Posts by Joshua Jones13

Carl Fisher7 said:Claiming it clashes with the legislator's morality and ethics isn't some "arbitrary interpretation"—and let's not forget what we're actually fighting about here:
dustyranger64 — everything hinges on whether the legislator assumes sexual relations are part of a marriage in the first place...
There were also cases mentioned regarding people getting married with a six-month divorce already planned. I pointed out that the law is crystal clear there—it doesn't allow it—and I added that you can certainly debate the morality and ethics of such a union, especially when the motives have to be hidden from, say, a county clerk 😁. If you feel like it, go back and read my previous posts. By the way, I have zero intention of continuing this specific debate; if anyone is confused, they can go do their own research and read up. My goal here is simply to file an appeal against the moderation. After exchanging emails, the moderator directed me to file a formal complaint regarding the restriction and redirection of the discussion by banning any legal interpretation —which is exactly what the moderator was doing in that very same post (followed by those ironic Orwellian references, accusations of lying, demagoguery, and so on). I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, right?

Alright, it’s pretty straightforward. If a moderator feels the conversation is drifting or straying too far from the original PDF topic, they have every right to steer things back using warnings. Since you spent most of your posts trying to interpret the law, I don't really see the issue with a mod stepping in to redirect the debate and telling you to stop doing that.
I read through the thread and, honestly, I don't see anything wrong with how it's being moderated. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing else to say. The admins can step in if they feel it's actually necessary.

Carl Fisher7 said:The bolded part is basically the crux of the issue—it's what everyone has been fighting over, debating, doubting, misinterpreting, or using to insult me by calling me a demagogue or a liar.

Let me repeat (and yeah, I'd probably say it for the 100th time after the 77th): I never said that kind of marriage isn't legitimate. In fact, I explicitly stated that such a marriage *is* legal. Expressing my opinion and stance clearly didn't break any forum rules, which is why you haven't actually punished me—and frankly, there's no reason to. You don't have the right to try to discredit me or steer me toward other topics. If this thread doesn't belong here, the mods should have just moved it themselves instead of making it an issue.

Besides, I don't see much point in us going back and forth on this PDF since we could have just kept arguing on the original thread anyway. So, I'll just ask you:

- By banning the interpretation of the law while simultaneously interpreting it yourself in the same post, did you actually make a mistake?
- Do you consider yourself biased or objective? As a mod, you're supposed to be neutral.

Neither the legislature nor I am doing that. If I haven't made myself clear by now, I doubt I ever will be.

Carl Fisher7, you started out just sharing your thoughts on marriage, but then you moved toward quoting various definitions to push the idea that a sexless marriage isn't actually a marriage. You basically argued that even if it’s legally binding, it clashes with the legislator's sense of morality and ethics. It feels like you're just interpreting the law however you want.
Here is a copy-paste from one of your rather typical posts:

Now, am I truly being a demagogue? Or is it perhaps the whole notion that a marriage—contractually entered into by two heterosexual people where it's pre-agreed there will be no sex, and consequently no children resulting from sexual intercourse—is somehow in obvious conflict with the moral and ethical understanding of the legislator...

Carl Fisher7 said:The bolded part is basically the crux of the issue—it's what everyone has been fighting over, debating, doubting, misinterpreting, or using to insult me by calling me a demagogue or a liar.

Let me repeat (and yeah, I'd probably say it for the 100th time after the 77th): I never said that kind of marriage isn't legitimate. In fact, I explicitly stated that such a marriage *is* legal. Expressing my opinion and stance clearly didn't break any forum rules, which is why you haven't actually punished me—and frankly, there's no reason to. You don't have the right to try to discredit me or steer me toward other topics. If this thread doesn't belong here, the mods should have just moved it themselves instead of making it an issue.

Besides, I don't see much point in us going back and forth on this PDF since we could have just kept arguing on the original thread anyway. So, I'll just ask you:

- By banning the interpretation of the law while simultaneously interpreting it yourself in the same post, did you actually make a mistake?
- Do you consider yourself biased or objective? As a mod, you're supposed to be neutral.

Neither the legislature nor I am doing that. If I haven't made myself clear by now, I doubt I ever will be.

Or, I guess, they could just keep it within the bounds so the thread actually functions on the US forum, which is what they did.

