granitefalcon10 said:vividtiger922, I honestly think switching up your handle is a killer idea. 😳 😁
Also, just so we’re all on the same page, I want to point out that Zekoslava and Zekoslava Mrkva haven't been active for over a year now. You should totally feel free to put in a request for one of those names. It’s high time someone cleared that clutter out. 😉
Goodness, you can clearly see I’m still feeling rather indecisive... I’ve actually grown quite fond of this ridiculous username, in its own peculiar way... 😢 😍
I suppose I’d love to finally be called by my real name... if only... 😁
I know it’s been a topic of conversation lately, and while technically possible now, it still feels somewhat uncouth... What if she actually comes back? 😁 Honestly, what I actually need is... well, I suppose it doesn't really matter what I do with it. 😁
Whatever the case may be, there's no sense in us sitting around here talking in circles and making a whole production out of nothing while the rabbit is still out there in the woods...😍As far as I’m concerned, I’d be perfectly happy with either Jane—assuming she’s even reachable—or Polish Jane. And honestly, to keep things simple and avoid any headache with special characters, we could just go with Jane... though, let's just wait for an official statement from the authorities, because this whole situation is becoming more complicated than renaming Times Square... 😁
Get in touch with Tyndall, provided he actually gives the green light for the change...
As it stands, there are currently no plans to implement the process of allowing users to claim the handles of existing forum members...
I suppose I should just ask this purely for information... Yes, I’ve gone through all the rules and everything. Basically, if I decided to commit fully—meaning, if I stopped causing such a distraction by adding my surname to the main username and making things awkward for everyone—would a change to Zekoslaw be permitted? She isn't taken, whereas all the other variations like Zekoslaw or Zekoslaw Smith are already claimed. Besides, that's essentially what my friends here call me anyway, so it wouldn't feel like such a massive leap as it might seem... 🙂
Do you see the subtle distinction between these two sentences?
1. a) "In that case, hatred is a perfectly logical and expected reaction. As is acting in accordance with it."
b) "In that case, hatred is a perfectly logical and necessary reaction. As is acting in accordance with it."
We could also play around with different tenses to change the equation. For instance,
2) "In that case, hatred was a perfectly logical reaction..."
In the first example, we’re looking back at past events and attempting to explain them from our current vantage point. The difference lies entirely in that one word, "necessary." If we weren't discussing "action," perhaps pairing "necessary" with "hatred" might pass... It's unpleasant to read, certainly, but that isn't the same as justifying a crime.
With the second example, the use of the past tense tells us we are describing historical events, yet again, the choice of wording remains the pivot point.
Using the present tense combined with such specific word choices leaves almost no room for doubt, because it's presented as an assertion—a definitive stance. We are talking about very specific occurrences and a very specific timeframe. Historical events. Hatred might be logical to some, but that doesn't make it necessary. And as for taking action... well, action can be neither logical nor necessary.
Now, you might argue this is just nitpicking and that the person simply misspoke, but we are dealing with media here. Written media. A post is a text, a self-contained entity. One is responsible for their own errors that lead to misunderstandings. If they are misinterpreted, the opportunity to correct the record remains. This particular user hasn't taken it. And they certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to do so...
rustydrifter10 said:I think I can finally log in normally now. Look, nobody intended for anything bad to happen or for anyone to get hurt here, but I totally see why there’s a gray area when you consider someone might actually want to get back into their account. That said, the rule shouldn't apply to anyone with a significant post count or anyone who's been active within the last few years. The concept itself isn't necessarily bad, it just needs a lot more fine-tuning before it's set in stone.
Look, an experiment is fine—it's not the end of the world—but please don't act surprised when people start questioning things or getting sensitive about potential abuses of power. It’s completely natural for people to feel uneasy seeing certain permissions granted to some while we're left in the dark, especially since, by total coincidence, it turns out Spectre was the one tasked with handling these nickname changes.
I really don't blame anyone; it's perfectly reasonable to have questions when sudden changes happen without any heads-up. 🙂
The goal wasn't to discriminate against anyone; we just didn't want to go public with this phase while the final decisions on who gets changed and when are still pending. We aren't quite sure how the mechanics will work yet, though we don't anticipate major issues. We honestly believe it's better to move slowly and establish a concrete, formal policy that applies to everyone equally, rather than rolling this out en masse with such vague guidelines.
