Posts by Lisa Hernandez3

It feels like we’re all just running ahead of the shovel here—mostly because, well, if we want to actually build something, we need to understand what’s being proposed in the first place. And in this scenario, you’re the one making the pitch. That’s why I asked—and maybe I was teasing you a little bit, sorry about that—but I wanted to know who might step up as moderator. It would honestly be quite logical, and maybe even pretty interesting, if you took the lead. So, even if acting as moderator isn't really your thing, it would be, I guess, really helpful 😉 if you could help clear up the specifics now that you've put the proposal forward. If things start getting a bit heated, maybe try channeling that energy into answering Sashev question above instead? While you're at it, take a look at what we've already discussed in this thread—aside from Matthew Grant9 (who could theoretically moderate, but let's not get ahead of ourselves since we aren't seriously debating that part yet), a few of us have already shared thoughts on what the content of this sub-forum should actually look like. Just be a pal and let us know what you think.
Edit: No, that answer to Sashev isn't quite cutting it!

No, briskpuma23, I didn't take that comment about the psychology subforum seriously—honestly, you should probably just relax a little bit.
When I mentioned moderation, I was actually thinking of you; I suspect that with your creativity, clarity, and general well-roundedness, you’d do a great job. Maybe you and Castro could even team up.

@ Matthew Grant9 - I suppose transgender identity has its own specific place, particularly regarding gender, and perhaps it shouldn't be conflated with supranationality—even if the logic feels somewhat similar. Personally, I might suggest viewing it more as a conceptual or theoretical framework rather than just an intimate, personal identification. You could look at this thread for comparison: http://www.reddit.com/r/example_thread

slywolf45 said:Hold on, what do you mean "anything"?
If the file is titled the Transgender corner, I assume there’s at least some loose connection to the subject matter. It’s not like someone is going to pop into that specific section to start a heated debate about... I don't know, lawn care.
Because if that's actually the case, then the whole point of having this PDF is moot. General discussion threads already have plenty of room to breathe on the existing files.

Well, yes, that’s what I was getting at above—the concept. Not exactly "anything," per se; it's more like how things work at queer festivals—lots of psychology and sociology topics, or even art, which could fit within the scope. Various types of transfers. For instance, why does America have a porn star version of Severina, but no Colbert? 😬 (Leaving aside our local version of Colbert, obviously.) But I won't go any further; it's only fair to let briskpuma23 weigh in—I’m just thinking that since this topic is already here, we might as well stir the pot a little. 😬

Sash, I feel like this is essentially the same deal as MK and ŽK—anyone can start a thread about pretty much anything, and then the community jumps in to discuss it. Though, granted, it isn’t always the most organized chaos—we can't really get into chauvinistic arguments here, as that would be totally against our rules. Still, there are certain topics that just seem to fit perfectly with the whole idea of being "above it all," which I mentioned earlier. My biggest worry is that this might turn into some kind of trashy spectacle—you know, like those endless red carpet coverage shows. But, if it manages to capture the mainstream interest in the States and if the queer scene decides to embrace it, it could actually take off.

I don't quite follow—how would they be any more mentally stable than the crowd over at the Psychology department? I guess there’s a certain logic to introducing something like a "trans-forum," especially regarding the Women's Corner. Back at my psych department, we recently had a session centered on specific questions about being transgender, and we also had dedicated "corners" for gay topics and analyses of homophobia. And, well, America could probably stomach that, of course. These are usually active, widely read subjects. Topics on feminism could also fall under that umbrella—or maybe even discussions on androgyny. Then there's the whole role-playing aspect on forums—adopting an opposite-gender handle (which isn't very common, though apparently some advanced folks do it). And finally, all that fluff Oprah would dive into—fashion transformations, Saša Broz's secret hairstyles... things like what color underwear you wear, your bedroom setup, or why Danijela Trbović was so irritating to certain people, or why Dražen Ilinčić is almost never annoying to anyone. It would probably generate quite a bit of buzz, both in the media and regionally.

