hollowtrucker77 said:it's all the supermods, though these guys will also be dealing with extra post reports and making sure everyone actually follows the PŽK rules
Can anyone shed some light on who’s actually running the show with the new PŽK moderators? I ask because a few days ago, someone mentioned that the entire supermod team is handling the PŽK oversight now. I'm talking about general discussion threads, not the actual appeals or rulings... So, is it really everyone, or just that specific group we were told about?
BTW, if you do some simple math, it turns out the new rules and that notice about removing partials got way more eyes on them in just a few hours than the new rules pinned at the top did in an entire week. Thanks for actually listening to the people once in a while...
dustyranger64 said:Partials have been removed from the organization regardless of when they were earned. We won't be issuing refunds upon request.
The following users had their partials stripped: walther-P38 Carlos Il Bestione lord Byron Lastan Mcaucliffe snowleopard Manchild
Carlos
Il Bestione
Nicholas King
Lastan
Mcaucliffe snowleopard Manchild All of them have been notified via PM. (Well, Byron and Manchild obviously already know, and Lastan is still under a general ban—he’ll get his notice once that clears up.) We didn't touch the partials for anyone who is permanently banned. It makes sense both technically and logically. (Let's face it, any partials earned after a permanent ban were basically "earned" by causing total chaos during those messy mass-download sessions involving saints, mothers, and other relatives—basically just being totally inappropriate.)
That specific part of the decision is not open for debate or review.
justcurious says: Conclusion:
So, saying "Hey guys, we don't have the technical tools to do this perfectly, so we're asking the community if we missed anyone on this list—if we did, please let us know"—is actually a pretty solid move. It keeps things transparent and cuts down on all the random questions hitting our inbox.
If you know someone who should have had their partials removed from the organization but isn't on this list, please shoot the admins a PM. Your help is much appreciated!
Since the list is still pretty short and this thread has already hit over 2,000 views, I don't think we need to make a massive forum-wide announcement just yet. However, we might end up doing that if things change significantly—like if more names pop up thanks to your tips. I’ll take this chance to ask one more time: please actually read the new rule of the organization at the top of the PDF. I noticed it has about a third of the views this thread has! Thanks for listening and for understanding.
The rules are getting fewer views than most threads on here... one might wonder why that is, though I suppose it goes without saying that people generally prefer sensationalism over substance.
Still, I suspect some would gladly open those rules just to find something to nitpick. As they are now, they remain far too subtle. They've been sitting there for a week already.
And for that small handful of curious souls who actually decide to read them and reflect—or perhaps offer some criticism—it seems like quite a chore that keeps you from simply doing your job in peace.
Just give us a reason to believe all of this is being done for our sake... otherwise, it feels a bit like a royal decree issued solely to maintain order in the house.
Matthew Grant9 said:Are you absolutely certain that's what we're talking about here?😬 If I had to sum this up in a nutshell—and I mean a really tiny one—it would be about whether the admins are being generous enough with bans, and before that, whether the users are dancing on thin ice. To me, it seems like the real topic is the gracefulness of the performance itself. Like, are the skaters the only ones to blame when the ice starts cracking under their feet?
Among other things, yes. There isn't much point in even debating the rest... because the response will always be, "It’s like this on every other forum, so why would JLL be any different?" And let's just face facts—it is. What is there to argue about when you're simply implementing rules that are already standard practice everywhere else?
So, you're left arguing about why that rule wasn't being enforced until yesterday... which begs the question: who exactly was responsible for letting it slide in the first place? And honestly, why should the community be the ones to suffer just because something wasn't handled correctly before, only to suddenly become an issue now...
If you try to pin this on the moderators, they’ll just tell you that while they handle the PDFs, it’s actually the users who set the tone around here... And if that's the case, then let's be clear: the direction was already established, so expecting a total turnaround overnight is frankly delusional. This isn't some organized precinct where someone swoops in to enforce order, so really, it's just a matter of seeing who survives the chaos...
The people on this forum aren't exactly dim enough to realize when they've hit a wall... though I doubt anyone is going to be particularly thrilled when everything they've spent years building gets torn down in a single afternoon...
It seems even the moderators have started implementing those necessary crackdowns we all agreed upon, finally showing everyone exactly how things are going to be handled...
cosmicskipper39 said:That’s how they handled things a few weeks—maybe even months—ago when they were redesigning everything and trying to enforce order over at RID. Over at ZK, they did it slightly more gracefully because the supermod pinned a warning thread right at the top. I think some user from RID actually suggested doing it that way, mostly because a huge crowd of users went ballistic just because she asked why someone got banned. The mods decided those kinds of questions counted as "questioning moderator decisions," so the whole group of expectant moms and new parents ended up getting banned. The threads over at KZB were a total mess back then, just like they are now.