Oh, naturally, none of us were given any notice regarding these new capabilities. And wow, look at that immediate defensiveness! Honestly, you should be glad that people are staying vigilant against potential power trips; that's actually a sign of political maturity and an awareness of one's own rights and responsibilities. It shows people care about their identity, their presence, and their digital footprint in this virtual zoo. 😁
If we stay silent, we're accused of ignoring the issue. If we respond, we're accused of being defensive. 🙄 ☕ 😁 It feels like you can't win with you guys. 😳 😁
The reason you haven't been notified is that a final decision hasn't been reached yet. But once it is, we promise we'll let you know. 🙂
I appreciate both of you for such thorough responses. 🙂
I just figured it might be a bit much to simply delete people without even giving them a chance to realize their handle had been changed, but I’m just curious about how the technical side of things works... Since, as it happens, I registered that way myself and then drifted away from the forum for a while before returning. Not that anyone is out to claim my specific username, but still... 😁
An experiment is fine, nothing too heavy, but let's not act surprised when people react or ask questions—especially those who are sensitive to any hint of an abuse of power. It’s perfectly natural for folks to feel uneasy seeing privileges granted to some that aren't available to us, particularly since, by sheer coincidence, none other than the newly minted Spectre was in charge of these name changes. And naturally, we weren't given any heads-up about these new features. You're already getting defensive, but honestly, you should be glad people are staying vigilant against potential overreach; it's actually a sign of political maturity and an awareness of one's own rights, duties, and the importance of maintaining control over one's space, identity, actions, body, handle, and avatar within this digital jungle. 😁
Wait, what happens if an inactive user like Nicole decides to jump back into the fray using their old handle? For instance, I was MIA for about two years before deciding to start posting again, and honestly, I just couldn't be bothered to go through the hassle of setting up a brand-new profile. Then you have someone like Spectre, who is now essentially an ex-Spectre... If a person tries to log in with their former username without realizing it’s been changed, what actually happens?
Michelle Flores40 said:I realize we're right in the middle of election season, but I haven't quite lost my hearing when it comes to political slogans yet...
sweetheart, you seem to have quite a friction with the moderators and the admin team; that PDF is looking pretty raw right now, so maybe just let it heal a bit...
I honestly think letting the new guy take the lead is the right move—just give him some space to find his footing without everyone hovering over his shoulder. That’s all...
Would you be so kind as to actually read the original post and the link included there to see how this whole debate even started? I’m asking nicely...
I honestly don't see why a topic like this should be treated as some sort of looming threat within the Natural Science, Religion, Film, or even the recently added Alternative subforums under Social Science... there's really no reason to go around aggressively shutting things down or warning the mods about supposed dangers that just aren't there.
Back when Elli was asked about where the boundaries actually lie for discussions on this subject, people simply acted within the limits they were given—just like all of us, including yourself.
After all, these subforums don't exist solely for the sake of the moderators, nor is this thread required to maintain the exact same shape it once held, so I fail to see the need for such apocalyptic predictions regarding something that works perfectly fine elsewhere and aligns quite well with the recent updates we've been seeing...
Exactly. I’m suggesting we either spin up a dedicated thread in the subforum or just unlock the existing one... this particular discussion was actually sparked by my chat with Nico regarding the need for more focused topics and general feedback across the entire forum. My intention with the opening post was to provide a rationale for why a topic like this is nearly essential within a section like social science...
To ensure this proposal doesn't just get swallowed up by the sheer volume of conversation in the original thread, I decided to present the reasoning as its own standalone topic—so, here we are, an open floor for debate, which feels like the right way to go.
I appreciate you weighing in and, from what I can see, supporting my suggestion. 🙂 As for the technicalities—whether we start fresh or revive an old thread—we'll just have to see. I wonder if Tyndall might have some sort of visual to help us unlock the previous discussion, because it would be such a shame if we didn't keep this going in a more editorial style... 😁
With the moderator's permission, I suppose this serves as a continuation... It seems I missed the content you wanted me to rewrite... I'm opening up this little corner of the forum to serve as a dedicated space for discussing anything falling under the umbrella of social science... or, more accurately, that vast territory consisting of everything that isn't linguistics, psychology, philosophy, or history...
