Posts by vividtiger922

dustyranger64 said:Makes sense, sure, but it’s definitely not a requirement. Honestly, just having genuine enthusiasm for a topic and a solid dose of common sense when it comes to moderating and running discussions can take you just as far—if not further!

I’ve lost my way here for a second—are we talking more expert in terms of linguistics, or more expert when it comes to moderation?
Look, this first thing isn't even a rule for moderation, so it can't possibly count. And what about this second one?

So, who did Daniel pick as his heir?
Look, if the DZ mods are just totally clueless or simply don't care anymore, then go ahead and pitch some replacements to the administration or hit up Anderlon directly. Honestly? I highly doubt the administration actually has some shady master plan to turn Social Science into a total battlefield.

Now, look, I'm not trying to question yours or steelskipper5's expertise here. Just because someone makes their living in a field doesn't automatically mean they're the absolute authority or better than everyone else, right? That goes without saying.

Besides, I highly doubt that suggestions about what's lacking or how to improve will be met with hostility. In fact, let's just move over here and get to work. 🤷

Totally agree. That is, assuming those few users are applying that pressure for the good of the PDF. But using that method definitely carries the risk of it being used the wrong way.

In theory, yes, it isn't strictly necessary. In practice, however, we see discussions failing to move, failing to separate, or failing to merge; we see a lack of a cohesive framework of rules or guidelines to help people navigate, or instances where things clash with professional principles without being noticed in time—if they are noticed at all... Ergo, while someone might stumble into being a decent moderator through sheer intuition without specialized knowledge, they likely won't be the best editor. Or they could be both, though that certainly isn't the case here.

I think I’ve lost my way a bit here—more expert in terms of linguistics or more expert in terms of moderation?
Because the former isn't a prerequisite for moderating, and really shouldn't be, but what about the latter?

Both, as I already mentioned.

a) Who did Daniel set as her successor?
b) If the social science moderators are incompetent or disinterested, suggest replacements to the administration or directly to Anderlon. I highly doubt the administration has some grand scheme to make the social science section socially fractured.

a) colbert. I don't mean she hand-picked a successor, it's simply standard procedure.
b) And honestly, don't give me that; I just got back from a ban ten days ago. Remind yourself, I earned it by discussing the selection of the social science moderators. Most of the time, the administration doesn't have a plan at all, which is actually worse than having a malicious one.

Without questioning yours or steelskipper5's expertise, just because someone makes a living out of something doesn't necessarily mean they are good at it or more authoritative than anyone else; that should be obvious.

Not necessarily, but five people who actually work in a field are going to be more authoritative than five people who don't.

Besides, I doubt that suggestions on what isn't working or how to improve things will be met with hostility; in fact, let's just move here and get started. 🤷

Here I am.

dustyranger64 said:Look, we both know that's true. It's common knowledge for both of us.

But that's exactly why I asked you those two specific questions based on what you just said.
Okay, so I got an answer to one part—you were talking about the quality of the users leaving, not just a general drop in numbers. (At least, I'm assuming that's what you meant.)

But what about the second part? How many people have to walk away, and for how long?

Three. On five. Something like that. 🙄

Look, let’s draw a quick comparison between linguistics or DZ and other similar subforums...
Take Health, take History, take Psychology or something else entirely. On all those subforums, first of all, there are more moderators than on DZ, and secondly, they actually have at least one moderator whose actual profession falls within that field. It’s perfectly logical. On the other hand, on DZ, which covers such a massive scope, there were no mods until recently, and now there are just a few, one of whom handles linguistics. That one guy, Daniel, who is a truly wonderful guy in my eyes, has absolutely nothing to do with linguistics by profession; he’s in a completely different field, and he has shown countless times that he doesn't quite grasp the concept of social science, nor does he see it as particularly important. He’s a fantastic user—I really admire how much effort he puts into his amateur linguistic pursuits—but let’s be real here, the man isn't cut out to be a moderator. Not in any sense of the word. Or rather, he could be if he had someone more qualified by his side to cover the areas he doesn't. He has neither the desire nor the interest to find someone like that. He drops by the subforum, writes about what interests him, does a bit of moderating if he absolutely has to, but the editorial work just isn't his thing, nor does he care for it. All of this is the result of: a) the moderator selection system, where a former mod essentially picks their successor; and b) a short-sighted administration that refuses to realize that linguistics can, and indeed must, look better. And that’s just linguistics; the same could be said for all the other sections of DZ.

steelskipper5, myself, and a few others from linguistics actually live off this. And we know exactly how much general interest there is in the field; it’s hard for anyone to convince us that this is just some tiny little subforum that couldn't possibly do better. People show up to ask something once, twice, three times, they start a discussion, they throw out an idea, but there is no response. Naturally, over time, they stop coming, and they stop expecting to find anything there. The questions most frequently asked concern the American standard, English, and general linguistic debates. Has anyone thought to offer people what they are actually looking for? No. You have one mod over there, nothing special happens, nothing moves, and you just don't give a damn. For someone who lives off this, who is in contact with it every single day, who has ultimately spent years on this subforum and seen its various phases, it doesn't take much to see everything that isn't being done properly and what else could be achieved.