But why?
Well, that's a philosophical question, but maybe the forum is just terrified.
During the first wave of this discussion, Matthew Grant9, a few others, and I all caught wind that something similar was being prepared for ŽK. And sure enough, it happened.
It makes me wonder if the administration has learned anything at all from these situations. It isn't even particularly fair to the moderators to suddenly impose order like this out of nowhere. It implies that, until now, things haven't been run properly... assuming order was even necessary. And the people who have been posting on that sub-forum end up feeling somewhat foolish, as if everything they've built until this point was somehow invalid... as if it should have looked different from the start?
There is so much to unpack here... Honestly, allowing for a transition period wouldn't be such a terrible idea. One could argue that in these circumstances, you really ought to let the chaos run its course for a while before marching toward new victories... but no. It's much easier to just say, "From today onward, this is the rule."
hollowmason64 said:So, has anyone else noticed what’s been happening with the last few posts around here? Seriously, what did this place even turn into? It’s pretty obvious that a certain group of people—the ones who clearly make talking nonsense their main hobby—just clocked out of work, hopped online, and started dropping those gems of theirs. And, well, we all know how that ended. 🙄
It feels like it was only for a little while that we could actually have a normal conversation here without someone jumping in to shut everything down...
I’ve actually started this exact same thread about LJES and his moderation style twice before, and honestly, nobody jumped down my throat. I didn't get called names, nobody told me I was being an idiot, and nobody just shut the whole discussion down without warning. You’re more than welcome to go check my profile history if you don't believe me. 😉
It seems you aren't quite grasping that moderation is an actual option here. If someone hijacks a meaningful discussion just to push their own agenda, or because they're having a bad day and want to troll, provoke, or mock others, there should be a way to handle that appropriately while leaving the thread open for those who actually want a quality conversation. Unfortunately, that isn't really happening here.
Eric Newman75 said:That just doesn't fly here. Tyndall already closed the thread and made it crystal clear: anyone who keeps pushing this is getting banned. 😉
Forgive me, but Tyndall closed that thread in such a... one... one... truly appalling and shameful manner, which only served to fan the flames even further...
Well... whether it's worth mentioning in passing or not, the fact remains that there was once a level of tolerance that simply doesn't exist anymore.
No, the real poison didn't come from the changes themselves, but rather the execution—it was blunt, arrogant, and completely tone-deaf. And honestly, it didn't have to be that way. It’s only natural that the echoes of a discussion cut off so abruptly will continue to resurface... eventually, things will have to settle, one way or another, perhaps even hitting rock bottom at Kokošinjac...
Just as a new administration in D.C. typically gets a hundred-day grace period to prove they actually know what they're doing, users sometimes need a moment to adjust to new rules and find a place to voice their thoughts. Unfortunately, none of that was actually provided here.
Don't you think it’s a bit extreme to wipe out half a subforum in just a few days?
And for what reason?
Because suddenly, out of nowhere, and without any provocation, things that were perfectly acceptable yesterday have become forbidden... the exact same things you allowed until now, the very same things your hand-picked moderators tolerated, and the very same topics we attempted to discuss calmly, logically, and politely in a thread you prematurely shut down by labeling those rare instances of nonsense as mere "idiocy." And let's be clear—writing nonsense isn't the same thing as being an idiot, so I'll take the liberty of calling your recent decisions pure idiocy. Tyndall, surely that shouldn't be an issue, right?
What's most pathetic, though, is that what you're trying to implement isn't even particularly controversial in itself; you simply lack style, guys. No sense of rhythm, no ear for it... nothing, really.
Well... here I am again, using this thread, even if it means getting another strike against my name.
Look, colbert. I wanted to reach out and say this. I’ve been following the chatter on this thread for a few days now, starting from this specific post, and my takeaway is always the same. Please take this as genuine advice: not everyone spouting nonsense is doing it just to troll or be provocative. Despite all your effort, I can't quite grasp why you haven't realized that people can be incredibly uninformed, uneducated, and stubbornly wrong all at once. Your approach doesn't actually help anyone. I don't see a real desire to educate or clarify things; I just see a desire to mock. And honestly, it isn't doing you any favors. From an outsider's perspective, it isn't funny or entertaining... it just comes across as a bit condescending. This isn't meant to be an insult, though I know that's how it lands.