One might wonder if we truly need a dedicated thread for suggestions, complaints, or general critiques regarding how we operate here on this subforum... But honestly, the answer is rather mundane. After all, the title itself includes the word "science." Now, let’s be realistic—this isn't some high-level academic journal, nor is this entire forum meant to function like an Ivy League university, so there's really no point in debating that. We all know deep down that expecting strictly rigorous, high-level scholarly discourse on a public internet forum is a bit of a stretch... There will always be those who feel compelled to drift into a subforum regardless of its title, just to drop a comment that leaves a bit of a bad taste in everyone's mouth... On the other hand, you have the folks who actually take a discussion seriously and strive to maintain some semblance of quality. It ultimately falls to the moderator to strike that delicate balance between the two—ensuring there's a space where enthusiasts can participate within their own level of interest without draining the life out of the conversation, while simultaneously providing a platform for those seeking rigorous debate to exchange ideas, promote their fields, and bridge the gap to the public through a sophisticated yet accessible approach that leans ever so slightly toward the popular...
Moderating subforums like these is no easy feat. On one hand, you need that specific set of qualities that define any decent moderator—though, if we’re being honest, "quality" is such a subjective term when it depends entirely on the subject matter at hand... on the other hand, you actually have to be able to navigate these debates and possess a baseline understanding of the topics being discussed. Let’s be realistic: the scope of social science is incredibly vast, and it's nearly impossible for any single person to master every niche through sheer effort and expertise alone. Personally, I wouldn't dream of claiming I have enough knowledge to maintain a high standard of discourse without leaning on those who are willing to step up and share their insights... which is why I truly believe that open feedback and genuine communication between moderators and members are absolutely essential here.
Since we touched on this briefly before, I felt it was necessary to reopen the discussion. If my intuition serves me right, the thread was likely shuttered because it was being treated primarily as a dumping ground for grievances regarding moderator decisions—which simply isn't its purpose. Not every single action warrants a public rebuttal, nor is this platform meant to be a catch-all for resolving every minor dispute; for those matters, there is the formal appeals process and other established channels... However, I believe it is vital to have a space where we can discuss overarching ideas, the general direction of this sub-forum, and the standard of discourse we ought to uphold. While this forum may not always sustain the highest level of academic rigor, the fundamental principles of science, methodology, and the core literature that any non-expert should familiarize themselves with are topics that cannot be properly addressed within individual threads, nor even through the official grievance procedures...
Of course, that doesn't mean every single suggestion, critique, or idea is going to be greenlit. After all, even Whereabout—who has shown quite an interest in this discussion—once remarked that sometimes a moderator finds it easiest just to tune everything out and do things their own way... It isn't easy to reconcile every conflicting viewpoint and every stray idea that comes flying in, though it certainly isn't a bad thing to listen. You never know what kind of gem might pop up. So, I would truly love to see everyone interested weigh in on this conversation, from the current moderators and the admin team to the former mods and the duo whose brief stint on this subforum was unfortunately cut short (Apophis and Velia)... plus the supermod in charge of the section, anyone else who drops by, and anyone with even the slightest affinity for the social sciences.
And just so this thread doesn't end up being nothing more than a one-off question about a single topic, let’s make this our official home for discussing the subforum itself... since Whereabout already kicked things off by pointing out how things have finally started picking up lately, and I think we should definitely keep that momentum going...
Sarah Doyle54 said:I would kindly ask the supermoderators to refrain from judging the tone of others when they are simply responding to appeals filed in the correct section.
Much appreciated... 😍
Just a quick correction regarding the previous statement: this isn't an appeal, regardless of how much some people might try to find one where none exists.
dustyranger64 said:That’s some clever trolling. Nothing like that was actually in her post...
The whole metaphor about telling someone where to shove it was just meant to illustrate how a request doesn't really change the outcome—telling someone to get lost is still just telling them to get lost. Honestly, that was my first thought when I wrote it. I suppose I could have used a different analogy, though I doubt it would have changed much... oh, and my poor little smiley face is clearly losing its luster by now.