Theoretically speaking, if we actually did this, who on earth would moderate it?

😁

Grace Jones86 said:Regular users don't have a way to deal with provocateurs, trolls, or radical idiots obsessed with bizarre fixations (and those people definitely need a response). The regular user always ends up losing the fight.
The mods should professionally shut down the fools. 👍
Take this, for example: a good mod is Endimion17. He basically has zero tolerance for idiots in his PDF. The guy and his crew enforce specific standards. I like that. Less nonsense means fewer idiots... both when reading and when writing.

You already started a thread about me after you got banned—when I asked you to be more specific and file a complaint in the Ban Appeals section, you vanished. But the thread stayed—just kept at a general level of being insulting.

I know, I couldn't be bothered, sorry. I didn't like your whole moderation concept over there.
That's what bothered me... and I promise, next time, I'll give you a nice, detailed breakdown of exactly what you're doing wrong... 😉

Sometimes moderators actually do react before you even realize it—since you can't see deleted posts, anyway—but honestly, trying to explain that feels a bit silly. In cases where a moderator hasn't caught a problematic post or user yet, the standard procedure is to report the post using the little icon, or if that seems too much hassle, just send a DM explaining what's going on. There's also a way to push back against trolls right within the thread—either by ignoring them or by posting a solid, reasoned response. You shouldn't, for instance, drag out an argument with a troll through ten different back-and-forth replies. In those situations, it could theoretically happen that someone who is "just" reacting still gets flagged—mostly because they end up clogging up the discussion by further dissecting the "fixation," veering off-topic, and essentially feeding the troll's original intent. That doesn't mean, however, that a user who reacts always ends up losing out, as you suggested earlier. It’s more of an art form, I guess—learning how to gauge how to respond, since not all trolls are created equal.

I know, I just didn't feel like bothering myself with it, sorry. I wasn't particularly fond of your whole moderation style over there.
What bothered me was... and I promise I'll give you a nice, detailed breakdown of what you're doing wrong next time... 😉

Anyway, I am well aware of what I might be doing "wrong" and why it's difficult to make everything on this subforum perfectly seamless—I don't really plan on explaining that part to you. What I would ask is that you please respect the procedure mentioned above (or, at least, the best practice). Thanks for understanding, and take care.

Grace Jones86 said:Oh... cursed fate. 😁

Get one thing straight: the moderators are just regular users. That's it.

Don't even say it! 😁
I used to moderate some forums back in the day myself. I know exactly what kind of low-quality garbage you're dealing with. 😁
Given this is only the third site in America, there should be more users on this mess, not fewer.

(Well, right off the bat, I'm going to start complaining about... This.Immediate sanctions are required. To be clear, I've only taken down Vanja Sutlic and Hloverka so far. Hloverka and the Republican Party are just waiting patiently for their turn.).

Look at the flame wars, like that guy attacking you. This happens on Reddit every single day. These posts just sit there for days. A troll can hijack an entire thread, and the mods won't react until the next day—or even three or four days later—unless you practically beg them or tag them. And I don't get how a post like that doesn't get a red card immediately. It’s not like the topic was "Christian Taylor3 and our thoughts on him." Any post using primitive ad hominem attacks should be deleted instantly, and those users should get an express permaban. They destroy the thread.
The moderation here is incredibly sluggish.
It’s funny how it works on Reddit. One regular user misses a rule by a hair, and suddenly they're getting hit with warnings and bans left and right. The mods are always right there, ready to pounce. 🤷

I’ll say it again: where exactly is this "poor moderation" you're whining about? Name the subreddits. Give me specific examples. Anything else is just empty rhetoric and beating around the bush. No insults needed.

