Look, at the end of the day, I don't think anyone should—or even *can*—force themselves to be humble. True humility isn't some act you put on; it’s what happens naturally when we're actually doing well, feeling content, and genuinely grateful. When you feel like life has actually been kind to you and you're just enjoying the ride, humility follows suit—it's automatic. You lose that desperate, pathetic need to step on other people just to boost your own ego or "win" an argument to salvage some bruised self-esteem. When you're truly happy, you can give freely without expecting a damn thing in return.
My message pertains to this specific thread—which has since been locked, so I’m effectively shouting into the void here:
So, let me be perfectly clear about my position:
I didn't start this thread because I had some desperate desire to get my deleted posts restored (?!). It isn't as if those posts contained anything groundbreaking or vital to the discussion—quite the opposite. Neither the topic nor anyone else loses anything by them being gone. They were completely irrelevant. She insisted on pivoting the entire conversation toward two or three of my old posts—posts that have zero weight in this whole situation—and I merely referenced them in my reply to address her specific point.
My actual goal was to address the overall moderation style and how the staff treats the community based on that entire PDF document. (And in that context, I don't see an issue with other users chiming in with their perspectives—and I am specifically referring to people sharing genuine opinions, not the trolls who just show up to stir the pot.)
I honestly don't know how much more clearly I can put this, so I'll use Behemoth as an example of how things should be done. First off, she actually understood the subject matter and engaged meaningfully in discussions. Second, she had a sharp sense of what actually mattered versus what didn't—knowing when someone was being excessive, distinguishing true trolling from just harmless banter, etc. Third, she knew exactly how to handle sensitive situations without making anyone feel attacked or insulted. That—right there—is what is missing here, and the absence is glaring.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my impression, which is ultimately inconsequential. I'm barely a regular here anyway; it’s better if the power users are the ones shaping the forum to suit their needs.
But I can't help feeling like you basically told the moderator: "Just send all the disgruntled users over here, and I'll tell them you're right so we can shut this down."
Which is exactly what happened. However, I suspect you haven't even bothered to read what the actual issue is—because it certainly isn't about those deleted posts you went through checking—so I felt the need to clarify my stance here.
Yeah, and when you deleted my post about psychiatry—that was an insult. Whether it’s labeled "Off" or just a response to something else, it's the same thing. When you wiped out Seven Nation Army’s post about how that vegan restaurant downtown is going to tank if they don't add meat to the menu—that’s an insult too. And when you scrubbed Jason Grant’s post where he called out some girl for lying after she gave this absolutely wild speech about certain pills—that’s also an insult, whether it's "Off" or a direct reply...
I’m not even on this forum that often, but I managed to catch all of this in a split second before the posts vanished—who knows how many tons of content you’ve actually purged? Other users—from the science section, if I recall correctly, where there’s never been any bickering unless you count people intentionally messing with each other—have also been dropping by to ask what's going on and why everything is being deleted.
I just came here to say that I think you’ve gone way too far. While I get that you're trying to clean up "Off" topics and insults—and maybe doing it a bit too aggressively (because honestly, it doesn't matter if someone goes slightly off-topic once in a while—like asking about summoning demons in a True horror event thread instead of under Magic and mysticism)—on the flip side, you are severely undermining free speech and the social fabric of this forum. People should be allowed to be who they are.
And frankly, I think that second point is just as vital.
I honestly couldn't tell if that apology was meant to be sarcastic or what.
No, I don't think it's baseless just because I personally dislike it—I'm saying it's baseless because there were absolutely no grounds for a deletion in the first place. You shouldn't be able to just wipe someone out simply because they don't share your specific writing style or because you happen to find their tone negative.
I post on other subforums using different handles, yet I use the exact same writing style—and NO ONE HAS EVER deleted my posts due to "back-and-forth" arguing (let alone systematically scrubbing everything I write). Even when there is some level of what you might call "clashing," I sometimes even play devil's advocate specifically to spark a real debate. In fact, the only time I’ve ever had a post removed was when I was posting negative takes on conventional medicine in the Psychology section—which actually violated that specific forum's rules, but it wasn't because of any arguing.