I already addressed that. It wouldn't hurt if you tried actually understanding what's being written once in a while instead of relying on pure demagoguery.
Forgive me, but is this also trolling? 😁 And I notice you conveniently skipped over my point about how there are a million things one could nitpick, yet none of them should be pointed out by anyone except a moderator. I agree that it’s unnecessary. So, let the moderator lead by example then...
True, it isn't standard practice to police grammar in threads that aren't specifically about it. But there is absolutely no question of malice or a lack of Gentleness.
I wonder, where exactly did I mention malice? 🤔
There isn't much left to say here. Especially given the tone of the first half of the post.
I was asking for clarification on what exactly was meant. How many times do I have to repeat that I wasn't looking for an official ruling or a verdict? I am simply exercising my right to say I don't like something, based on my own human, Redditor, professional, and other various motivations. Is this the place for that? It is. Did I ask for an answer specifically from you? No. Did I ask for an answer from the moderator? No. Of course, she is free to speak up herself, I'm not questioning that, but I didn't solicit her response. She is bothered by a minor grammatical slip and uses her moderator authority to call it out. Personally, I am bothered by the linguistic tyranny happening across the rest of this Social Science section. I am using Amtrak to point it out. That is all...
And for the record, it really wouldn't hurt if we all just stuck to our own business here. I don't bother with your tone or your attitude simply because I don't think anyone cares what I think about them. Perhaps you could be kind enough to extend that same courtesy to me. Please, just read the words, not the person writing them...
dustyranger64 As stated by... It’s hard to label an example that begins with a polite request and wraps up with a sincere thank you as anything other than pure gentleness...
So, if I were to politely request that someone simply go jump in a lake, and then follow up by thanking them for taking my well-intentioned advice... I suppose I wouldn't exactly be lacking in gentleness, would I...? 😁 Ever heard the term "grammar Nazi"? In the realm of online etiquette, it’s generally considered rather uncouth... perhaps not entirely unforgivable, but certainly lacking in any sense of gentleness.
It isn’t necessarily tied to one specific instance, but within the guidelines of several PDFs, there is a polite request for users to maintain proper grammar and spelling, among other things... There is a world of difference between a moderator stepping in with genuine politeness to ask for a bit of restraint, and this current trend where everyone feels entitled to nitpick every single post until this whole place turns into a glorified grammar workshop...
Such a request is perfectly reasonable, given that seeking clarity certainly doesn't hinder our understanding... I am simply asking a straightforward question—why was that user's post flagged as off-topic in the first place, and more importantly, what exactly was it that caught the moderators' attention?
You know, there are hundreds of other linguistic dilemmas out there. I’m convinced that if you looked at that specific thread, you'd find countless examples of much deeper, more systemic errors... But just because someone finds a misplaced hyphen more offensive than anything else doesn't give them the right to make snide remarks about a post under the guise of a "moderator warning," especially when that specific error doesn't even impact the actual meaning of the text!
That final line felt a bit clumsy and perhaps unnecessary, though I wouldn't go so far as to say the post lacked any sense of gentleness...
It might lack the right shape and the substance certainly isn't there, but the intention... well, that was clearly present. If you want to call it clumsy and unnecessary, go ahead then...
I appreciate the effort and the example provided. No rulings are actually necessary here, given that this isn't an appeal...
God forbid I would ever even consider asking for something like that... no precedents required.
Chloe Hughes15 said:I don't believe I've changed my mind regarding the separation of sub-sections... Above, I provided an example of what would result in a post being flagged.
It wouldn't hurt if, instead of resorting to demagoguery, you tried actually comprehending what is written. For instance, some time ago, a user on this Reddit had their post flagged because they pointed out an error. It was classified as off-topic. She filed a complaint, and the admins upheld the decision, agreeing the post deserved that classification. That is precisely what you did in your own post. That is the first point.
Secondly, why should Social Science be treated differently from the rest of the platform? I am thinking specifically of the lower section of Social Science. Why would something be flagged there that wouldn't be flagged anywhere else? Is it simply because Linguistics happens to be upstairs? Or perhaps because certain things are tolerated there that aren't tolerated elsewhere?
I'll allow it.