Too many examples. 😁

This really seems to be a matter of perception—sometimes the moderators feel overly omnipresent and biased with their warnings, and other times they seem totally absent, letting everything slide. It feels somewhat arbitrary. Anyway, I assumed from the fact that you brought up Psychology again that you were perhaps unhappy with how things were handled there, so I decided to take a look at your recent posts. I think I understand the situation now, but going forward, I would suggest two things: first, please try to read the entire thread carefully (and fairly), and second, respond appropriately to users who are clearly just trolling or being provocative. As a benchmark for how the Psychology section is moderated, you might want to check out this, and to see what a proper response to a provocateur looks like, you could read this. That’s my recommendation—just try to read through topics with good intentions and draw your conclusions about the moderation from there. It isn't particularly fair to drag the moderators through the mud based on examples like these—which are, I suspect, being interpreted half-heartedly—(not even mentioning the slowness in issuing sanctions, which, I should add, sometimes has very objective reasons behind it). I imagine it's clear to you that doing so reflects poorly on you as well. You actually started a whole thread about me after you received your warning—when I asked you to be more specific and take it to the formal appeals section, you just vanished. But the thread remained, existing on a vague, insulting level. That’s the issue; if we can't speak specifically, perhaps it's better not to waste our energy. In any case, observing your behavior across the subforums I moderate has led me to some conclusions that I will apply moving forward. If you have anything else concrete you'd like to discuss, please, do let me know.

Grace Jones86 said:As for these mods... they might actually be okay.
There are tons of subreddits that are seriously over-moderated... like psychology, career advice, some IT PDF sections, stuff like that... ☕
Btw... I don't even visit the music sub anymore because there's always been this heavy, infantile chaos there, and I honestly outgrew that style a long time ago.

I'm also thinking about quitting this Reddit... the same thing happened again that's happened several times before. A good thread starts, I'm typing like a maniac, putting in the effort, then some heavy flammer or troll flies in who has absolutely nothing to say, and after that, the topic just vanishes...... 😕😕👎
That's just one example of their bizarre behavior.

The idea that these people get paid, and then after all that, there's mostly no explanation for the bizarre actions they repeatedly take, is a bit much.
Not to mention the cliché moderation where you wait two days for a reaction, which—to put it mildly—is usually not particularly smart.

I just hope someone relevant actually shows up to this thread and explains things. 🙄
Though I know the chances are slim, and it'll probably take at least a week if we're lucky. And that's assuming some newly registered flammer or troll doesn't come in and screw us all over, causing me to get banned in the process.🙄👎
Etc....

As for Psychology, it’s been moderated extremely lightly lately simply because I, as the only active moderator, haven't had the time—and that will likely continue for a little while longer. A specific issue with that subreddit, unfortunately, is that some users treat serious discussions like a casual half-troll zone, operating under the assumption that psychology is a topic one can (and should) discuss in a very superficial way. Generally, users from more high-brow subreddits, like other media and, somewhat, literature (though even there we've seen a trend toward democratization and trivialization—the logic being that the more you offer users, the higher the chance the discussion quality drops, and trying to suggest corrections often puts moderators in the position of appearing over-restrictive or even borderline fascist; this same pattern plays out on all "open" subreddits), tend to shy away from that approach. But as we can see, even they aren't entirely satisfied. And why aren't they? Or rather, why is there always someone dissatisfied, pointing fingers at certain PDFs because something bugged them—well, one could go on about this psychology topic for quite some time.

No, nobody is actually paying the moderators. In general, a subreddit is a mirror of both its mods and its users. It has never been clear to me why people who feel the need to make snarky comments about others' work don't demonstrate any sense of standard or restraint through their own contributions—for instance, by starting a high-quality, meaningful thread. Those capable of truly nailing a thread or a post on this site make up maybe one percent of the population—and they usually don't participate in these types of grievances. To me, that’s telling. They are my real compensation here.

Andrew Sullivan8 said:I do. A little more than I really need. Though, "enough" is a subjective thing. To some people, it wouldn't be enough, and to others, it'd be way too much... ☕

Looks like most people missed the whole point of this thread...

The topic is about how people who already have massive wealth—money they could never actually spend (just look at those political scandals in the papers I mentioned earlier)—are willing to sacrifice moral values just to pile up even more money they'll never touch.