Carl Fisher7, dustyranger64 laid out his moderation reasoning on this thread pretty clearly, so I don't really have much else to say. I'm on his side, especially regarding this point:

dustyranger64 said:Are you serious??
I'll make this quick, because I really don't feel like wasting more pages on this thread or blowing up anyone's inbox just to explain simple stuff again:

The moderator is stopping you from debating using that logic only after you spent pages telling users that the legislature regulates and mandates that sexual relations shouldn't be forced in a marriage, and then after people tried to quote you back your own words:

The legislature MAY NOT assume the mandatory existence of a sexual component in a marriage.

By bolding that word—hoping you'd catch on, since you were basically drawing a line saying no one has the right to suggest that a married couple is obligated to have sex, while you kept doubling down that no one should force it, but they need to have sex and that it's legally regulated. People tried to explain that there are adultery laws and issues regarding the failure to fulfill the sexual component of a marriage as grounds for divorce, but that doesn't mean anything if both partners don't want to have sex. It was pointless.

That led to this circular arguing loop between you and the rest of the world, which should have been shut down sooner. I'll admit, the mod messed up by waiting until then to step in.

Also, gotta mention you were pushing those definitions of what a marriage "means" onto the other thread too, claiming that any marriages entered into by people who explicitly say they don't want kids are "void" in their own way. Like, they can legally sign the papers, but they aren't real marriages.

Like I already explained in your DMs, even though you can't stand before a judge and say, "Hey, marry us, but we're splitting in six months," you *can* just stay silent about it and get married anyway.

The stuff from Tupelo you're quoting isn't from an LJES moderator, and they don't really have any authority there. You didn't receive any warnings or bans on LJES because of that statement, even though that's the whole reason this decision is so controversial. Honestly, what kind of strikes you got on Tupelo's PDF? The LJES mods couldn't care less, seriously. It's none of their business.

The official stance of the LJES moderators is that nobody has the right to dictate to a married couple (whether they try to force it or not) regarding their sex life or whether they should have kids. Pushing that kind of legal interpretation on LJES isn't allowed.
If the administration, or anyone who actually knows how US marriage law works better than the LJES mods, says otherwise, then the LJES mods will owe you an apology—along with one from me personally—right before I pack my bags and move to some country that's way less Orwellian.

Drew Lee7, I don't see any sign of bias from the Lumber moderators toward you at all; if anything, I think they've been more than patient and tolerant with you.

Drew Lee7 said:Honestly, his intolerance is so intense that I feel like he’s implicitly waving cardboard signs and various threats at me in every single thread. I guess.

The moderators use warnings to keep the discussion on track. I guess if you don't actually back up your claims with some logic, they have every right to call you out on it. Maybe that's just how it works.
If you actually have a specific grievance, please back it up with some links. I guess. Maybe.

Drew Lee7 said:I guess you could say I'm an admin. Or maybe not. It’s hard to say for sure.

Smith is in charge of Lumber.

How exactly does Apple's intolerance toward you show up? I don't see a single strike from them on your record.

The whole point of a forum thread is to get people talking. You should probably open a topic by being clear about what you actually want to discuss, maybe even offering your own take to give others a reason to jump in.
It’s not just about dropping interesting links. Links are meant to back up your argument, I guess.

Nicholas King said:At the exact moment I was typing, it hadn't happened yet.

The issue isn't whether someone met the requirements or not—that's beside the point—but I honestly don't see what there is to "negotiate" in situations like this. After she recently took the lead in hijacking an off-topic discussion right on the main forum boards, the moderator here decided to apply that rather colorful "punishing the messenger" logic, which, frankly, isn't up for debate.

I've never been shy about calling out trolls—mostly because nobody likes being treated like an idiot—and if the community isn't allowed to do it, then the moderators have a secondary obligation to step up and handle it themselves. This? This certainly isn't how you do it.

No, but by the time I actually checked the thread, I just deleted it. I figured there wasn't much point in keeping it going.

Nicholas King said:At the exact moment I was typing, it hadn't happened yet.

The issue isn't whether someone met the requirements or not—that's beside the point—but I honestly don't see what there is to "negotiate" in situations like this. After she recently took the lead in hijacking an off-topic discussion right on the main forum boards, the moderator here decided to apply that rather colorful "punishing the messenger" logic, which, frankly, isn't up for debate.

