Posts by Christian Taylor3

Lawrence Watson77 said:No way, five minutes ago he couldn't find a single thing! :P

Fine.

can we just lock that thread but leave this one open? 🙂

😁

If you actually want more people to see that movie (and that applies to the folks over at Cinemaniak too), just drop the link in the chat and ask for some feedback—the chat is easily one of the most active spots on this site, assuming people realize that.

@Lawrence Watson77

The custom Google search script for the PDF Movie:



Go ahead and give it a spin.

It’s a whole philosophy, really. 🙂

edit:

Your entry is already in there. 🤷

Where, in Los Angeles? Never !!! That's just how Pauletica rolls. 😬

Tyrannosaur is part of this year's main lineup at the ZFF:

http://www.chicago.com/in...ang=hr#content

Director: Paddy Considine
Writer: Paddy Considine
Producer: Diarmid Scrimshaw
Production Companies: Warp X, Inflammable Films, Film4
Film4 Director of Photography: Erik Wilson
Editor: Pia di Ciaula
Music: Chris Baldwin, Dan Baker
Cast: Peter Mullan, Olivia Colman, Eddie Marsan
Format: 35 mm
length : 91'

Joseph synopsis
Joseph (Peter Mullan) is a broken, self-destructive guy who’s pretty much allergic to violence. He finds a glimmer of hope in Hanna (Olivia Colman), a clerk at a Caritas shop he runs into one day while trying to dodge a fight. Even though he spends the early part of their encounter mocking her faith and what he assumes is her perfectly idyllic life, Joseph ends up circling back to the shop, only to realize that Hanna's existence isn't nearly as peaceful as it looks. As they start to connect, they both come to terms with the deep-seated pain they’re carrying. 'Tyrannosaur' is an unconventional love story that manages to rise above its grim setting, driven by Joseph's and Hanna's intense need for redemption.

Awards and Festivals
Sundance Film Festival 2011 - Directing Award (World Cinema – Dramatic), Special Jury Prize (World Cinema – Dramatic)

Director's Bio
Paddy Considine was born in 1974 in Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire. Over the last few years, Considine has picked up quite a bit of critical acclaim for his various roles—mostly playing anti-heroes—as well as his knack for nailing different accents and shifting his voice from one film to the next. 'Tyrannosaur' marks his debut as both a screenwriter and director.

Showtimes and Locations:
Europa Cinema, Sunday, 10/16 at 8:00 PM
Europa Cinema, Monday, 10/17 at 5:00 PM
Europa Cinema, Sunday, 10/23 at 9:00 PM

http://www.chicago.com/in...id=888&lang=hr

It's all sorted out now (someone finally flipped the switch), so I'll go ahead and say thanks on behalf of everyone over in the Film subforum. 🙂

So, basically, we’re dealing with the lack of a custom Google search script here:



PDF movie still hasn't implemented it, and honestly, one of the biggest headaches on the site right now is just trying to dig through existing threads.

I’m kindly asking the admin team to please get this up and running. 🙂

Paddy is actually pretty great. This is a fascinating little deep dive into exorcisms, Meadows, and Asperger's... Paddy Considine: 'Making this film felt like an exorcism' http://gu.com/p/32327/tw via @guardian

@mellowraven22, Samuel Morgan40

Thanks for the input, guys. 🙂

It’s like people can still only see the trees and completely miss the forest for what it is. 😵

I’ve run into a bit of a problem.:

Bradley Sanders4 said:Which sites are actually censored here—like, what am I not allowed to link to on this forum? I know The New York Times was the first one to get hit by the filters because a bunch of spammers were trying to pump up their traffic. Now I’m honestly a little annoyed to find out that All the Way Down and TinyURL are blocked too. Is there anything else? Does anyone have a master list somewhere?

And since those spammers who caused all this trouble are gone, are you guys even considering lifting some of these bans? It's standard practice for major news outlets to link directly to articles from other media sources, so I don't see why we have to deal with these restrictions here.

Vitamin supplements, herbal teas, and whatever else. 😁

mellowraven22 said:Doubt we're publishing that list. Yeah, we block some portals here and there when they go overboard with self-promotion, but most of the stuff on the blacklist is just old-school referral links—you know, like those ancient Bytefiles clones or your typical spam sites. Honestly, there’s nothing interesting on that list.

