Posts by Sophia Thomas7

steelskipper5 said:The only forum I know that tried to fight back against moderator and admin authority by using democratic methods ended up driving away almost every single user before dying a slow, painful death (that would be the FFZG forum, if you really care).

You could also point to the old American Usenet days, where a lack of mods or admins caused entire groups of people to just pack up and leave all at once.

steelskipper5 said:That’s just because you’re reading into it and finding subtext related to certain threads on LjES.
Since I haven't found anything interesting on LjES for quite some time—and given that the author actually participated in the very thread I'm talking about—it seems pretty obvious that we're looking at a much deeper issue here.

Honestly, maybe it wouldn't hurt to shine a light on this for the supermods and the administration too; Nica and Strile might want to take note, since this looks like exactly the kind of thing I've been warning them about.

I mean, it really wouldn't hurt if, whenever an author starts a thread like this, they didn't make it so vague that we all have to play a guessing game. It would be much better if they just linked directly to the specific issues.

urbantrucker5 said:I’ve got a complaint about how things are moderated here on the forum. You guys have let trolling go on for way too long, letting people like Carl Fisher7 run wild at the expense of everyone else trying to have a real conversation.

The guy spent ten pages completely misinterpreting the law. Then he admitted he was wrong, but claimed he only said it because we supposedly implied something we didn't actually say. Once people would quote him directly to show what was actually said, he’d just deny he ever said it. Then they'd quote him again, call out his lies, and he’d just pivot right back to marriage laws. It was just one endless loop.

He totally derailed an perfectly fine topic, which prompted a lot of complaints. So, yeah, I’m also frustrated with the moderation here—you’ve been way too lenient with Carl Fisher7, just like you’ve been too soft on other trolls in the past.

After he started lying about what people had said—or denying his own words—the whole thread basically turned into a troll fest.

A few of us ended up complaining and just walking away from a really interesting discussion, all because of Carl Fisher7.

After talking it over, the mods decided there was no need to go overboard with bans or dissecting the thread, since we can always steer the conversation back on track. If we had needed to get tougher, we would have.

Ashley Taylor45 said:I’m asking the admins to please protect the women here from any more of Greenlander's outbursts on this forum. For good.

Like dustyranger64 mentioned, if this kind of rhetoric keeps up—we're looking at a total meltdown.

I can't believe I'm even typing this, but apparently, we need to talk about what happened earlier. Honestly, I’m still a little embarrassed, but let's just get it out in the open. I was trying to stay focused, but then things just went sideways. It wasn't exactly my finest moment, and looking back, I probably should have seen it coming. Anyway, that's the situation. Just wanted to clear the air. kaže:
So, first off, here’s the deal:
Starting a thread with a terrible first post... yeah, I'm locking this one immediately.
So, once we've got the lockdown sorted, here's what I'm thinking for our next move:
Hey everyone, I’m starting this thread—let's make it a good one. I promise I won't lock it immediately, so feel free to jump in.

Trust me, you aren’t the first person here to have a thread locked because of a messy opening, and you certainly won't be the last one asked to start fresh with a better intro.

Jose Edwards16 said:And if I were to start a whole new thread—mostly because I just love explaining myself and being brutally honest—I’d probably have to kick things off like this:
Since my last thread got nuked because of my terrible intro, I’m basically sticking my hand back into the lion's den, hoping for the best this time around.... and so on.🙂

So, what you’re actually saying is that you "can't" start a new thread without it turning into a provocation because of how heated this topic has become. Let's be real here—you totally could start a new one. You just don't want to, because deep down, you're looking for a little way to stir the pot. Since we're all being honest with each other now.

I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say there. You might want to try again! kaže:
Some people in this thread thought this was just a troll post—and honestly, I thought it sounded pretty suspicious too. But before long, the conversation shifted away from the actual breakup and turned into a massive debate about the video game he was playing instead. For example:

None of those "involved parties" actually flagged this thread as trolling. Just because you and a few others feel like it's a troll post doesn't mean that's actually what it is.

Jose Edwards16 said:Since my thread got locked, I guess we'll never know if it actually would have sparked any interesting discussions.