I've never been shy about calling out trolls—mostly because nobody likes being treated like an idiot—and if the community isn't allowed to do it, then the moderators have a secondary obligation to step up and handle it themselves. This? This certainly isn't how you do it.

Not every moderator knows the best move at all times. So, when they aren't sure, they probably just check in with the sub-mods.

Regarding off-topic talk and starting new threads, the site admins have always been pretty lenient. If users are allowed to go off-topic, I suppose there's no reason the mods wouldn't allow it sometimes too.

Nicholas King said:What’s missing here—and I mean truly missing—is any actual instruction on how this process is supposed to work... specifically, how a blatantly trollish post (especially on such a sensitive topic, mind you) gets deleted and the offending user actually gets sanctioned.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: what is a regular forum member supposed to do when a moderator handles a controversial situation this catastrophically?

Maybe take a breath? 🤷 I guess we should be allowed to consult one another occasionally instead of being expected to react instantly every single time.

Anyway, they wiped the entire thread, not just the problematic post.

melloworca6 said:Comments like that have absolutely no business being on threads like this. Period.

If some woman is trolling, just report her and move on. It’s up to the mods whether they actually sanction her or not. But mocking people on topics like this? It's pathetic. I doubt anyone dealing with actual trauma finds those comments helpful or "funny." Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't think certain subjects should be treated as a joke.

There is a massive difference between trolling someone on a stupid thread about some guy peeing in a pool next to you, versus trolling on a thread where people are sharing something genuinely sensitive.

Exactly. I guess fighting fire with fire usually just leads to getting banned yourself. If you don't want to get kicked off the platform, maybe don't be a troll. It's pretty simple, really.

Part of being a moderator involves judging whether a thread actually fits the subforum and if it’s even worth having a discussion. It’s probably best if the opening post clearly spells out exactly what we're supposed to be debating.

Jose Edwards16 said:Translation: after four pages of back-and-forth, we haven't said anything interesting🤔 or specific...🤷

First you assumed the mod would reluctantly approve the thread, then you claimed they'd shut it down over some triviality. Now that the thread is still live, suddenly you're complaining that there's nothing interesting to talk about. I guess it's hard to tell what the actual grievance is: the moderator warning at the top, the boring subject matter, or the fact that the thread hasn't been locked yet.

Anyway, just like any other subforum, threads here should probably start with a clear point and a defined topic. For starters, it helps to include the essence of the complaint right in the title (mod, PDF, brief summary). With a title phrased like this one, nobody can tell who the complaint is even targeting.

brightpuma said:You weren't even around the last time I posted on this thread. Honestly, since you two shared the exact same perspective on the whole issue, she basically got away with anything. But let's not get sidetracked. If Nicholas King says things are looking up, I'll take his word for it.

I think I know which thread you're talking about. 😬 From what I recall, you both got flagged. It's just that your accumulated strikes led straight to a ban, whereas she didn't have enough prior points for that new strike to actually trigger one. So, you assumed you were the only one punished and claimed she wasn't flagged—but you can't really know that, since flagged posts are deleted and there's no way for you to see who actually got hit.
Maybe stick to accusations that are actually easy to verify. 😁

Maybe just log out and sign up again using a different email address—not the one you used for this account.

driftingbear29 said:

I just handled it this way, and honestly, I don't even miss the menu anymore. 😁
Actually, I don't even have to scroll DOWN. 😍

on 🥳

great idea. 👍 Way better than constantly scrolling back up or hitting the Home key.
I set up my links right away. 🥳

btw, good song. 😉 😁

velvettrucker52 and rustydrifter10 have pretty much covered everything, so I’ll just add that I'm fine with supporting a partial request if you can't seem to follow the IRS rules. I’d specifically ask you to stop picking fights with people and trying to provoke them—it isn't actually part of the discussion. Just stick to the arguments, stay on topic, and maybe we won't have an issue.

Report the PM using the icon. I guess administration won't catch someone running ads through private messages unless someone actually flags them.

Bradley Morgan3 said:Michelle Phillips54, you’re basically echoing what brighttinker48 is saying—that we just want to avoid a flood of useless posts. I guess you should read my response to them.