Linking is fine, but advertising isn't.

The Solution:

If we don't get rid of this whole "blacklist" of banned websites, people are just going to keep suffering.Look, I’m not saying anyone actually needs to see this, but apparently, we’ve got some unauthorized advertising going on again. Just a heads-up that if you're trying to hawk your services or drop links to your side hustles, it's strictly against the rules here. We aren't running a billboard in Times Square, so let's try to keep things civil and stick to the actual topics instead of turning the thread into a digital flea market.Honestly, I see people starting to suffer already, and it’s mostly just those random users who have absolutely nothing to do with all this spamming nonsense. For instance, little Mark might pop up on the Student Corner and write:

I’m not being malicious, rude, or lazy—I’m just a hyperactive dreamer. http://is.gd/NstpiF

... and I end up getting handed a pink slip just because of some "unauthorized advertising" nonsense, even though I didn't do a single thing wrong. See, the thing is, Who? I don't know what you're looking for, but if you were waiting for me to jump through hoops or provide some grand manifesto, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I'm just sitting here, probably overthinking something trivial, ready to write whenever you actually have something to say. Where? Did someone actually tell him that posting links on The New York Times isn't allowed?

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there. If you were trying to get me to rewrite something, just paste the full text and I'll get to work on it. Just numbers. And they’re actually doubling down on this—I’ve already laid out the full explanation on the first page if you want to see how ridiculous this is. Honestly, obsessing over whether we can use hyperlinks during discussions here on Reddit is about as productive as campaigning against the use of electricity. It’s 2011, for crying out loud. 😁

I honestly think it’s just plain ridiculous that because some wannabe spammer showed up once, they feel the need to keep an entire website locked in a bunker forever.

Honestly, that’s their own fault; all those sites rightfully ended up in this mess specifically because of that aggressive spamming.

Besides...

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

Who says anyone is blocked? 😁

Samuel Morgan40 said:I will merely add that, for me, that portal isn't actually hated. I stated quite clearly above that the site itself isn't bad. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally spent 12 years working in journalism (which is why I write so infrequently for Other media 😁). What you and Christian Taylor3 have written—well, we all know that part very well. As for whether things will stay this way, or if this "penalty" will have an expiration date where linking to said portal becomes allowed again, that is not up to me; it lies with the forum leadership.

I was simply attempting to briefly describe how irritatingly persistent that individual was—so much so that he triggered nothing but a counter-effect and mockery among users. Some even went as far as to say the portal is great, but that his behavior only pushes people away; because if the portal is supposedly serious, unique, or different... then it certainly doesn't need that kind of childish spam which only serves to degrade the image of the people working there—people who, frankly, didn't earn that reputation to begin with.

Did they at least apologize to the editorial staff after that incident? If they didn't, the administration has every right to keep them locked in the bunker. Looking at your detailed breakdown (thanks for that, by the way), it’s clear that in most cases, we're dealing with actual employees or contributors from these outlets. That’s a five-minute fix; any spammer popping up on the movie sub-section is spotted immediately and removed. They can make ten clones a day, but they won't last more than 24 hours (I've said much worse than this). Most importantly, the users themselves report them to the moderators.

@Tyndall

Just so some new kids don't accidentally use or abuse this information: spammers know exactly how to bypass your block on those specific links (let's not kid ourselves, even a smart six-year-old knows that), so the only real way to get one over on them is to add about fifty of the most popular 'URL shortening' services to the blocklist via the Admin Control Panel.

That’s just the starting point. 🙂

Let's circle back to this whole "problem-solution" loop from the beginning of the thread.

hollowtrucker77 said:this thread is actually a perfect example of how you can find a solution through constructive dialogue, provided there's mutual understanding and a genuine willingness to cooperate
unfortunately, the whole obsession with finding a scapegoat and the reasons behind it just tells the other, much uglier side of the story

So, am I part of that ugly story now?