Your thread got locked because:
You really went and dumped this into four different threads at once.
Honestly, it feels like your only real purpose in life was becoming a walking collection of hyperlinks.

So, both the Mod and the Supermod went out of their way to explain that the whole point of this forum is actual discussion, not just dumping links and calling it a day. Since you’re completely ignoring that logic, I honestly think continuing this conversation is just a waste of everyone's time.

If the admins think the LjES needs a dedicated thread just for dropping links, feel free to let us know right here.

Jose Edwards16 said:Can you "debate" using just images instead of words? Sure, why not?
For instance, someone posts a photo of Blanka Vlašić in a thread about beauties. Someone else replies right under it with a picture of Antonija Mišura.
In words, it would look like this:
Poster 1: I think Vlašić is hot.
Post 2: Well, I prefer Mišura.
(+a picture is worth a thousand words!)

The current moderators at LjES (not to mention the others) don't consider that kind of thing a discussion. If a debate starts where one person goes "She's great" and the next says "I like her," they'd lock it instantly. LjES even held a few polls to pick our "top model" (or something similar)—they were shut down immediately. None of them ever led to an actual conversation.

Basically, we're expected to have meaningful discussions, not just dump links and photos or list who is hot and who isn't.

Jose Edwards16 said:Starting a new thread on this subject feels like poking the moderators. Even if I start a thread following their instructions, they'll just find something they don't like—meaning they won't like it—and lock it. Besides, they said the topic itself wasn't bad, but my first post was. So why not just leave a warning or some advice under my post and let the thread stay open?🤔
Great topic. Bad post. Locked.☕

Two of the LjES moderators told you the exact same thing -> start a thread with a solid topic and feel free to include a link. Thinking that you're "provoking" them is strictly your own interpretation.

Apophis pointed out that you crammed four different topics into one, and I have to agree with him.

Jose Edwards16 said:I don't get why simply posting pictures (in the appropriate thread) wouldn't fit the profile of lonely hearts. Since that thread is closed, I don't think I'd achieve anything by opening a new one just for photos (other than getting a warning or a lock) because apparently, it doesn't fit the vibe of that forum, meaning the moderator doesn't like it.

The thread had a real discussion at the start, but later it turned into nothing but people dropping images without any substance. The moderators (all four of the US mods) discussed it in the staff section and decided that, as it stood, it didn't fit the US profile. It wasn't just about one moderator being picky.

Jose Edwards16 said:Nah, it’s just because on the Lonely Hearts section we aren't allowed to just dump photos everywhere since that doesn't really fit the vibe of this forum. We're supposed to actually talk about beauty and attractive people, maybe toss in a photo here and there to support the conversation!🙂

It’s pretty straightforward: the mods don't think it fits the spirit of the US, where everyone tries to stick to their own specific topics. It's kind of like how the moderators over at LjES feel that posting random images or links just isn't the right move for LjES.

Jose Edwards16 said:Is just dropping links supposed to kickstart a conversation around here?🤔

If you drop a link as backup to back up your point, then sure—it's possible people might actually click through and check it out. Otherwise? Not really.

Jose Edwards16 said:Isn't it technically still a discussion if someone just drops a random link as a response to my post?

If someone actually takes the time to include their link along with a solid argument? Sure, I'm in. But if they just drop a naked link with zero context? Yeah, absolutely not.

Jose Edwards16 said:Maybe we’d actually get some decent discussions going if topics weren't being shut down so aggressively!

You started a new thread just like Apophis suggested, but you're still clinging to one single topic instead of spreading it out across four. If we actually branch out, then maybe we'll finally see some real discussion happen.

Jose Edwards16 said:Yeah, I'm sure my thread would end up being a goldmine of random, yet somehow interesting links.

But what’s actually the point of a thread if everyone just drops a link and leaves with a "hey, look at this" attitude?

