Matthew Anderson said:We don't want people throwing around medical diagnoses on this forum because, frankly, discussions regarding them never end peacefully. If someone posts a diagnosis, it inevitably spirals into endless threads of insults, dozens of deleted posts, and mass bans. Therefore, we flag these posts for rule violations—that's a 35-point deduction.
This has been explained multiple times already. Every so often, someone decides they want to share diagnoses here just to claim that gay people are "sick" or mentally ill. The rules exist for a reason; experience has shown us that we need them, and they aren't going to change. So, the penalty stands.
Paul Anderson7 said:The point here is about those parasites who are only looking for a free summer vacation. This isn't about someone refusing to host good friends or a sibling... it's about people who only bother to remember you once a year. Some individuals have managed to derail the whole discussion into something else entirely.
I don't consider myself the one to set the boundaries for this topic; those have already been established over the last few years since this thread was started.
It’s not like I’ve been constantly badgering the moderators (I’ve only made about nine posts in this thread over two years—let's say eleven if we count the two that were rightfully removed)—I’ve basically just used two posts to ask the mods to ensure the conversation stays on the track it’s always been on. It isn't really my style to report every single post, so I don't do that. I just expect the moderators to actually read the threads they oversee and notice when things drift off-topic for three or four pages straight. And look, I realize nobody is expected to be on standby 24/7, but if there's a three-day stretch of pure nonsense being posted, I expect that to be handled. That’s why the role exists in the first place.
@Jacob Sullivan91 You actually took part in the debate that drifted away from the main subject yourself. I have nothing against you or the rest of the moderation team. On the contrary, I think you guys do a solid job considering the types of characters that show up on this forum, but I also believe you have an obligation to accept criticism when it's clearly justified. Honestly, it was only after I opened this thread that things actually started feeling a bit more organized here. And I don't see how I was publicly calling out the moderators. Is it because I opened a space where we can vent? I haven't mentioned anyone by their username; I simply expressed my frustration at getting a warning while others who were spamming the thread faced zero consequences or deleted posts. I couldn't care less about my own warnings or my deleted posts, but I do care when a discussion loses its way. I've seen too many interesting topics get shut down because they were diverted into something else, and I can see this one starting to slide in that direction too. Whether you let that happen or not is up to you.
It’s all connected, I guess. This thread is really just one big collection of stories about feeling used by people—whether they're friends, relatives, or siblings—who expect a free summer getaway without any regard for your budget, your privacy, or your peace of mind. The location doesn't matter. We aren't trying to sanitize the discussion just to fit your specific vision; some posts might seem off to you, but they actually fit the theme for us. If things drift too far off track, we'll issue a warning or clear out the off-topic stuff. That's why we're here. We aren't here to blindly follow your rules on what belongs in a thread; we're here to review your complaints and act if we actually agree with them. In this particular case, we don't quite agree with everything you're saying.
Not everything you reported actually qualifies as spam. And honestly, sticking strictly to the topic isn't that vital; there’s no need to be quite as rigid about it as you seem to be, obsessing over that one little word in the title. A comment doesn't become spam just because it expands the conversation a bit. It’s up to us to judge how much breathing room to give. This thread is popular and people are actually reading it, so there's really no reason to overmoderate.
At the end of the day, we have moderator warnings to nudge folks back on track if they wander too far off-topic. So, yeah, I cleaned things up a little, but I’m not going to go overboard just because that’s how you think it should be done. I don't see the point.
As for the timing between reports, if you're planning on flagging a massive amount of posts, you could always just send the mods a DM with links to the problematic ones. A DM lets you message up to five people, so just like with the alert system, all the moderators would get notified at once.
EDIT: I finally scrolled to the end of this thread and, wow—you’re the one spamming with these totally useless, whining comments.
Give us a little breathing room after you report something. We aren't glued to our screens 24/7, so we can't always jump on reports the second they land. Thanks for flagging things, though; I'll get to them eventually. And please, maybe skip the public callouts to the moderators within the threads themselves? That isn't really where that happens. Just use the report function like you're doing now.
graniteridge6 said:Maybe we shouldn't hand out warnings for bad multi-quoting either—just a heads-up instead. I mean, obviously not for people who actually listen to the advice, but I guess those folks would be the minority anyway.
The instructions are right there in the pinned rules at the top. It's not exactly a scavenger hunt. As for keeping users around, making sure threads stay readable is part of the deal. Rules aren't just about preventing insults; they’re meant to keep this place from becoming a total eyesore. I mean, who actually wants to read posts that are just emojis or "I agree"? That kind of spam is only fun for the people doing the spamming. The whole point of an American forum is to have actual discussions and share opinions, not just sign off on everyone else's thoughts.
Drew Carter10 said:there are endless specific examples popping up all the time, and some of you have even received them via DM
Look, regardless of when you file a complaint, you actually need to back up what you're complaining about with evidence. Like, actual links. These vague comments don't really mean anything... I guess there's just nowhere to start if you don't provide proof.
Christian Watson2, Matthew Anderson laid everything out pretty clearly in his first post regarding why those posts were nuked and why the warnings went up, so I don't see much point in repeating what’s already been said. I took a look at the thread, and honestly, I'm with the mods on this one. It's their job to decide when a discussion is veering off the rails and needs a warning—and usually, they don't even jump straight to bans, even though they aren't exactly required to give warnings at all.
As for the strike for talking smack about the moderation team, yeah, that definitely sticks.