And fine, this is a general forum, so you don't care about some linguistics section. But then just say so, for heaven's sake. Just say, "we are a group of citizens who don't care about serious work, it's just here."

Don't just sit there acting like you feel bad and would help if you could.

I suspect the global announcement is missing a link to the Facebook page... 🙂

It’s a question that seems straightforward on the surface, yet holds quite a bit of complexity...

First off, it isn't by accident that these patterns emerge in areas like social science, philosophy, or politics—though, if we're being honest, certain political interest groups certainly muddy those waters even further. What do these specific subforums have in common? They cover such a massive range of topics that there is an incredibly thin line between a serious debate and pure demagoguery, and an equally slippery slope between presenting a solid argument and simply forcing one's own opinion on others.

On top of that, you always deal with two distinct types of users: the ones who eventually devolve into nothing more than trolls looking to derail a thread, and the ones who just possess an insatiable need to prove everyone else wrong. 😁 It then spirals into a cycle of communication, or rather, a layer of meta-communication about the communication itself.

I suspect there is no magic formula to prevent this from happening in every single instance. Perhaps it's possible to monitor these specific threads and subforums more closely, making an effort to read every single post as its own individual entity so that, over time, a particular troll might actually mature—which usually happens—and essentially dig their own grave. Typically, the issue is simply that these cases aren't addressed until it's too late, though that doesn't necessarily mean the punishment is too light.

Deciding exactly when to kick someone off a thread or tell them to pipe down puts moderators in the position of judges, which inevitably raises the question of whether they are truly qualified, willing, or even available enough to make those calls, not to mention whether any definitive answers to these questions even exist. Sometimes, it's honestly best to just let someone ramble on with their nonsense; it's up to the audience to decide who to believe and whose arguments actually hold weight.

P.S. It would surprise you how many self-proclaimed linguistic experts spout far greater and more dangerous nonsense than someone merely nitpicking the definition of a common noun. There's always the risk they might actually trick someone. Still, I occasionally find a bit of joy in letting them drone on... because, frankly, I'm much more concerned about the idea of someone else curating information for me than I am about their own stupidity.

Kyle Carter2 said:My dialect isn't some regional quirk, it’s more like... The nuances of the American language...,

Or perhaps it isn't even the American language... 😁

And since you really want to drag my dialect into this, I should point out that what you call standard speech is actually just a regionalism—it’s essentially the way people from the Midwest speak, used mostly by folks in places like Chicago or by news anchors on national television...

The standard dialect is just... well, it's the standard, for better or worse. But let's be honest, nobody actually speaks like that in real life, nor have they ever really done so, which isn't exactly news to anyone...

I find myself wondering where you all actually hail from, considering how much those distinct regional dialects pop up in your speech... it’s quite a curious thing to witness...
Well, those dialects cover about two-thirds of the country and all of the territory in the West...

Checking in from central California, thanks for asking... 😁

Roughly ten percent of Americans speak in regional dialects today, while another twenty to thirty percent might lean into certain local accents... combined, that doesn't even account for half of the population. Not that it truly matters, but still...

A rabbit... a little female rabbit...
Save your illusions for someone else, because they won't work on me... you’re honestly just making me sick, you little rabbit...

So, what exactly prompted you to address me using masculine pronouns, despite my avatar... 😬

All I’m trying to say is that encountering words you don't recognize isn't necessarily a matter of dealing with a foreign language, but rather just a matter of facing unfamiliar vocabulary... In those moments, what you really need is an explanation, not a translation.

By the way, why on earth did you flag "what" as a questionable relative pronoun in your opening post? It’s used by two-thirds of Americans... 😍

Kyle Carter2 said:So, that guy... Airspace... Sure thing... It seems we've reached a point where things simply don't align... Well... It’s official...?
Besides, you really could have just given me this... To move everything into the basement...... rather than attempting to represent anything at all... The concept of an actant... it’s such a fascinatingly fluid little term, isn't it? One begins to wonder how much agency we truly possess within the structures we inhabit... administrative... Public relations... it’s such a delicate dance between perception and reality, isn't it?.