I've already covered most of this in my previous post, anyway—it's not exactly difficult for me to recap. I just wanted to lay out my observations here as a bit of feedback, because I don't think you realize how it feels to users when you constantly try to force them into a box—and then refuse to let them participate in the discussions if they don't fit.
I didn't come here to ask anything about my own threads—I am strictly here to leave a message and comment regarding my thoughts on your general selection as a moderator for this alternative platform. I have zero intention of posting links; anyone can see what’s happening, and frankly, time will tell—other people have eyes, too, and they’ll figure it out themselves.
As for those deleted posts, the reality is that I was winning 2-0. This is the second time Seven Nation Army has charged in with baseless claims to attack Jason Grant, and both times—with help from Lorelai—I used actual arguments to drive him into a corner until he started dodging the point. The first time happened during that debate about cannabis oil, where he attacked Jason Grant by calling him stupid and claiming the oil is made only from seeds—which was a pathetic fail, considering the oil comes from the buds. Just like that first time, he started pulling the "stay out of this, I'm talking to Jason Grant" card. I was actually enjoying the exchange and was curious to see what kind of excuse he’d pull next—only for you to swoop in, completely missing the nuance of the discussion, and delete everything. You "saved" him and effectively trashed an entire morning of my effort. So, there's your reason!
Because, contrary to your approach, I find much more satisfaction in silencing someone with logic than with censorship! (Just so we are clear: deleting posts is a massive sign of disrespect toward a person.)
Besides, Seven Nation Army is just here to troll; honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he's just some loser in real life—you really shouldn't take him so seriously. Not everyone shares your specific way of expressing themselves, and it is fundamentally wrong to censor anyone who doesn't mirror your personality.
Last time, you told me you deleted my post because it was "too negative," suggesting I should simply state my opinion in the exact same way Plant did. (I *did* state my opinion, but I refuse to mold my words just to fit whatever version of reality you've imagined!) This time, while debating Seven Nation Army, I was incredibly careful not to say anything that might offend your delicate sensibilities, ensuring my posts were perfectly civil. Yet, you deleted them anyway without any explanation, and now you're claiming it's because I was being argumentative???
Honestly, I think you are overstepping and showing total disregard for the users—as if we are all idiots. You try so hard to present yourself as this sweet, lovely person, but I don't know if you even realize how ugly it looks to arbitrarily delete posts from people who are genuinely interested in the topic and came here to discuss, share, and joke around. Hippopotamus noted quite clearly that the forum administration's stance is to interfere as little as possible with freedom of speech—yet you aren't following that rule at all!
PS. That link you sent isn't working, and my PDF improvement proposal was that you should be removed from that position entirely.
Since the moderator here keeps deleting my posts and pointing me toward this specific document, I’m just going to say it right here:
As someone who has been following the Alternative sub-forum for quite some time—even if I don't check in every single second—I have to say that appointing someone as moderator who has never actually contributed a meaningful thought or participated in a single real discussion is a complete and utter failure. The only time I’ve even seen her post is in the casual chat threads—where her contributions are basically just emojis or brief comments about baking cookies or being at the beach, which has zero connection to the "Alternative" subject matter—or when she's issuing moderator warnings or bickering with users about why their posts were deleted under the PDF improvement proposal thread.
To me, it feels like appointing someone who hasn't even finished high school to moderate a forum dedicated to the natural sciences or psychology—or worse, putting someone in charge of a film forum who hasn't actually watched a single movie. Look, as much as the "Alternative" scene rejects the mainstream, it still requires a certain level of baseline knowledge—the kind all the other moderators clearly possess—to actually manage things effectively (unlike, say, the threads for lonely hearts, social hangouts, or partying).