Look, folks, as much as you all seem to want to drag politics onto Zodiac Killer, it’s just not going to happen. None of us are stepping up to moderate political threads. Politics doesn't belong here on Zodiac Killer.
If you're really dying to have those kinds of debates involving political topics, there's the Politics PDF. I realize people aren't exactly thrilled about it since the rules are way stricter over there, but there's a reason for that.
So, I’m asking nicely: please leave the politics off Zodiac Killer. If you're actually as articulate and skilled at debating as you claim, I'm sure you can find a way to talk about these things without bringing up Marshall or America.
velvettrucker52 said:Look, I’m sorry, but this forum isn't really intended to be used for that. At least, not in this particular way. If you're just looking for a place to vent and lash out at everyone, go find another hobby. If your only goal is to pick fights and turn every discussion into a forum brawl, then stop wasting our time. The sheer number of reports coming out of this thread makes one thing crystal clear: most people involved in that outburst didn't find it nearly as entertaining as they thought they would.
Look, if you ignore the warnings and the polite requests to stay on track, locking a thread is a far superior option than handing out yellow cards or jumping straight to a ban. We’ve gone three days now without any interesting contributors because of this approach. Locking a topic for a few hours gives people a chance to cool off and reset; it ensures that by tomorrow morning, we're dealing with people who are seeing blue instead of seeing red. Personally, I find this much more appealing than what we're currently stuck with.
Let me say this one more time: ZK cannot function without full moderation. It simply can't. Period. Neither the owner nor the admins would ever allow it to operate that way. We’ve tried to soften his stance as much as possible, but we’ve hit a wall—there isn't much more we can do. At the end of the day, this forum is private property, and the owner wants it moderated.
I’m honestly at a loss for what else to say about this topic. I mean it. We feel like we’ve hashed out every single possible angle over the last few months, but the idea of the women's corner acting as little more than an emotional pressure valve is a concept that remains incredibly difficult to swallow. I’ll leave it to the mods and admins to weigh in. At this point, I really have nothing left to say.
On top of our agreement to stop deleting posts, we did warn that this would likely lead to more bans. Nobody seemed to mind at the time. Besides, moderator warnings on threads aren't just random—we make sure to give a heads-up when a specific thread is being moderated more strictly.
Just a quick heads-up: the rules for requested partitions are exactly the same as those assigned by administration. I guess you can't just show up two weeks after asking for a partition and suddenly demand it be removed.
Elizabeth Baker38 said:Now that the political grandstanding has settled, the national mood has shifted, and everyone’s busy arguing over some Facebook rant about a local hospital, I figured this whole topic had run its course.
I suppose I agree. Especially since the moderator specifically asked everyone to stop making it about Nora, yet people just ignored that and started dragging Nora's mother instead.
Adam Parker2 said:But isn't "selfishness" actually central to the core topic? It’s deeply intertwined with the whole subject when you look at it from different angles—I'm sorry if that isn't coming across. Not to mention how often that specific term pops up in almost every single post.
Generally speaking, I just tend to share my own perspective.
Warnings feel a bit pointless sometimes—after they happen, some posts get deleted, some users get penalized, and others get corrected, yet most of the off-topic stuff just lingers. Or else, a huge chunk of posts gets wiped out entirely.
Warnings exist to keep the discussion within the scope of the specific sub-forum. They're mostly just a nudge for when users get carried away and wander too far from the topic. If you ignore them, well, expect a ban.
Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by editing posts, because we don't edit them. If a post breaks the rules, it gets a penalty.
Henry Kim3, first you go and open clones, and now you’re making posts like this just to prove you still don't get why those partial bans were handed out. Not to mention when you basically said you have zero intention of following the rules because they don't mean anything to you. I actually believe you, which is probably why I'm not voting to lift the partials either.
It looks like you haven't bothered reading the rules. Here are the SEC rules. The SEC doesn't work by letting you appeal to someone else just because you're unhappy with a supermoderator's call. I'm the supermoderator in charge of Lowe's, so it's my job to handle any Lowe's appeals. Since this situation is pretty straightforward, there’s really no point in reaching out to anyone else—you aren't going to get a different answer anyway.
I noticed. Honestly, the moderator was right to lock all those threads and ban your posts; you were straight-up breaking Lowe's rules. They even sent you the link to the guidelines, so I guess it wouldn't hurt to actually read them.
Nicole Ruiz said:What we’re looking for is our own business! The bottom line here is that the ad doesn't violate any rules, it follows the community guidelines perfectly, and it shouldn't look out of place compared to all the other posts on the board!
Sure. But it’s up to the moderators to decide if your ad actually follows the rules. Meadow already pointed out the specific rule:
Velia said:3. Soliciting or requesting sex is prohibited.
I guess your ad looks like you're seeking a third for sex to me, too. 🤷
It would have been a bit easier if you’d actually mentioned which PDF you were talking about, but I took a look anyway. According to the LJS rules, troll hunting is strictly prohibited. Also, reposting content that a moderator already deleted—and then commenting on the moderation itself—is against the rules too. I guess you managed to break three different rules across just two posts.
The subject remains the thread locking. Also, just as you opened that previous thread inappropriately and against the rules, you’ve done the same thing here. Based on the title alone, it’s completely unclear which moderator or which PDF you're even talking about. Maybe keep that in mind next time you start a thread.
That’s not really how you start a thread. An opening post should actually invite people to talk, rather than just dropping a single-sentence question about whether there are any disassembly workshops in America.