Christian Cook6 said:I'm with everyone on this. 🙂

Look, I can just speak for myself. 😁 This movie's a snooze—the characters are totally bland and mostly miscast (except for Wolverine). But honestly? The biggest letdown is Gambit. He’s nothing like he was in the comics or the animated series; it feels like they just slapped the same name on a completely different character. 😁

If we’re being nitpicky about it, then none of them count because they aren't wearing those yellow suits. 😬

steelskipper5 said:Honestly, it’s even better to just grab a handful of random, unrelated words—like that famous correct horse battery staple method. Something like “woman mother queen” might actually be a bit risky nowadays since those terms are getting pretty common in data leaks. Or you could just type out a full sentence and intentionally throw in a typo—you know, hit a key right next to the intended one or swap two characters around.

Or, you know, just use something like LastPass, which honestly has some of the best password generators out there.

Just wanted to point out that Satan has a few properties over in Jersey, but clearly, he’s been using clones to post all the same stuff.

brightpuma said:I'm with Alex on this one. This is definitely an issue that should have been handled better.

The only thing I'm stuck on is what you'd actually call it based on what you wrote. Where does someone acting intentionally dense fit in? Is that just trolling, or does it count as disrupting the discussion? 🤷

Look, I get it—there are plenty of clueless people out there. But honestly, jumping into a debate when you clearly can't follow along or don't know the subject matter? That feels like disruption too.

Look, why not just skip the "trolling" ban and go with a custom "disrupting the conversation" strike instead? Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

MalaVrana said:"Trolling" is such a beautifully elastic term. It’s incredibly stretchy. And mods just use it whenever they feel like being difficult."🙂

What about those moderator clones who act like common pests, trolling people all over this forum?

Take, for example, some user with a mystic vibe and a string of numbers—I can't recall the exact handle right now. Every single one of her posts is pure trolling. Literally every single one. And yet... nothing happens. No warnings, no bans, nothing.🙂

Since you're already throwing accusations about mod clones, who exactly are we talking about? I've been using this handle since the Usenet days, back when IRC was my whole world, so I don't see much point in running clones. Honestly, this conspiracy theory of yours feels a little over the top.

It’s roughly like having an IP address that lets you pinpoint someone's exact location through a tracking program. ☕

Wait, what does FFS actually stand for?

casualsailor6 said:Basically, I'm asking because Cindy keeps clogging up the EPA forums with these mindless threads and hasn't been banned—let alone permanently.

I’ve no clue who banned you before or what the deal was, but we have a "new" mod team now, which means the whole way the EPA is moderated has changed.

Generally speaking, the logic of "why was I banned before when someone else can post stupid stuff and stay active" is a bit shaky, but regardless, Cindy actually got a warning from Ares during that last ridiculous thread, noting that the next time it happens, they're getting hit with a direct sanction.

brightstag9 said:Great. Now I guess I need to write a PhD thesis detailing every single step of the election process. 😁 Honestly, if you use even a shred of common sense, you'll see this isn't some brilliant idea. If you need ten moderators, you hold a vote and the first ten people to hit the mark get the job. Simple. That would definitely be fairer than what we have now. So, how are mods actually picked today?
As for the rating system, look, I think the suggestion is solid. Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean we should toss the idea out. You implement safeguards to stop that from happening. It's like saying the government shouldn't hold elections because people might cheat, or we shouldn't have a court system because judges might be corrupt. That's a weak argument.
Plus, there'd probably be way less fighting with staff if the community actually chose its own moderators. Right now, it feels like nobody can figure out how to pick them. People aren't here for the mods; the mods exist for the people. If there are no users, the mods have nothing to moderate.
BTW, this thread is about suggestions for improvement, and your response to the proposal was basically "you don't pay for it and you can leave anytime".

Look, I already laid out why none of those suggestions are actually doable without running into a massive wall of issues. And do you seriously believe that once someone is democratically elected to lead, they won't face a wave of resentment or "hate" from people down the line? 🙂

brightpuma said:Honestly, I hope you realize, as a moderator, that strikes last a full month. I don't know about you, but I don't write ten posts a month, so it's not like I'm tracking exactly when my strikes expire.
Your explanation about repeated offenses after warnings is honestly a joke. It’s like, okay, I get one strike, then another two weeks later, then the final one two weeks after that, and suddenly I shouldn't complain about the last one because the first two were "justified." So if the last one was actually unfair? Well, tough luck.