It doesn't matter—of course I'm not, since my humble self always approaches problems constructively, and I think we've all learned something here, which also serves as an apology for that whole business of asking for one. Just one more thing (an epilogue to this thread, and no response is required), if you'll permit me. Having vCards on Reddit could be a fantastic feature. For instance, Vojky is, without any shadow of a doubt, one of the most constructive users on this site (at least regarding legal or technical advice, and I'm not being sarcastic here—I rarely offer praise, but I always enjoy dropping by his threads), but who can say for certain that he's actually a lawyer? (and this isn't just about him, it applies to my humble self or anyone else on Reddit representing a specific profession). The reality is that we are all just anonymous users here (including the admins, supermoderators, and moderators), and I honestly feel it's wrong when a (super)moderator shuts down a discussion by saying: "You've received an answer from a professional (Vojky). We're done here." (that's completely unrelated to this specific thread, which was locked for good reason due to people acting like extremists on both sides). 😁

Anyway, I'm off to explain to Tyndall why absolutely nothing was actually resolved in the "Censored Pages" thread. 😬

Paul Green31 said:If you can actually prove it, you could sue, and if you win, you’re looking at damages.

Sure, you could try suing Mark Zuckerberg or Facebook for the exact same thing. Give it a shot. 😁

If I remember correctly, all of this is already covered in the Terms of Service and the License Agreement (vBulletin). It’s all laid out right when you sign up.

hollowtrucker77 said:Jesse Sanchez4, I have to admit, I’m not entirely following your logic here.
Is the forum going to hand over your username and registered address, or maybe your AOL Instant Messenger info?
In my experience, people who reached out to me on Skype just showed up using their Skype handle.

I think this was already settled in that locked thread; it isn't really the forum's responsibility.

Brenda Cook4 said:Thanks, Christian Taylor3.

It’s not about what people write in posts or private messages, but rather within the user profile itself—you even took a perfect screenshot of it. Whoever enables the digital business card will have it show up as a download option under 'contact information' in their profile.

👍

Everything seems to be sorted out (people can always just write, "Check my profile/contact info, my email is in my vCard" in their posts), so feel free to lock this before it turns into another one of those endless loops.

@Brenda Cook4
@hollowtrucker77

Thanks for the replies.

So, I guess I could just mention it in my posts, provided I don't actually reveal my email address directly—something like, "Just head over to my profile or contact info; you can grab my email from my vCard, talk soon."

If I'm understanding this correctly, I can't do a) link directly to a vCard in a post, or b) put a link to a vCard in my signature. Is that right?

Honestly, it might be best if the sysadmin just disabled that option for everyone entirely; nobody really uses it on Reddit anyway, and clearly even the staff weren't aware of it. 😁

@Paul Green31

Let's try to keep things civil, shall we? First step is learning how to actually communicate on a forum. 🙂

edit:

Just a heads-up, the email address inside the vCard is the same one used to log into the forum, and users don't have any way to change or edit their vCard.

That's actually not true; I literally changed my email address just yesterday, and it updated in the vCard as well.

@Brenda Cook4

We’re just spinning our wheels here at this point, but thanks anyway for the input. 🙂

Looking back at the very first post on this thread:

Christian Taylor3 said:That's an uber-Bingo! Please, help yourself to my virtual business card - download vCard.

"You may choose to allow other users to download a vCard containing your email address and username".

In the actual post, is it allowed or not? In the signature, is it allowed or not? (Given that "Please, help yourself to my virtual business card" line). Like I mentioned before, that link lives within the user profile/contact info section (which is entirely up to the individual). By the way, I've been pulling a direct link to my email in my signature since 2009 (not my-own-email, mind you, just one based on my handle), and nobody ever bothered to warn me about it—I only decided to change things yesterday because that three-layered sausage of a signature was getting tedious, so I just trimmed it down to my Twitter.

I think this is actually a pretty solid way for the forum to protect personal data.

Ultimately, the responsibility doesn't lie with Reddit; it lies strictly with the users.

Brenda Cook4 said:But I’m not talking about putting it in posts—I mean in the settings, if users actually want that. It wouldn't even be on the profile itself where any random user can see it, but rather handled this specific way.