But you didn't actually say whether you think posts that break the rules should still get a warning or a ban when they're hidden.

The moderators would probably just have more work if there were more posts, and I assume that's exactly what the site owners want. The main thing is making sure the threads don't lose their clarity or quality. I've already mentioned a few different ways we could tweak the settings.

I'm hoping some regular users chime in here too. Lately, people have been telling me there's way too much off-topic chatter and trolling, making the threads messy and boring, which buries the good stuff. It's funny; they're the ones asking for quality over quantity and pushing for stricter moderation. Who would've thought. 😁

Don't you moderators (and the staff at the site) prefer it when the users don't hate you as much? Some people really get upset when you delete their posts. But maybe content matters more than that. Too much interesting info gets lost in the deletions.

I don't really feel like people hate me. Very few people react badly when I pull a post down. There are some, I guess, but they're definitely in the minority. Most people are actually great about it; we'll chat via PM about why I removed something or what the sub-forum rules are, and I haven't felt any resentment.
What I have noticed is this—lately, since we've been moderating more leniently (not deleting everything we used to, or only flagging things we'd normally ban), there's been a bit more pushback from users who weren't around during the "strict" era. Not a ton, but it happens. When we were strict, there was no issue because everyone knew what broke the rules and what got deleted. Now, with the lighter touch, we're seeing rule-breaking that people expect won't be sanctioned at all. I don't want to be misunderstood—it's not everyone doing this, mostly just those who don't realize how things used to be. The long-time users who know the rules still follow them like always, and I honestly have to say they're great to work with.

Now, I'm going to say something that sounds like a conspiracy theory. After a heated debate, I got an email from a user claiming there's a moderator clique running a specific agenda and that they prefer this black-and-white system. What do you think? Is there any truth to that? 😬

I’m not really sure what kind of policy you’re talking about or what you mean by a black-and-white system. It’s pretty hard to comment on something that vague, I guess. Could you maybe clarify?

Bradley Morgan3 said:Moderators delete posts for all sorts of reasons. The issue isn't the deletion itself, but this rigid black-and-white system. I’m just suggesting we add some nuance—maybe a gray area. Black stays black, white stays white. I think there's enough cause here to at least consider it.

So, basically you're suggesting moderators take on even more work while users get a free pass to ignore the rules. 😬

You mentioned that users see a post before it gets nuked. Sure, that’s true. But fewer people see it compared to if it stayed up permanently, which means less chance of someone retaliating against an insult or derailing the thread further. I guess I wonder if you're suggesting rule-breaking posts should only be hidden from those not participating in the thread, without issuing a warning? That would just stop active participants from responding to content that shouldn't even be there in the first place, right? They might end up breaking rules themselves just by replying. Not to mention, we'd probably just end up with spam posts meant to test what's being hidden from non-participants. Or maybe you mean these posts stay visible to thread participants but still get sanctioned? Then we're back to square one: someone snaps at an insult, gets a strike, and ends up banned.

Another thing—some users hate off-topic clutter and trolling because it buries the actual discussion. If they could still see those posts just because they happen to be part of the thread, nothing changes. We'd still have messy threads filled with low-quality junk. And honestly, some people don't care about a strike as much as they care about seeing their post deleted, so they'll keep pushing boundaries just to make sure their target sees them.

Quote : Jolly Roger

ironharbor8 said:Is 1100px really too wide for you? Personally, when I open my browser, I find myself scrolling left and right just to finish a single line. Besides, I usually have several apps running at once, so maximizing a window to full screen isn't practical. On the flip side, a narrower column is much easier on the eyes. It's the same reason printed newspapers—which can be massive—never run text from edge to edge; they use columns. There's a functional reason for that...

I've been lurking on various Reddit communities for over a decade, and not a single one is set up this way. It looks amateurish and it's frankly impractical.

Not for me. Even back when I was stuck using a 15'' monitor, I rarely ever had to scroll left or right. I guess. 🤷

Quote : Jolly Roger

I usually have a bunch of apps running at once, so maximizing everything to full screen just isn't really practical for me, I guess.

Yeah, that’s exactly it. I always maximize my browser to full screen, and then having a narrow Reddit thread just looks ugly and becomes a total pain to read.