Well, who’s to say they won't spend it? I suppose the idea is to build an enormous safety net and live in total luxury, or perhaps to gain social influence—money buys power, or at least the illusion of it, and sometimes it truly provides a massive edge over everyone else. Even in primitive societies, it seems people feel a need to hoard certain resources for themselves when they live in environments where sharing is the norm.

Any system built on separating those with more from those with less tends to create a feeling of unfairness. There will always be people who feel cheated, and usually, it’s the same group of people pushing for a fairer distribution—or, more likely, trying to grab those same advantages for themselves. Relatively few people actually want to acquire advantages strictly through honest work or their own merits. Some people just naturally look for the path of least resistance (which, I guess, is just being smart), but when that inclination aligns with conforming to corrupt practices or broken value systems, you end up with outright greed. Most people have ways of adapting to dishonest systems, though I suspect most also have certain lines they simply won't cross.

It’s primarily a question of morality, but I think it’s also a matter of perspective—which, of course, is deeply tied to one's values and education. For instance, you could compare the owner of Deutsche Bank—looking at his pricing policies, how he treats employees, and how much of his stake he leaves to charitable foundations versus what he passes to his kids—against the blatant looting, or more specifically the theft, seen in certain examples from America. Why do people steal or lie? I guess it happens when what they carry in their heads happens to align perfectly with the circumstances they find themselves in. They haven't developed the need to self-reflect, or maybe they just don't have the opportunity. Back when Sanders was leaving office, there were quite a few analyses regarding his psychology—narcissism and such—if you Google it, you'll see how easily those interpretations connect back to your topic.

Do you really want the folks over at Psychology Forum to weigh in on this—or would you rather read some takes on Medium or maybe some of those lonely hearts blogs?

You've started a thread that seems pretty personal—you're essentially describing your own situation—and I guess those kinds of topics usually belong over on the Psychiatric couch.

Jacob Foster11 said:It's because the developers of this app are from English-speaking countries where gender doesn't change how you write things, unlike here in America. It's the same reason why other parts of the app aren't properly adjusted for American grammar, specifically regarding cases and plurals. 😉

BTW, I don't consider my gender to be private information. It makes zero sense to hide it. When someone sees me out on the street, they know immediately. I don't need to go out of my way to point it out.

But since the app was translated into American English, it was supposedly tailored for users in our linguistic region (though I'm not entirely sure which specific parts still feel off, but those are minor details). So, whoever handled the localization probably didn't anticipate that gender would be such a factor within the post itself. Maybe they weren't being intentional, or maybe they were just following standard industry practice.

Btw, regarding that instance where a moderator couldn't tell which gender a user belonged to—honestly, I doubt it would have helped even if their gender had been clearly labeled. Confusion in addressing people happens regardless of whether you underline or highlight their gender a hundred times. And, in my opinion, these little mix-ups are less offensive or significant—they're mostly just communication hiccups—compared to the issues that might arise if the forum were viewed as a population strictly divided into men, women, and non-binary individuals. Why? Well, just look at the original post again.

But hey, it’s fine if you don't see things through that lens.

rapidgull3 said:What’s the deal with that news about a clinic opening up in the States to treat homosexuality?

Honestly, I wonder what else people will try to monetize. I watched a bit of that segment on the Red Carpet, and—I guess it's fair to say—it was pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence, including the network and the viewers. It’s hard to wrap my head around why such a manufactured, bizarre business venture would get airtime on a private media outlet, especially when the outlet tries to distance itself from the stance by hiding behind the reporter's supposed "objectivity"—which mostly just looked like her nodding along to everything said, while offering a tiny, half-hearted comment that maybe things aren't quite how this "healer" imagines them. If I were that young man being the first one there to undergo this "treatment," I might suggest he take some of his money to a local bookstore instead—there are plenty of modern books out there on sexuality that might actually be helpful.

Maybe look at it this way—why would whoever designed the post layout and those little captions next to them overlook how much gender matters for this specific section of the forum? And yet, they still left the option to include it in the private settings—within the user profile.

