Posts by Rachel Richardson

Larry Walker24 said:Great—at least now some of the forum members won't have stalkers breathing down their necks.

To be honest, I’m actually looking forward to a little peace and quiet.😍

What purpose does that serve you?🍿

Christian Myers said:Honestly, what's even the point of voting? We could just split the seats and the cushy office jobs among ourselves and call it a day. 😁

Alanford Quote😁

Maria Barnes said:Every party is going to have its own poll—basically a signature card—hosted right on their own page or thread. I’m honestly not sure where to dump the party threads. Should they go in Congratulations? That sub is a ghost town anyway, though it is nearby.

That makes sense. 😁

When is the voting poll actually going to go live?🍿

Sandra Kern37 said:I mean, honestly, who else is supposed to be lining their pockets if not me? 😒 Is that actually going to happen to the Speaker? ☕

By the time the cops show up, that cash has already vanished somewhere else.🍿

Melissa Garcia70 said:It really should be that way... But we have to account for raw emotion and adrenaline. Think about it—passion and heat often take the wheel, causing us to blurt out truths that are much harder to articulate when we're being perfectly level-headed.
We have to allow ourselves the grace to be human...
Of course, if things get heated and words get harsh, let’s remember: words carry weight, and sometimes they need an apology.

Look, there is a massive distinction between being a human being and acting like an animal.
Trolls typically operate in packs—insulting others while patting their own "intelligence" on the back.
The most effective strategy is to simply ignore them; honestly, what is there to gain from a confrontation like that?
The satisfaction of publicly calling someone illiterate?

If a discussion remains civil—if you are engaging with rational people and someone realizes they messed up—you will receive an apology and the behavior will stop.
But if you aren't dealing with rational people, what is the payoff?
The hollow thrill of driving some stranger halfway across the country just to argue?
What good does that do you?
If that person had even an ounce of common sense, they would have shut up on their own.

If we want to engage with one another, there must be rules—some semblance of measurement and restraint.

Brenda Green62 said:Back in high school, I always used "hot" strictly to describe someone's body.
It wasn't until I started hanging out on these online forums that I realized people use it for a pretty face, too.

My mental rulebook was basically:
A beautiful face: Pretty or handsome
A great body: Hot

🤷

I suppose it really just depends on the context—where you are and who you're talking to.

A hot face... 😁

brisksurfer19 said:Exactly—calling a body "attractive" feels off. It’s too much. Too clinical.

An attractive body?
An attractive face?

Both terms work just fine. 🤔

It’s a solid, comprehensive package.
Both face and body.

Handsome=Good-looking
Usually, we're talking about a decent physique—it’s more about having a charming personality.
Then you have those rare cases where someone is just genuinely striking 😁

Scott Long71 said:I agree with the above—if the discussion remains civilized, there shouldn't be a need to isolate it.

Do you think Judolinov’s text, which was cited in the first post, belongs in this debate? My take is that it can stay. Honestly, he’s still being more polite than the Jergović excerpt we saw. 😁

The trick is, you can always meet him with the same level of intensity.

Judolinov’s post touches on private life.
It mentions ages.
It’s insulting.

How do we draw the line so all of that is included?
What exactly should be banned?

Jacob Alvarez said:Judolino and Rachel Richardson. It’s like Mirko Filipović and Nenad Blatnik stepping into the same ring. Calling it a duel feels a bit cruel when the outcome is so obvious.
That said, I do agree there should be a separate thread for these kinds of confrontations.

Don't worry, you'll get your turn too.

stormylynx4 said:You didn't ask me, but you know how it goes—everyone is entitled to their opinion. : D
In the first part of the post, Judo commented on someone's writing, calling it garbage. That isn't an insult. When I look back at the critiques I’ve left on Goodreads regarding published authors of multi-million dollar bestsellers, Judolinov calling something "garbage" seems downright polite.
Telling someone they are a rude brat is on par with mocking 50-year-old women; it’s not really an insult either, even if it constitutes generational discrimination. 😬
If someone reported Judolinov's post to me, I would ignore it. If you aren't prepared for harsh criticism on a forum, perhaps you should just start a blog for your "works."
It reminds me of those people on certain PDF forums who get upset because their analyses and "high-quality texts" aren't taken seriously. Honestly, we should just introduce a Nobel category for anonymous forum writing. :rolle yes:

🤔

What kind of damn posts...
What you posted is nothing but pure trash, not an actual post.
Besides—what could a corporate shill who has been posting on this forum since 2005 possibly say about writing?
Ugh.

You don't get it—she wasn't being self-centered. She was trying to serve humanity with her superior intellect...

You arrogant old-school types—you and I will never see eye to eye.
Under the forum rules, it’s fine.
As for the language... Look, go catch some Pokemon, but you really crossed the line with the working class.