One way or another, you could just drop a link to your profile (right in a post, for all I care) and say, "Hey, check my contact info on my profile; my email is in the vCard, catch you later." 🙂

Otherwise, all of this and the whole vCard thing would just be a pointless feature, since you could always just type it out in a post or your signature. The reason this exists is because an email address isn't something meant for public display, so choosing to let someone else see it is entirely up to the individual.

I’ll say it again: that "Allow vCard download" option is there specifically so users can decide whether they want to broadcast their email or personal details to the world. It's purely their call. You have a separate "download vCard" link under the contact info section of your profile, which is what you mentioned earlier in this thread. Now, whether that same link is allowed to be included within actual posts is one question, but whether it can be tucked away in a signature is another. Personally, I think it should be fine, given that it's already accessible on the user's profile anyway. If the answer is "no," then we're back to: "Check my profile for my contact info, my email is in the vCard, talk soon."

If we loop back to the start of this discussion regarding that banned user—who, assuming we're right, left her email in a post on the main board before it was deleted—it seems the admin did the right thing. Once someone is banned, their ability to communicate on the site is restricted to the banned users' corner, which is pretty much all a user in that position can do. They can't post on other sub-forums, they can't message people, and finally, there's no contact information available on their profile. Even if they had enabled the vCard option, the email address itself doesn't just pop up; you'd still have to click and download it, and that's it.

You're absolutely right about that banned user, but this whole topic applies to everyone and the ability (or lack thereof) to share personal data, including email addresses. The "Allow vCard download" option is exactly what makes that possible.

I just realized (looking at my own vCard, obviously I don't use my actual address), that the "Allow vCard download" section actually contains users' real email addresses—specifically the ones they used when they first signed up for Reddit, unless they went in and changed them later. To be clear, it’s entirely up to each individual user on Reddit whether they want to toggle the ability to download their vCard in their user settings (at least, based on what other users can see, it seems limited to registered members)
.
🙂In other words, this "Allow vCard download" option on Reddit (which uses vBulletin) pretty much proves that everything the admins and supermods claimed in that locked thread was wrong; the choice belongs strictly to the users.

I get why vBulletin leaves this feature in the hands of the users, though—not everyone hanging out on Reddit wants to stay anonymous, especially if you're representing a company or using a sponsored handle.
Anyway, you might want to check your settings right away to see if that option is 😁disabled
. Unless, of course, you actually want people to have it, or you're using some obscure email address (definitely don't use Gmail; maybe try Hushmail if you must).
🙂Cheers!

p.s. Vojky, just for you:

vCard spec: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt

Jesse Sanchez4 said:Using a vCard is optional, but mine certainly wasn't by choice, and I'm not exactly thrilled about it. I clicked the icon, and now my email has been sent to a bunch of people who will undoubtedly start spamming me.

That’s exactly the point—using a vCard is a free choice for users. Anyone who wants to share their email is more than welcome to do so, and the "Allow vCard download" option makes it possible. The platform handling these files is just Reddit (via vBulletin).

As for everything else, you should either a) turn off every setting possible in your profile, or b) change your email address. 🤷

hollowtrucker77
@Apophis
@Vojky

I think you might have hit "send" a little too early there. I'm sitting here waiting for the rest of your thought, but all I've got is a single letter. If you were trying to make a profound point with just an "i," then you've definitely outsmarted me, but otherwise, feel free to finish what you were saying whenever you're ready.

Paul Green31

With a particular emphasis on... Vojky's post:

Vojky said:I honestly don't have anything else to add to this. 🙂

An email address can be considered personal information, and since we don't exactly have a formal user identification system in place—unlike back in the old BBS days when a sysop would at least recognize a regular's handle for authorization—there's no real way for us to verify if "Person X" actually intended to make their email public. To play it safe, let's just not post email addresses here. Websites, blogs, and similar platforms are inherently public, and the same goes for Skype or ICQ handles; you can find those easily enough just by searching through the services.

The only exception would be something like: "Just shoot that company an email." complaints@example.com"...but even then, it’s not like they're actually sending it to a specific address or anything." example@example.com.

If you aren't feeling it, you don't have to post on this Reddit. Honestly, most other places probably wouldn't want you there either, since the rules are pretty much the same everywhere else.