I never actually said that displaying gender alongside posts was inherently bad or strictly negative; I just meant it’s prone to all sorts of interpretations—which is pretty obvious—especially when the prompt for a discussion is an opening post like the one we have here, which isn't exactly witty, even if that might have been the author's intention. Unknown recently decided to chime in with the complaint that some (lesser) female writers find solace in their gender—which, I suppose, is just a slightly more "sophisticated" version of the same kind of provocation.

Jacob Foster11 said:Sure, but that info is already available on the profile. Nobody should be looking any harder than they already are. Personally, I check the profile if I'm unsure. It’s quite a hassle when the site starts lagging—which happens almost constantly.

So, your logic is basically this:
- Gender on profile: YES; gender on posts: NO -> fine
- Gender on profile: YES; gender on posts: YES -> bad

That makes zero sense. I might understand if you were arguing to remove gender from both the profile and the posts entirely. But if it's listed on the profile, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't show up on the posts too.

Like I mentioned before—I think the current layout works quite well, specifically the nickname "description," things like your interests, location, or signature.

For anyone who wants to dig deeper—to check gender, websites, age, birthdates, or contact info—well, there’s the profile for that.

If we really wanted to overanalyze why having gender listed next to posts might be seen as undesirable, I suppose one could attempt a somewhat forced interpretation. Maybe it's that the forum is trying to encourage a) viewing posts through a gendered lens, b) practicing political correctness regarding how people address one another, or perhaps c) deciding that certain private user data is more relevant to communication than others.

Amanda Murphy26 said:I spend most of my time scrolling through the news sites and the Men's Club, and I’ve noticed there are a ton of posters where you can't tell if they're even male or female just by looking at their handle. It’s kind of a pain, honestly. I’ll be halfway through some massive wall of text, totally invested, and then I realize at the very end that I was actually reading some woman ramble on. Maybe they should just put their gender right under their username or something.

On top of that, this whole discussion about an apparently vital practical matter seems to have spiraled out of control because of an opening post that felt—well, a little sexist and trollish, to be honest.

Jacob Foster11 said:It isn't always obvious. Especially if the conversation is short and you don't know the person. I shouldn't have to list examples for you.

And apparently, having gender listed next to names on posts is a massive crime, right?

It’s certainly not a crime—though I suppose it isn't strictly necessary either. If I were to address you as a woman right now, what specific injury would you actually suffer from that mistake?

I've mentioned before that I don't really react when these kinds of errors are directed at me. Honestly, the only ones who seem bothered are the younger crowd, especially women, who tend to take offense and turn threads into off-topic discussions about getting to know one another. For everyone else, it's pretty much irrelevant—if someone gets confused, they'll see the gendered tone of the conversation and just correct themselves.

Besides, that sort of thing doesn't really fit the spirit of communicating on an online forum. The whole concept of identity on the internet is arguably too complex for such a small technical gesture to be seen as anything more than a way to signal flirtatiousness. In reality, it's just prioritizing practicality over complexity (there was a witty post once about the nuance of gender identity, but I think it was deleted—probably dismissed as off-topic trolling, since with these types of questions, technology usually exists to bypass any "philosophy").

Would clearer labels mean we have to pay closer attention to who is who? Maybe. Perhaps those who focus more on the content than the author might find themselves getting tripped up.

Nicholas King said:Does this forum even serve any other purpose whatsoever? I mean, seriously—is there actually any other point to being here? 😲😲😲

Off-topic: I honestly think that’s all quite unnecessary—in fact, if we were living in some sort of "idealized forum," even the usernames wouldn't matter at all. It should only be about the substance of what was said, rather than who exactly uttered it—though, I suppose, that would effectively strip away the whole "social networking" aspect of the site... which, as we all know, is the only reason this forum exists in the first place. 😁However, I’m not about to waste my breath playing the "just tell me why it would be a problem" game—because if we’re actually following that line of reasoning, then why wouldn't any other data from the Shakespearean list be an issue either?

