and even phones. Images that small just feel way too tiny these days.

So, I was thinking maybe we could bump the maximum image size up to 800*600 pixels, or maybe even 1024*768 pixels if it makes sense for the specific vibe of a certain sub-forum.

If you guys are on board with this, maybe cast a vote in the poll and leave a comment 🙂

Just a little side note: changing the image size won't actually affect the forum's performance or the server itself, since the images aren't even hosted on the Reddit servers and nothing is being processed there during loading.

Try linking to a massive 10 MB image from an external site and watch how fast the page loads when it isn't already sitting in your cache.

It absolutely makes a difference.

Nice story, man. Almost believable, too.

Jack Ward82 said:You can't compare the seriousness of LJES to the Lonely Heart section. It’s entirely possible that Nicole Ruiz felt the usual crowd on LJES—he checked the topic list, after all—wasn't his target demographic, so he and his girlfriend decided to hunt for something "more serious" over in Lonely Heart. The purpose of the PDF is one thing, but deleting ads that aren't even breaking the rules, any more than any other tolerated posts, is nothing short of discrimination 🙂 (look, the whole point of the Super Bowl is deciding which team is the best that year, but if I'm watching it just for the halftime commercials, nobody's going to kick me out as long as I'm acting like everyone else, right?) 🤷

The US Forum is the only one that even hosts those kinds of ads; it's not about which one is more "serious." 🍿 As for the deletion issue, I'm with you on that. 😁

Ashley Bishop4 said:Sorry, but how on earth would you know what the actual goal of the Advertisement is? 😉

You're basically just trapping yourself in a circular argument here. If what you said above is true, how can you be so sure Nicole Ruiz was looking for a hookup instead of just someone to go for long walks with? 😁