S🍿entimentally speaking,
What’s your take on that post?
The bold text shows my edits, though I kept the gender the same.

I was making fun of naked (and frankly, subpar) 50-year-old women.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Paul Scott4 said:We should ban insults based strictly on race or ethnicity, but let everything else be settled privately. No other restrictions on creative expression should even be considered. Whoever gets pissed on first is the one who tucks their tail and slinks back to their hole.

Wait, so you'd allow insults against women and children too? 🤔

I believe this should serve as our foundation;

In short—no family drama, and no RLA.
Husbands, wives, mistresses... none of that.
Comments should be strictly limited to the Reddit users themselves—their specific contributions and behavior on the platform.

Let’s keep this a civilized discussion.

stormylynx4 said:...maybe you should just grab a bag of ash and start sprinkling it over yourself...
Feel free to start a new thread—go ahead and debate those insults from last September—but quit being a nuisance; you’ve essentially single-handedly killed this discussion about moderation.

Hold on—I have people picking on me in the DMs, acting completely out of line, and while I'm trying to handle them with some level of grace, you're coming after me?
Well, bravo—truly a masterclass in logic. 👍

Thomas Jones92 said:Nah, politics isn't really my scene.

And there go the promises right out of the gate. Zero points.

How does that make them any different from everyone else?

Now, that's more like it!
Promise absolutely nothing, and if you actually manage to get something done, you're already ahead of the curve.

Experienced voter😁

Alright, what are the ground rules?
Avoiding any mention of family or real-life details is likely the most fundamental rule of all.

This should primarily focus on providing descriptive profiles of various Reddit users.
There are a few individuals who could certainly be profiled.

Sandra Kern37 said:The FDZ promises plenty, but they rarely follow through on anything, so you might as well treat them as the same thing.🎉

She isn't just looking for minor adjustments; she wants a total paradigm shift.
It’s not merely about practical fixes, but a complete ideological overhaul 🍿

Let's aim to become the next Greece. 😁

Christian Myers said:If you're voting for the American forum sovereignty enthusiasts, we'll even promise that we won't promise anything.

Hey—I've got my eye on you as a potential coalition partner once the Inquisition kicks off.😁
I was almost ready to join this party myself, but then I realized—we need to take a much harder line.😁

Thomas Jones92 said:Exactly!
A few meager promises simply won't cut it; I want a political party that refuses to make any promises at all. 🙂

I don't need anything else, since they've already promised me everything.

Just start a new 😁
Department of Mining Research and Time Wasting 😁

Thomas Jones92 said:Everyone seems to be making far too many promises 🕺

Is there actually any political party out there that doesn't promise the moon?

"We won't promise anything, and we'll actually deliver on that"? 😁
Maybe we need a new 😁

But I suspect my own party makes just enough promises to be interesting. 🍿

Prompted by today's debates, I believe it is high time we establish the Pleasant Society Party. Essentially, the final DECISION🍿

Our platform would consist of the following:
*The implementation of a functional ignore list. Not like what we have now—where curiosity drives people to peek at what’s being hidden. We need something truly functional, where there isn't even a trace left of the people being ignored. Nor would they see you.
Why would someone you dislike even bother reading your posts in the first place?
Therefore, no messages, no quotes, on either side.

*Stricter penalties for insults and similar behavior. Self-explanatory. A general embargo on insulting family, pets, and the like.

*A shame list. Individuals who repeatedly violate the rules would be publicly shamed in a dedicated thread containing their rule-breaking posts.

*Clear and transparent moderation. Explicit rules and a points system determining when a ban is issued. Less "artistic interpretation," fewer bans for trolling. Move off-topic discussions to new threads; send trolling straight to the recycling bin.

*Transparent rehabilitation programs for toxic Forumites, along with clear guidelines for awarding partial bans or temporary suspensions.

*Greater forum automation—relying more heavily on bots to minimize the human factor (except, perhaps, for pardons or opportunities for sentence reduction).

*Increasing the number of moderators and providing them with proper training. A moderator's job is to steer the discussion, not to censor it.

*Reducing nepotism—with an optional referendum regarding increasing or decreasing the amount of sex on the forum. 🍿

*Ensuring a pleasant atmosphere during discussions, with heavy penalties for cynical interruptions. I've had some thoughts about introducing Orwellian Newspeak, but we will likely have to settle for the softer methods found in Brave New World.😢

The Inquisition may begin. 🍿
Most of them are on our side anyway. 😈

PS: Given the global shifts in power, everyone probably knows which parties will be dissolved, which banned, and which absorbed into the wartime order. 🙂

PPS: We will also ensure the creation of a new sub-forum, code-named "Doing Will Set You Free," specifically for those in the forbidden category.
If the Forumites from that camp can manage to maintain a daily quota of read posts, they will eventually be relocated to better places.
The Gulags aren't in the plans just yet.🤔