Besides, you had a perfect example recently over at that local community board where someone was banned for three days and nobody gave her a single response. Then, a day or two ago, she admitted here that maybe she shouldn't have gotten the strike, but by the time they realized it, the ban was almost over anyway. Just pointing that out as a recent example of how nobody ever speaks up on those boards. Not saying it happens every time, though.

Regarding brightstag9's suggestion about downvoting moderators. We really should implement some kind of rating system or something. I just haven't figured out the specifics. Maybe like user strikes, but for moderators, handled by administration based on user complaints. Provided the user actually gives a solid reason for the complaint, of course.

Like Nicholas King mentioned, there’s already a mechanism in place where negative feedback accumulates even if the admins don't officially log it in a moderator's file. I actually asked brightstag9 earlier how that specific part would function.

I once visited a forum that used the exact system he's describing (it looks like they imported the code from somewhere), and honestly, after seeing it in action, I thought the people who implemented it were out of their minds. It just doesn't work at all.

frozenowl3 said:I haven't seen a single appeal actually upheld. Sure, maybe there are tiny oversights here and there, but bans stay in place. You always seem to find even the most absurd justifications just to ensure you aren't proven wrong—I've read plenty of those threads on the forums, and honestly, they’re quite the entertainment.

It reached a point where I had to comment on how ridiculous a situation was: a user got banned in the pet section simply because she asked why her cat had been returned when there was no explanation provided. I mean, I was asking myself the exact same thing!

You see all kinds of things on the internet... But if a user is actually right? Never.

Actually, you're wrong there. There have been plenty of cases where warnings were rescinded, just like bans being lifted.

frozenowl3 said:Well, I’ve been keeping an eye on the N/A logs, and there is a massive amount of reports filed against very specific moderators who are still active. It makes me wonder if any of the mods people are actually complaining about will end up being stripped of their titles soon.

If we're following that logic...

If someone complains about a moderator for issuing a warning or a ban, the supermods and admins review it, and if they uphold the decision, the ban sticks. So, why would the moderator be removed?

The only way a moderator gets booted is if users are constantly flagging them, and the admins realize they're actually in the wrong. In those cases, their tenure is going to be pretty short-lived. 😁

brightstag9 said:Two ideas here:
1:
Why can't we just vote for our own moderators? You know, actual democracy. Everyone talks a big game about being democratic, but the moderation team runs this place like a total dictatorship. Let people run for office. Every user gets one vote, and we decide who's in charge. Simple.
2:
At the very least, let users give moderators "minus" votes. If a mod collects enough of them, they lose their badge and have to step down. That way, they’d actually have to watch how they act instead of acting like power-tripping jerks you see on those massive US message boards.

How many votes would it actually take for someone to become a moderator, and from which users? If the threshold is low, it’s way too easy for a small group to just coordinate and vote for whoever they want. If it’s high, we might never see a single new moderator. Also, do negative votes count against the positive ones? Who gets to vote—just people in the specific sub-forum being moderated, or everyone on the site? And is there a minimum post count required to participate in the voting?

Besides, you're preaching democracy on a forum that isn't yours, one you don't pay for, and one you can walk away from whenever you feel like it.😬

brightstag9 said:Two ideas here:
1:
Why can't we just vote for our own moderators? You know, actual democracy. Everyone talks a big game about being democratic, but the moderation team runs this place like a total dictatorship. Let people run for office. Every user gets one vote, and we decide who's in charge. Simple.
2:
At the very least, let users give moderators "minus" votes. If a mod collects enough of them, they lose their badge and have to step down. That way, they’d actually have to watch how they act instead of acting like power-tripping jerks you see on those massive US message boards.

If anyone gets their post deleted or receives a warning, they’ll just throw a downvote at the moderator. How are you supposed to decide which downvotes are legitimate and which are just petty? What if someone creates a burner account, starts a thread, and then the thread gets deleted—do they get to downvote the mod for that?

Both of these ideas have been tried on other forums before, and the results were pretty messy:
- A massive wave of bans because certain mods just became untouchable by using alt accounts or rallying their friends.
- Half of the PDF sections ended up without any moderators because nobody could ever scrape together enough votes to win an election.

😬