Now just head over to your options menu, specifically the section labeled...Open the options menu":



Then everyone should head over to their own profile and check out the very last section:Contact information":



Hold on, hold on, wait a second—is that actually a "Download vCard" link? That's an uber-Bingo right there. Well, since you're clearly interested, feel free to grab my virtual business card— Allow vCard download.

"If you feel like being generous, you can check the box to let other users download a vCard that includes your email address and username.".

Look, folks, it’s just vBulletin version 3.8.4 (the American version), and honestly, every single user on this forum has that specific option available to them. Free elections.And once again, I’m going to put a special emphasis on Vojky's sentence:

"The only real exception to the rule would be something like: "Just shoot that company an email." example@example.com...but even then, it’s not like you’re actually getting a specific address or anything. example@example.com."

So, basically, in that locked thread, they’re making this absolute, categorical claim that no form of email address is allowed at all—for instance: veseli_medo_forum@gmail.comHonestly, as well as all those different variations of user handles, that’s just flat-out wrong. You are completely mistaken—and yeah, even if we're being polite about it, Vojky and the rest of the guys at the firm: "The only exceptions would be email addresses like: 'Contact that company via email...'" example@example.comWell, that's just great—the whole thing is completely debunked by that ridiculous vBulletin "Allow vCard download" option.

I have just one request, and I’m asking this of everyone—the admins, the supermods, and the regular mods (look, I’m on your side here), but especially the users. Honestly, if we don't address this, the whole forum is headed straight for a cliff, and I'm firmly standing with the staff on this one. Can we all just take a collective breath and chill out for a second, for God's sake?. 🙂

p.s.

Paul Green31

You might want to go ahead and offer a formal apology to the folks on Reddit, since they’re basically the loudest crowd out there. 🙂

Go f*** yourselves.😁Honestly, I don't really care either way, but I'm still curious to hear what you think. Jeffrey Wigand I've got a few thoughts.Watching *The Insider* again really hits different—especially that lecture by Jeffrey Wigand. It’s one of those moments where you just sit there, completely floored by the sheer weight of what’s being said.September 10, 2011, at 7:00 PM - Europa Cinema http://bit.ly/q0Cwa7).

By the way, you... 16:30 It’s a formal film screening. 🍿

I highly recommend this.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:I don't really buy the idea that this was some coordinated effort to manipulate anyone. I actually took a look through some similar public warnings issued by the same moderator, and honestly, it just seems like her specific style—which is pretty much defined by awkward phrasing, clunky sentence structures, and a general lack of finesse when she talks to people on the forum. It’s the kind of communication that really tests the limits of what we consider decent internet standards. Forum rulesHonestly, this thread probably could have easily lived under the other topic instead. Do not mention parents..

I mean, seriously, if you don't lay it all out there clearly and leave zero room for doubt, I’m just going to assume you’re keeping some sort of secret agenda to myself. I can't quite make heads or tails of what you're trying to say there. It looks like a typo or maybe just some keyboard mash, so if you actually had a point to make, you might want to try typing it out again. I'm all ears, though. So, I’ve officially embarked on this little mission to get a certain moderator removed from their perch. 😁 Honestly, I just don't have the bandwidth for that kind of nonsense. Besides, life hasn't exactly been an uphill battle for me. I guess I should probably take a second to give credit where it’s actually due for once. The moderators over at Politics—even Sam Green73—are really something else. If my memory serves me right, he was actually the one who, quite literally because I insisted, moved the thread about the US Federal Government under Jadranka Kosor back to the main Politics front page. Though, if we're being honest, he just ended up tossing the whole thing into the "political scene" dumpster anyway. 😬By the way, this particular thread is currently sitting right at the top of the PDF homepage—it’s easily one of the most read topics on the front page right now.