Please, allow me to frame this not as unnecessary nitpicking, but as free advice. 🙂
In this specific instance, it might pass as off-topic free advice, regardless of how Netiquette views the matter... though if it’s accompanied by a comment like "you're hilarious," one might suspect the intended goal wasn't really advice at all, but rather a final jab.
I never said that, nor is that my intention. I would kindly ask that you stop putting words in my mouth.😉
Well, I suppose I will be bold enough to form an impression of how you view the rules based on how they are actually enforced—and then, looking back at past debates and how you've voiced your stances on them, I find my conclusion is quite confirmed...
Then there is no need for us to continue this discussion.👍
Actually, this wasn't meant as a grievance, nor was it directed at your statement.
The topic is titled "Gentleness," isn't it? You chose to present an example of gentle communication, while I happen to be identifying its exact opposite... and coincidentally, that example is you. That doesn't mean I was asking for your official statement.
Chloe Hughes15 said:I don't believe I've ever been flagged for grammar or spelling outside of the Linguistics threads. At any rate, I can't recall such an instance...
But I certainly remember. Not for me, perhaps, but for you. 😉 And I distinctly recall your colleague weighing in on the matter using those exact words I just quoted. So, while it might happen in Linguistics, it doesn't occur in the rest of Social Science. To be perfectly clear—it wasn't just about grammar or spelling, but rather about someone being penalized for pointing out a mistake. That is my point.
Are you really going to ask me to overlook the sheer pedantry of this unnecessary off-topic nitpicking and call it "pedagogy"?
PS It’s a shame you didn't start a new thread. I suspect it would have garnered much more attention.
I believe you've had plenty of opportunities to peddle your specific vision of the PDF as the only viable option. You don't need a dedicated thread for that. Besides, you haven't convinced me, and I doubt you ever will...
Since this thread is already active, I might as well use it to point out an instance of moderator behavior that lacks a certain level of gentleness. Specifically, pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes where nobody asked for them—and where they aren't even relevant, given we are discussing Religious Education within the Social Science section—is simply uncalled for... It’s particularly ironic considering that back when Linguistics branched off from Social Science, it was established that such trifles are tolerated within Linguistics, yet in the rest of the Social Science department, people get reprimanded for much less... like mere hyphenation errors in declensions (!).
It would be refreshing if the moderators focused on following basic netiquette first, before attempting to enforce their own subforum rules.
It doesn't necessarily have to be such a broad generalization. For instance, if we're talking about a textbook approved by the Department of Education, or literature that you can easily find in any local Barnes & Noble, claiming there's hidden content inside without providing a shred of evidence—and stubbornly doubling down on it—could actually be grounds for a lawsuit... If Pauletić is right, we might just see some furious textbook authors filing demands to have certain topics scrubbed entirely.
It’s certainly easier to play in the gray areas when dealing with obscure, hard-to-find sources. I fear there isn't much recourse there, though I suppose there are rare instances where action can still be taken.
dustyranger64 said:The rule against misquoting primarily concerns falsifying what other forum members have said.
If someone misquotes external sources—like books, articles, or news sites—it’s really up to the community to step in and explain the discrepancy through reasoned argument... and if it becomes a recurring issue, the moderators of the local PDF should decide whether it's blatant trolling or just a simple case of bad interpretation. In those instances, I’d suggest reaching out directly to the local mods.
That’s just my general take on forum etiquette. For anything specific regarding spirituality, you'll have to wait for Nicole James...
But what about those cases where someone claims to have read something from a specific author or source, yet when others ask for verification because they can't find it themselves, the claimant insists on their own version with a justification like "I don't feel like looking it up, but I know it's there"? Of course, you can't force anyone to hunt down sources if they aren't willing, but doesn't basic decency dictate that they should at least stay quiet and exit the debate? Is insisting on such a low level of discourse also considered trolling? And a second question—a variation on the theme, actually, though perhaps a bit more blunt—does responding with "look it up yourself" when asked for a source count as trolling? Again, while you can't compel someone to provide a citation, surely they could simply remain silent instead...
I'm not sure how other "serious" (to borrow Susan Price30's term) PDFs handle this, but I am certain that one particular group wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior. On the History PDF, the moderators work incredibly hard to keep discussions within reasonable bounds, and the users tend to follow that lead...