The result of this is objectively incompetent moderation. We're seeing warnings slapped onto completely irrelevant and misplaced threads—like telling people to "stay on topic" in the True horror event thread, which has never once been an issue, or lecturing people in the raw food thread about not talking about anything else besides what they're eating—as if we’re some kind of mindless animals. On top of that, there is the unjustified deletion of massive amounts of content that doesn't break a single rule. It’s reached a point where actual communication is becoming impossible; people simply lose the will to write when they spend time crafting a post only to have it wiped out thirty minutes later.
Every other moderator on this platform is here because they genuinely care—it's a hobby, a passion, an interest—and you can actually learn something from them. They provide information, and nobody has ever had these kinds of issues with them. Personally, I cannot wrap my head around the motivation of someone agreeing to police discussions on topics they don't care about and know absolutely nothing about. I don't know if it's a surplus of free time, a lack of personal interests, or just a desperate need for validation and to be perceived as a "nice person." Whatever the reason, that's her life and her problem, but in my opinion, it was a terrible decision for the integrity of this forum.
Paul Rogers94 said:even within those surreal fantasy creatures, there's more or less just a classic drama about unrequited love (say, between two warring species), blah blah—the movie essentially boils down to drama which is always the same old thing or just variations on a theme in any film, set against some backdrop—whether it’s a looming catastrophe (a comet, a war, whatever historical or future disaster you can dream up), and even those surreal creatures are so heavily anthropomorphized that they aren't significantly different from "real people today" in terms of their needs. The drama is always existential and always the same; films that truly break away from shallow, boring human nature and its accompanying clichés are incredibly rare.
Exactly—but here, we are talking specifically about those backdrops. And who better to get lost in a setting than the audience? No one was ever questioning the core essence itself.
Honestly, what kind of movies would actually "fundamentally deviate from shallow, boring human nature and the clichés that come with it"? Can anyone provide an actual example?
silentridge3 said:Look, I’m not saying that "grounded, realistic" movies don't exist anymore—I'm saying they're becoming a dying breed. There's less and less money being poured into them every single year. Honestly, it would be a massive improvement if studios just categorized them as a special genre, or at the very least, had the decency to include that information in the trailers so we actually know what we're getting into.
silentridge3 said:I mean, you really could have opted to watch that "historical" flick, Barbarossa—you know, the one where two different women in two totally different situations experience these "visions" that actually turn out to be spot on.
It’s glaringly obvious that today's obsession with the unrealistic has become so overwhelming that everything is getting muddled—it's a mess, really. It seems like the writers behind this historical film think they absolutely have to inject at least a little bit of Game of Thrones into the script just to make it palatable.
I get where you're coming from. For me, that distinction between what’s realistic and what isn't is actually a huge deal—it's fundamental. Take my taste in movies, for instance: I can't stand fantasy to death, yet I absolutely love Sci-Fi. But there's a catch—I only dig the kind of Sci-Fi where my brain can actually wrap itself around the idea that it might realistically happen in our future. Most people seem to find that weird—they constantly lump those two genres together as if they belong to the same audience, but they really don't.
Look, I’ll say this once: I always know exactly what I’m getting into. I can tell ahead of time whether a movie is going to play it straight or dive headfirst into the surreal—I have never, ever been caught off guard by that distinction. (Though, I should probably admit—I watched Storm of the Century a few days ago, and even then, I didn't find it unrealistic. My take was more along the lines of, "Well, sure, something like this could actually happen somewhere"—you know how it is, anything is possible.) 🤣)
Maybe try actually watching a review or a trailer before you just blindly pick whatever you’re going to watch?
I honestly believe we’re seeing a massive surge in these totally unrealistic blockbusters—and frankly, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding what drives their popularity. It feels like our collective expectations as a global audience are becoming increasingly detached from reality... though, I have to admit, I haven't been keeping up with the latest releases lately, so I can't offer much of a critique myself.
Paul Rogers94 said:"A realistic movie today"??? Give me a break. From Adam to Eve, human nature remains exactly the same—it’s just the scenery that changes.