The reality is that no one is going to walk away from these debates feeling enlightened or informed. Even when you make a valid point, it won't be taken seriously because your entire delivery is so counterproductive. It might be worth considering holding back occasionally, or perhaps sticking to explaining the facts without trying to be the funniest person in the room. Or, better yet, just let someone else handle it. At the end of the day, this just turns into "your word against theirs," and you aren't going to convince anyone when you're looking down your nose at them. If anything, it just makes them dig their heels in further. So, if that's truly your goal...
I’m going to use this thread one more time just so I don't have to start a new one. This is pretty much the only place where one can actually comment on the "management" here and the supposedly constructive work of our dear moderator, Chloe Hughes15. Experience has taught me that you shouldn't even joke about it... because anything you say regarding her will inevitably end with a ceremonial presentation of warning cards. It’s not as if disagreement is permitted under any circumstances.
Actually, I won't focus too much on the moderation itself. I'm not entirely sure if what we're seeing even qualifies as moderation. But then again, it does technically fall under that umbrella, since every discussion eventually concludes with a brilliant moderator move involving a red or yellow slip of paper.
Since the rest of us aren't quite so well-equipped with those kinds of resources, all we can really do is track the behavior. And, for our own sanity, hand out an imaginary card to this lady for her constant, mindless babbling.
So, Chloe Hughes15, I am taking this opportunity to issue you a card for your relentless, hollow chatter and nonsense. Feel free to adjust the points as you see fit. And, for both your sake and ours, I beg of you—stay away from discussions regarding American linguistics. Believe me, ten lines of pure bullshit would be preferable to what you call "trolling," which is really just your reaction when people don't bow down to your ideas. I've read your various inventions since I arrived, especially those concerning American linguistics, and occasionally even general life and philosophy. If you had ever actually opened a grammar book—or any other textbook, for that matter—I believe you might have gained some inkling of how ambiguous and contentious these topics truly are. Clearly, you haven't, nor do you have the slightest clue. Even if you did, you still have the option to show a tiny shred of patience or tolerance, which you simply lack. Then there is a third option: stay quiet, stop the rambling, refrain from drawing false analogies, and be polite enough not to expect everyone to be thrilled when you share useless whims. You aren't capable of that either. So, go ahead and pass out your cards; it's the only thing you're good at. In fact, it might be the only thing you know how to do.
Grace Sullivan42 said:It’s allowed over in Linguistics, but not in the rest of social science. Unfortunately, we didn't include that in the subforum rules, but I assume the veteran users should just know...
First off, users aren't obligated to intuitively grasp unwritten rules simply because of your own laziness or lack of clarity. Second, when this post was originally made, the Linguistics section didn't even exist; the thread was actually opened under social science. So, by all means, feel free to comb through every single topic and penalize any posts that violate rules which technically don't exist yet... Third, it is your responsibility to announce changes regarding warnings, and Bell pepper has as much right to participate in this discussion as I do, since they are just an ordinary user in this specific instance. And finally, most importantly, rest assured that I will be reporting every instance of off-topic chatter, whether it comes from the users or the moderators themselves.
EDIT: Are we really debating a warning that mysteriously vanished again? I've already noticed a strange tendency among the social science crowd to obsessively dig up old warnings and merged posts for months, but this has reached unprecedented levels...
We are discussing the peculiar tendency of certain moderators to neglect their actual duties, and we haven't just started talking about it today. Furthermore, the fact that someone else is always cleaning up your messes or taking the fall for your negligence doesn't make you any less incompetent...
Did I get this right, or am I only seeing part of the picture? I’ve always operated under the assumption that other people's bans, their disciplinary actions, and their drama simply aren't my business... and I honestly assumed the moderators—and especially the administration—felt the same way.
So, where does it come from, this idea that someone has the right to vote in the Ban Appeals section regarding a post they were the one who reported in the first place? Am I not allowed to participate in a discussion about whether a post I flagged was actually deserving of a ban? For instance... Here it is.
And why is this particular user acting so incredibly shocked by the ban (though I won't be getting into the merits of the punishment itself)? It's because this sets a rather strange precedent, dear nation and administration. We're talking about behavior in the social science subforum that has never once been sanctioned, neither before nor since this incident. So, would she really be the villain for getting banned for something that isn't just tolerated there, but is actually encouraged, based on what we've heard from the moderators themselves?