When will they finally take responsibility... It seems we have reached a point where one might simply observe... It’s reading the data now... and if it turns out you were actually right all along... I would be so grateful if... I suppose this thread should probably... I suppose one could attempt to make sense of it all... if one had the patience... Well... It all comes to an end....

Look, from what you wrote, it seems like you aren't exactly allergic to regionalisms, so I don't see why it should bother you that they're a built-in part of the American language... Of course, if we’re strictly talking about a dictionary, you’ll certainly find lexical regionalisms tucked away in there, even if the phonological or morphological ones aren't quite so easy to pin down. But I never claimed a dictionary was exclusively for "standard" speech, and frankly, you weren't just sticking to the formal rules either, nor does it seem like you're trying to... So, yes, all those terms you pointed out belong to the American tongue, and since a dictionary is meant to be used, one really ought to notice that most of them come with little labels identifying them as regional slang or jargon...

When dealing with religious terminology—specifically those terms that seem to be causing you such grief—one doesn't typically look for a literal translation, but rather an adaptation... What you actually require isn't a translator, but a dictionary or perhaps some other form of conceptual definition. To get started, I’d suggest simply looking one up in a dictionary...

You might find that "rabbit" is grammatically masculine in some contexts, but that certainly doesn't mean a female rabbit doesn't exist... if you consider that my own little oversight... 😁

Is now actually better?

Still...

You'll figure it out on your own eventually.

No, this isn't some shady little blog from out of nowhere; this is an American language dictionary.

Give me a break. 😢

I was just explaining to one of the ladies on here how I’ve managed to maintain this cluttered forum identity that’s still technically female... 😢 😁

So I finally just said, "That's it, I'm changing it!"

No, I wasn't suggesting I take over someone else's handle; that would go against everything I stand for... 😳

What I meant was, can I still reach out to Tyndall with this approval? It’s been about six months since we last spoke, and you know how it goes—that official documentation has to be less than six months old to be valid. 😬

I was thinking of adopting a persona, maybe something like Zekoslava... so I wanted to see if I could just change my username instead of starting from scratch. It would be much easier to keep the reputation I've already built, which Velia confirmed is possible.

Do you recognize me from the Big Brother threads? 🤔 Big Brother? Oh, goodness no, I don't watch it. In all my time on these forums, I've never even touched those streaming services, and honestly, I don't even own a television set. Even back when I did have one, I barely used it, and I certainly never sat through Big Brother. But it doesn't really matter; as long as you remember who I am, the details are secondary... 😁

Just checking in to see if this decision is still standing... Honestly, I'm just completely exhausted by this whole mess regarding my lack of a defined identity. 😁

That was... well... just a joke.

But if you really want to know, it won't be long before some user gets shut down with something like, "Don't even think about messaging the Administrator until we've approved you here."

Is there such a thing as a "former Moderator"? A "retired Moderator"? Or perhaps a "veteran Moderator"? If the answer to all three is "no," then yes, I believe everyone should follow the standard procedure. Not because it's some massive ordeal or because anyone's life depends on it, but simply because it's such a straightforward process—a triviality, really—that these unnecessary questions could easily be avoided. Yet, despite how mundane it may seem, these little things often say quite a lot...

You see it, and the mods see it, but the regular users don't... We shouldn't underestimate how much PR matters, Daniel Ward87. Who actually cares what you guys perceive... 😍

Isn't the whole point of having a dedicated thread for nickname changes to ensure there's a clear, written paper trail for everything...

After all, a newcomer—who might have no idea that a certain person used to be a Moderator—would be completely lost as to where God went and why this Gottspođa with those bizarre symbols suddenly appeared right after they finished reading the first page...

So, to avoid anyone playing the "I didn't know" card, we follow this straightforward little procedure because not everyone has Moderator access, nor should they be expected to know which member used to hold a staff position. It seems much more efficient than trying to answer endless questions about it...

Let's just stick to this for now, and perhaps we can tackle the whole concept of "unannounced moderation duties" at some other time... 😍

We seem to have lost our way a bit. The original concept was simply to set American literature apart from everything else, but we eventually pivoted toward this second option where both domestic and foreign works are separated from the main subforum.

Well, we just need to settle one final point (before we run into a situation involving Mark Twain or Radovan Ivšić 😍) — are we defining American literature as works written in the English language, or specifically as the literature produced by American authors?

fadedsailor932 said:..they stay on the main PDF. Take television as an example. You have one main PDF covering general television topics, plus Series, Unseen, soap opera, and reality TV.

Hmm, I suppose it’s both comparable and not quite... In principle, yes—we have one primary forum acting as a sort of catch-all, supplemented by more niche subforums. But that division is both thematic and technical, in a way. Here, what we actually categorize is based on nationality. It isn't quite the same, though; for instance, the Film section has no subforums at all, Music doesn't split domestic from international hits, and History lacks a distinction between local and global events...