I totally get what he’s getting at when he says, "...even though I'd love to introduce a few rules that this post actually violates." Assuming he wasn't specifically taking a shot at Maria Lopez's post, anyway. Kalinic knows exactly what he needs to do. This whole town is turning into a circus, and honestly, someone needs to spit on that cheap, flashy marketing they’re pushing on this forum just to prop up those sponsored accounts. He should give a "proper" response to those actually reasoned arguments being thrown around by users. What does he think is going to happen? Is he expecting us to build him some grand monument in the middle of the city square? Maybe, Pavlek—anything for a paycheck, right! Let’s get back to the main point here. I honestly feel like this whole thing was kicked off by that incredibly aggressive rhetoric from the people who started the thread about the US Federal Government under Jadranka Kosor's leadership. To be perfectly blunt, those constant verbal attacks from commenter 1 aimed at Jadranka Kosor and her entire circle of ministers... well, sometimes they really do just show everyone's true colors. So, I just saw that ad looking for the stolen flag... honestly, what a joke.Mrvic is a bit much for my taste. Honestly, openly wishing ill will on someone—especially when you start dragging their kids and grandkids into it—feels like it crosses a line far beyond that "acceptable" vocabulary we supposedly use when discussing people in the political scene. Or maybe I’m just being too soft? Either way, it’s just not a nice thing to do, even if the target happens to be someone like Darko Milinovic. 😁Sam Green73 thinks he should be the one to go ahead and give him a heads-up about it.

I think everything that needed to be said about Aunt Stella has already been covered, though I’d love to see a bit more creative self-discipline when it comes to moderation. All those passive-aggressive warnings sent via private message? Let's just forget about them. Problems should be handled right here in public or directly within the thread—either through official moderator warnings or by simply moving on if the post isn't bad enough to warrant a strike. There’s really no bad blood here; Aunt Stella is always welcome to help her husband get the car ready and head over to my place for the harvest, and even Oak usually stops by, so we can spend hours debating current American politics if the mood strikes us. 👍

Maria Lopez said:
(but honestly, whatever, thanks guys 🙂)

so I've decided to stop wasting my breath on nonsense. just waiting for the shift change, I guess 🤷

Let's get one thing straight, this isn't some support group for you (and we aren't exactly swapping staff here; that little drama wrapped up yesterday, and word is it actually pulled better ratings than that new Svilanov series), we're talking about Uncle Pavlek—which isnot allowed under the rules regarding how people in politics and public life can be discussed.

Sam Green73 said:I'm honestly not sure which rule was actually broken here, though I'd be more than happy to invent a few new ones just to cover it.
You'll just have to wait for someone else to weigh in.

There goes Auntie Elsa again. 😍

Speaking of which, even I recently got a warning from a strict auntie figure (though, mind you, it wasn't through any official channels) telling me to dial back on the swearing a little bit. 😕 Regarding this, by the way:

I lay everything out so clearly, and I even go ahead and autocensor that famous swear word at the end with some asterisks. Yet, according to Auntie Elsa—delivered with that perfectly condescending tone of a warning via PM—this is somehow controversial, just like Maria Lopez's post? 🤷 There isn't anything objectionable about it; a public figure (especially a politician) shouldn't be immune to criticism, even if there's an occasional swear word thrown in during a moment of passion—as long as we aren't intentionally misspelling names, of course. Don't get me wrong, swearing isn't classy, but desperate times call for desperate measures. They make fools out of us every single day, openly stealing and squandering money from the US Federal Government, and climbing into power using cash looted from shady slush funds... Why should forum users suffer just because they called someone 'the most mediocre parasite and incompetent hack' (which, let's be honest, was a somewhat reasoned critique; it would be a completely different story if I just wrote: 'Screw them').

To be clear, I have nothing personal against Auntie Elsa acting as a moderator over in Politics. She's new to the role, so she needs some time to find her footing.

though I'd be more than happy to invent a few new rules just to cover it.

For that to happen, Mr. Kalinic will probably need to show up here and pay the Forum's marketing department the fee for a sponsored nickname. 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:They don't exist?
Well, let me just cast a little doubt on that assertion, shall I?
It’s not like The New York Times is some kind of pioneer here; they’re really just one more player in a long line of people finding clever ways to push their own ads.
Besides, who actually cares—anyone can head over to any random news site whenever they feel like seeing what's trending anyway.
Why on earth should people hanging out on this forum have to endure a constant barrage of links from all sorts of different sites?