So, what? Are we actually supposed to believe that things like inter-country realms, sub-space rifts, animated characters, people flying around, talking animals, or half-werewolves living for centuries actually exist somewhere? And all this happening right now?
Or do you honestly think those of us who prefer grounded, realistic stories are just some "relics of the past"—that the future belongs solely to viewers who crave massive machines causing giant explosions and superheroes spouting shallow, ridiculous lines in movies that clearly lack a script? Is the future of cinema really that pathetic?
If I’m following correctly, he was trying to argue that even through these animated figures and superheroes, you can still portray—and draw conclusions about—human nature...
Charles Ramirez5 said:Livestock and agriculture? Really? We’re actually going to sit here and have a serious discussion about the state of farming and ranching? Fine. Let's go there.
You make your own jerky, milk, and cheese—and you sell it? Man, that stuff flies off the shelves. People are absolutely starving for real, homemade goods instead of that imported, chemical-laden garbage they try to pass off as food in the grocery stores. Everyone wants the real deal.
Henry Nguyen26 said:You really ought to come down to my neck of the woods so I can show you how business is actually done around here. The only local market in town was completely ruined by City Hall...
Look, if he’s spent his whole life living in a major city, he’s already halfway there—he likely knows a dozen people who are desperate for high-quality, locally sourced goods because they have absolutely nowhere else to turn. He could easily start by selling directly to them, and from there, those same customers become his best advocates, recommending his stuff to everyone else in town. It's a built-in network.
I honestly have no idea—it’s never happened to me before where I sit down to watch a gritty, realistic drama only for the animals to start talking ten minutes in. 🤷 🤣
May this so-called "super moderator" go to hell and be ashamed ! She called me out for being a missionary and acting like some forum counselor, then goes and writes:
"Well, it's his choice. He has that right. Whatever comes from those choices, no matter what, he’s the only one who will feel it. Those forum 'counselors' will be miles away by then."
Well, I hope you enjoy the guilt!
You write that it’s his choice and he has rights—but you’re the one here actively restricting access to information by funneling people toward a single, supposedly "humanitarian" and scientifically proven alternative, all while mocking me as an irresponsible advisor just because I actually answered the question the author asked!
And just so we're clear, you saw the other posts in that same thread—you can censor as much as you want and play watchdog for these monsters, but your paradigm is failing; people see right through you. Massive amounts of money are still flowing in here, and I suspect you’re getting a slice of that pie too, which explains why you're so motivated to censor.
But look, even federal laws protecting people with mental health issues have been updated specifically to stop these monsters from conducting human experimentation (and since you work in this field, I'm sure you know exactly how much pushback there was regarding that), among other things; there is finally oversight being implemented to monitor human rights in psychiatric hospitals and institutions, and step by step, we'll achieve more.
Honestly, you should be embarrassed to support these monsters—people who have left rivers and rivers of survivors (Google the term, though I assume you're far too ignorant for that) forever scarred by chemical lobotomies across the globe! And why? All for a handful of cash, exotic trips, and padding the egos of the teams that prescribed the most "medication" that month.
I don't know if expressing my opinion on this subforum warrants a ban, but frankly, I don't care. I have no intention of contributing to this entire forum anymore because I refuse to give my input to a platform managed by "super moderators" like you.
Go ahead, delete this post or hide it; give me a permanent ban to serve as a warning to anyone else who dares to disagree with you. But I truly hope that one day, when someone you represent becomes a victim of the psychiatric system—because given the current state of affairs in America, that’s more likely than not—you’ll actually pause and ask yourself what you’re doing and who you’re really defending!
EDIT: Besides, this forum isn't the entire internet. People will find the information they need elsewhere, so you can't censor the whole world. It doesn't hurt my feelings at all if you delete posts on a single subforum just because you disagree with them ideologically. Real impressive.
Done. That sounds like a fascinating topic for a thesis! If you don't mind me asking, which university are you attending? And more importantly—are you planning to share the results with us? 🙂