If this kind of thing hasn't bothered anyone until now, I don't see any reason for the rules to suddenly shift. Either we start enforcing these standards consistently from now on, or perhaps the moderators could finally admit that they aren't entirely sure which behaviors are acceptable and which are not...
Arthur Anderson49 said:Look, I really have no desire to get bogged down in the minutiae of these nasty little squabbles... I am simply telling you that things don't look the same from everyone's perspective. I'm talking about how when I'm stuck dealing with some absolute idiot—and anyone within a ten-mile radius could tell you he's an idiot—nobody even lifts a finger to react. Furthermore... Well... I ended up getting hit with a penalty, even though it was rescinded later... Colby, if my memory serves me right, that wasn't exactly how things worked back then...
Look, the whole point is that you simply shouldn't waste your breath arguing with an idiot... You don't have the authority to act like some self-appointed spokesperson deciding who belongs on that subforum and who doesn't, though we've already gone around in circles on that subject quite extensively. If I recall correctly, you and this "idiot" went back and forth on just about everything, and it wasn't even that personal... Sure, he called you full of yourself and threw a few other jabs your way, but that’s still just a legitimate opinion. He didn't descend into actual filth, so really, what more do you expect the rest of us to do here?
Perhaps I’m just blind to it, or maybe you all have much sharper eyes than I do, but I simply cannot see these alleged catastrophic flaws in her moderation... In fact, Charles Davis88—and I will be quite explicit here—is personally more than happy to have her around, more so than perhaps almost any other member on this forum. And honestly, in the last year or two that I’ve been lurking here, I haven't seen anyone else step up to moderate significantly better...
You want the cold, hard facts on this particular situation? Euripides didn't issue any sanctions against the posts... around 10:00 AM, Charles Davis88 was still busy nitpicking spelling errors, only remembering at nearly 11:00 that the content actually warranted a ban. Then, almost immediately, she went right back to harping on about the exact same thing over in Ban Corner... and now she’s acting surprised that the clown finally lost her temper. Those posts sat there unmoderated until 2:00 PM, which gave the individual enough time to create a clone account and repeat every single one of those vile comments. Once they were finally scrubbed, she actually had the nerve to respond to the clone's post by lecturing about "artistic impression"...
All things considered, her presence tends to cause more friction than anything else, even if you set aside my other grievances... In fact, looking at it objectively, most of what she does boils down to nothing more than casual trolling and mockery, which inevitably sparks a massive flame war that someone else has to clean up. Once she gets bored, she starts handing out bans like candy, and honestly, if she’s going to be the one playing judge and jury, she might as well issue them to herself... On top of all that, there is an endless, grating quality to how utterly convinced she is that she can never be wrong. That is really the heart of the matter. Instead of sitting there sipping her coffee and acting smug, she could have just had the decency to admit she messed up...
Justin Newman38 said:I disagree. Catch-22 mentioned having Asperger, which means he’s technically disabled in that regard—though I suspect "Asperger" might just be a polite euphemism...
Elementary schools focus heavily on teaching kids how to be tolerant toward anyone living with any kind of disability...
You’ve grown up, surely, so you should have been able to grasp this through sheer maturity alone... though I must say, what I’ve highlighted here feels a bit peculiar... 🙂
🤦
Sarah Garcia46, look, I’m not exactly known for my infinite patience. Honestly, this particular forum user seems more than capable of being insulting on his own. It isn't my responsibility to police whether he writes this or that, and frankly, I have no intention of feeling sorry for him.
wanderingbadger44 said:You really should be able to tell what a crybaby looks like. Neither Emericzy nor I fit that description. We weren't whining; we were just dealing with him ourselves—in fact, Emericzy carried my share of the load and endured piles of filth on my behalf.
Internal banter? Look, I’ve said it before: when it comes to picking a crew for a laugh, Catch-22 and all its variations aren't it...
Well, if memory serves, you were actually the first one to confront him.
Wow! Like he's going to suffer! Give me a break... What exactly is his "suffering" going to be? That he wasn't banned immediately, but instead was allowed to linger on the platform for months through her misplaced mercy, contributing absolutely nothing at all.
No, the point is that you can't treat him like a child by constantly giving and taking away his toys. As far as I'm concerned, she can either write her posts or let the moderator handle it. But there's no need to show a kind of mercy that only ends up digging an even deeper hole for him later. Though, I suppose we've already covered that...
Rachel Gray said:When a psychopath talks nonsense, I don't expect anyone to keep engaging with them, but when someone acts like a total tramp, I expect they get called out properly.