But more on that later...

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Beyond that, it’s worth noting that the topics you mentioned aren't strictly about literature, but rather book-related subjects. This includes things like e-books, e-readers, newsstand paperbacks, non-fiction, or even scientific texts. If your concern is specifically about making purely literary topics more visible compared to general book topics, that could be fixed by creating a dedicated literature subforum—perhaps combining American and international works, or separating them—alongside a slight renaming of the main subforum.

(Based on the start of this thread, I gathered that you're more interested in specialized discussions regarding American language and literature.)

So, that would be the gist of it. For the needs of a non-specialized forum like ours, I find a division between strictly literary topics and those that are less so—perhaps even a chronological split between contemporary and classic literature—to be much more intuitive than dividing everything by nationality.

But what happens to the broader comparative themes?

I’m just not sure... say, if we have a topic like the Historical Novel. That would live on the main subforum, but then if someone wants to discuss the Sunday Factory, they’d move over to the American Literature section? My concern is that by the time people get there, the interest might have already been exhausted on the main thread, leaving the actual discussion about the Factory itself feeling a bit... thin...

Well, that’s exactly my point—we’re actually saying the same thing. Categorizing everything under "American Literature" is an even narrower distinction than splitting it up by region...

rustydrifter10 said:(Pod)Forum should be intuitive and practical for everyone, especially those who live here and actually use it. If a suggestion serves the interests of the Literature Department, our local community, and has the potential to make things easier for veterans while drawing in newcomers, then we ought to at least consider it and start a conversation. As Mirror suggested, feel free to share your thoughts.

Well, my concern regarding some sort of "ghettoization" of American Literature if it were separated—that’s really what this is about. Aside from my own professional preference, which is why I’d love to see it happen, I am trying to look at this through the eyes of the average visitor... an average person based on their interests, rather than their academic credentials, let me be clear.

The term "American Literature" is something many people tend to bypass in general conversation. I get the impression that people find it much easier to digest when everything is bundled under the broad umbrella of just "Literature." Once you separate it, the immediate association becomes school assignments and English class, doesn't it? Sadly. And then it becomes even easier to ignore.

It would seem more logical to divide it into something like literary history, literary theory, or perhaps older versus contemporary works...

rapidnomad7 said:The logic you're using could apply to just about anything. For instance, who else actually cares about Formula 1? I’m fairly certain more people find American linguistics and literature fascinating than some group of helmet-wearing fanatics circling an asphalt track in endless loops. What is there even to see, or to debate? A topic like that might interest ten people on the entire planet, yet it gets its own dedicated subforum within the sports section. A whole subforum, for crying out loud...

And that covers the apples and oranges, so let's dive into the nuances of the fruit itself. 😁

It isn't merely a matter of numbers; it's about the specific way people engage with American linguistics and literature. They approach it quite broadly. Most people struggle to distinguish between learning a foreign language and studying their native tongue—between deep linguistic study and simply following practical instructions. And it's the latter that captures their attention first. To put it another way, if we finally get to those apples, American linguistics is grouped under the Linguistics Department, just as our domestic history isn't separated from European or global history, and so on...

As for those ridiculous subforums, can you imagine a greater irony than the split between hardware and software within Information Technology? 😍
Think about it: the Linguistics Department, an entire field of science, only recently branched away from the messy mix of sociology, anthropology, and ethnology (which, by the way, has far less to do with literature than one might think)... meanwhile, hardware and software each have their own distinct space. But then again, I suppose it makes sense why the average visitor, someone without specialized training, finds it easier to tell a computer component apart from a program than to distinguish historical phonology or Petrarchism from a new book by Joan Didion, or perhaps a linguistic competition for new terminology.

On a massive, general-interest forum like this, utility isn't the primary goal; instead, the focus remains on clarity and intuitive navigation...

Your idea is honestly wonderful, no joke, but let’s be realistic here: who actually cares about Renaissance American literature besides maybe J. K. Rowling and a handful of students popping in with one-off questions? This first guy won't be back, and those others usually don't even stick around for an answer because they find everything they need in a study guide. 😁

That’s regarding the classics. As for contemporary works, there isn't much interest in them in the way you're describing...

Don't get me wrong, I would be absolutely thrilled if your proposal actually came to life—and if the Linguistics Department were split from the Social Science Institute to merge with the Literature Department, I couldn't be happier—but the reality is that this is just a general forum, not a school, a university department, or an academic circle... most people here don't even perceive the distinction between American and Foreign Literature the way you do. In fact, I have a feeling they participate more precisely because it's lumped in with everything else; if we isolated it, they’d likely just bypass it entirely...