An "ideal" forum isn't actually that far off—some users are already "practicing" their writing and debating styles by adopting different genders or other (imaginary) traits. And it's true that questioning why it might be a problem is somewhat moot, since it really shouldn't matter; there are very few instances where not knowing someone's gender becomes a practical hurdle. Dating, if we're even talking about that, operates on entirely different principles and concepts anyway—it’s built on things much deeper than a quick exchange of posts or a specific gender identity. The only reason I think we should perhaps give this some thought is to account for younger users—if they make up the bulk of the community and feel they need that sense of identification, then maybe it makes sense for them.

Personally, I find this whole thing a bit unnecessary—almost childish, if I'm being honest. It might fly on a dating app, but for an online forum? It feels out of place. Everything we can see right now—the avatar, location, signature—that all makes sense because it helps a user craft their persona. But making gender a primary identifier next to every post... it just feels like a categorization that has nothing to do with the actual discussions. Any confusion that arises is rare and, frankly, pretty irrelevant. In my experience, people occasionally misgender me, and I don't even bother reacting—it actually appeals to my more masculine side, I guess. When I'm talking to someone whose gender I'm unsure of (which doesn't happen much since I've been reading most of you long enough to know), I either use gender-neutral language or just check their profile. Highlighting gender so explicitly sends the message that it's a defining trait, implying that our writing somehow carries a specific gendered dimension—which isn't necessarily true. If they actually implement this, I'll probably be the first one to strip the gender from my own profile or just switch it to male. 😍

Jeremy Davis7 said:I’m asking the supermoderators—since you guys seem to be so busy hanging around here anyway—to either lock this thread or just leave it alone and let people talk.

First you selectively censor posts, then you lock the whole thing down, then you unlock it again... then you delete some more stuff... it's a mess.

What's your deal? What are you actually trying to achieve?

If you think this topic is too sensitive, just turn the key and walk away, class dismissed. (Look, I won't give you any grief; if my kid ever asked me, "Dad, why is Mom crying and moaning in her sleep?", I'd just shut the conversation down and sweep it under the rug myself.)

You have the authority.

I guess that's why you insist on using that "super" suffix in your title; whatever.

Later.

PS.
Richard Perez3, I am incredibly sorry... I had no idea that was your husband!
Good grief.
Anyone who actually "knows" me on this forum knows I'm an open and shut homophobe.
I honestly thought I was talking to a lady, and besides, it was just some poetic figure...🙂

😉

In my view, free communication doesn't necessarily mean disrespecting the Forum Owner, discussing things that are mostly kept within the moderator subforum (specifically regarding one-on-one dynamics), or using the Psychology PDF to debate administration with users who don't have access to the Messages, Wishes, and Comments section.

Regarding that controversial post (just the one where Michelle Alvarez called the Forum Owner names), I was the one who deleted it, then restored it, and then deleted it again. Why? Well, because I simply can't—not today and not generally—protect users from insults in one thread while allowing the exact same thing in another just in the name of free speech. If I did that, I’d be a hypocrite and, frankly, a total jerk, rather than blaming whoever owns this forum.

From the very start of this thread, it was stated that this should be a principled discussion and that the focus should remain on psychology. I explicitly mentioned that we wouldn't be analyzing business operations or how specific PDFs function, nor would we be throwing around arbitrary labels for individuals, though that rule was broken even after my warning: people were talking about business organization, chatting about user questions that were already borderline off-topic, and, generally speaking, just chatting, I guess.

Some current and former moderators stepped up and responded appropriately to the topic at hand, and I'm grateful to them. This thread wouldn't have gone this way if it hadn't been instrumentalized—if I may use the terminology used here—so I should point out: if the thread is actually about how to become a moderator or an admin, such a thread already exists (at least one). If needed, I can post links here, or you could just use the search bar.

If anyone has an issue with this decision of mine, please feel free to reach out to me in the appropriate place.