Alright now, let's not go to extremes. But yes, certain people have stepped up to manage these kinds of situations, so they might as well carry on doing so.
Rachel Gray said:To be perfectly honest, your accusation feels completely unfounded to me.
Back when that guy was tearing into you and wanderingbadger44, there were actually consequences because we had a moderator who actually stepped in when things went south... Besides, what he was spewing at you then doesn't even compare to the nonsense we're seeing today and yesterday. And sure, some people definitely poked the bear before we even realized he was just a troll, but now we know...
Be honest enough to see how much falsehood and disrespect is packed into Charles Davis88's response to Michelle Flores40. That doesn't make her right, obviously. But instead of looking down her nose at everyone, she could just admit her colleague messed up. It’s really that simple. Though, I've honestly never seen her own up to anything like that, so I'm not holding my breath this time either. And as for the damage she did to that sub-forum, I don't think I even need to say it; I think everyone here knows exactly where I stand on that. So, no, I don't owe her any thanks.
She’s sticking to that same playbook today, too, letting a user post while they were under a partial ban, so she really should be held accountable for bypassing the rules herself.
At the end of the day, I truly wonder if she's ever actually held responsible for anything at all...
To be honest, one of the moderators claimed that nobody actually reported the controversial posts, though I’m honestly at a loss as to what there is to report in the first place... It seems pretty obvious to me. But I saw them tonight, and I even saw one of the moderators editing those exact same posts—likely just adding quotes or merging them together. So, who on earth am I supposed to report when I know for a fact the moderators have already laid eyes on them? At least one of them has...
Regarding the deletions, those posts were wiped out today around 2:00 PM, along with the comments made by both myself and Michelle Flores40 regarding the moderation itself. Now, if we're going to discuss critiquing the mods, let's say it plainly: if you don't want people talking about it, perhaps stop dragging every conversation toward that topic... and not just in this specific instance, but generally speaking.
And finally, just to reiterate: responding to a banned user who is being, shall we say, overtly and slightly rude, is definitely subject to sanctions.
I’m not going to complain about my tiny little strike; I accepted it quite willingly... mostly because it was genuinely shocking to me that such vile comments could just sit there unaddressed. To be honest, it’s hard to swallow the excuse that they were intended to be removed, especially since there was plenty of time to clean things up even before I pointed out the issue. But fine, if that's how it is, then let them have my strike...
As for the actual incident, it really wouldn't hurt if the moderators coordinated a bit more effectively, so we don't end up in these situations where one person misses something that the other is actively flagging. This isn't exactly a first for us either. Furthermore, the idea of "feeding the trolls" should apply just as much to the staff as it does to the users, shouldn't it? Especially when dealing with someone who isn't just a troll, but a total fanatic who has been banned multiple times already...
At the end of the day, maintaining literacy and the overall aesthetic quality of the site is what actually matters. 👍
briskjackal20 said:I dealt with a situation exactly like this about three months ago. About twenty days later, I got a summons for Municipal Court in San Diego. The police recommendation was: $667 which resulted in me being without a license for three months. I explained to the judge that by the time I had entered the intersection, the turn arrow had already timed out—it doesn't flash or give any warning that it’s about to disappear. The judge noted that in the record and mentioned she would call the officer to testify at a hearing. So... now I wait. By the way, the very next day after my infraction, there was this massive headline in the local paper: 49 drivers caught running red lights 🙂 That's roughly 100 $0.00, all in one afternoon, straight into the state treasury. I suppose someone has to pay for those armored Ford trucks.😉
I’ve found myself in a similar predicament. Regarding the alleged red-light violation—all I saw was yellow, though I won't swear it didn't turn red right as I passed through—and then there's the matter of $667+3 months without a license. I intend to file an appeal, and given my clean driving record, I’m hopeful they might at least reduce that suspension period. To make matters worse, the officer mumbled something about me not wearing my seatbelt, though he didn't mention a citation for it at the time since I was buckled when he pulled me over. Yet, looking at the official notice later, it's listed there too. I'm curious how this process actually unfolds, especially since he lacks any real proof for the first charge, let alone the second. Does the judge really bring you in for a face-to-face confrontation? Has anyone here experienced this? What happens if I maintain that I had absolutely no idea I wasn't wearing a belt, much like I have no clue about the light? He handed me the notice, sure, but I haven't the slightest idea what these specific legal codes mean, nor did I sign anything agreeing to his version of events.