hollowtrucker77 said:How do I know?
It’s probably just because there are still these supposed geniuses out there trying far too hard, using increasingly moronic methods to get their point across
Honestly, if I were their Marketing Director, I’d be hitting them over the head with a shovel until they finally understood the assignment—or at least until their heads were level with their knees, whichever comes first
Besides, people can actually go find an article on their own without having every single link spoon-fed to them
If they aren't capable of doing that, then we aren't exactly dealing with a group worth having a real conversation with anyway

That’s just a Sisyphus task for you, honestly; you've got hundreds of those types running around. I was just messing around with TinyURL earlier, thinking about how much we all rely on those little shortened links to make the internet look halfway decent, but then I started wondering if we’re all just making things more complicated than they need to be. It’s one of those things where you think you're being efficient, but you're really just adding another layer of digital clutter between you and whatever you were actually trying to click on in the first place. When you look at all the different services out there—from the household names to those obscure ones you've never even heard of—that number can easily climb toward a thousand, which makes trying to block every single one of them feel like a total waste of energy. It’s honestly just spinning your wheels. You're much better off putting your focus into that handful of users who are aggressively spamming; those people are so loud and obnoxious you could spot them from an airplane.

Look, links to news stories or info from various outlets are basically the backbone of any decent, constructive debate here on Reddit; it’s just how things work. If you take a look at the Politics section, I mean, probably over 90% of the threads start with a direct link to an article followed by an opening post inviting everyone to weigh in, right? The same logic applies to the discussions happening within individual threads too. Here's an example. supermoderatorSo, does that little dig of yours—you know, the one asking why people on a forum should have to endure terror by being bombarded with links from all over the place—actually apply to him? Of course not. I mean, honestly, the whole thing hinges entirely on the quality of that initial post or the way the discussion is kicked off. That said, you can't really get anything moving without a link; otherwise, people aren't even going to bother looking your way. They’ll probably just call me crazy. I’m calling your bluff here. Using links as a source of information—especially when paired with an opening post—is exactly what sparks decent, high-quality, and actually constructive discussions. Honestly, if you haven't realized that yet, welcome to the 21st century; we're hanging out on Reddit now. 🙂

There’s one more thing that isn't exactly a "feature," I guess, but I honestly really love how Politico covers just about everything—even stuff like The New York Times, All the Way Down, and all those other outlets you guys decided to block here just because of a handful of spammers. For instance, when I was trying to get a decent debate going about the US Federal Government under Kamala Harris, there was this one specific article from CNN that was actually pretty crucial to my point.

I was scrolling through Politico earlier and stumbled upon this piece about how things are falling apart, and honestly, it’s just one big, crumbling bridge at this point. It feels like we're constantly trying to patch up these massive structural failures only to realize the foundation was shaky from the start. You read these reports and you start wondering if anyone in the US Federal Government actually has a plan, or if we're all just collectively pretending that everything isn't sliding toward a total collapse. It’s pretty exhausting to watch, especially when you realize how much effort goes into maintaining an illusion of stability while the actual infrastructure—both literal and political—is basically held together by duct tape and wishful thinking.

And there you have it—another article about banned destinations, courtesy of Z. PoliticoSo what now, hollowtrucker77? Are we going to block Politico too? God, Politico literally owns this forum.

On top of all that, Jerry Seinfeld: Just dropping some links here. Politico and Reddit..

Bradley Sanders4 said:In that case, I’d suggest just putting together a blacklist of all those sites. Then, maybe every six months or once a year—which isn't exactly a frequent task, mind you—you could give that list an update.

Honestly, it's a total necessity. And that list should probably be pinned right here in the Student Corner within the Admin log.

Why? Because it makes sense.

Most people just use browser extensions to shorten their links—not everyone relies on TinyURL; I personally find myself using http://is.gd/index.php quite often. Imagine if someone drops a link like, "THE PIG, THE COW, AND JOHN WERE LOST IN A HOUSE FIRE" — http://is.gd/SsMVCi and before I can even blink, I've been hit with a ban. It all happens under the assumption that "I didn't know linking to ********** was against the rules," or "It wasn't intentional," or "I'm definitely not a spammer."

Without a clear blacklist, how are users actually supposed to know what's off-limits? 🤷

p.s. That headline above was actually published in an American newspaper (The New York Times, obviously). 'John' wasn't my neighbor, though—may he rest in peace.