Posts by dustyranger64

Brenda Hayes16 said:I mean, what else were you going to do besides talk down to people on certain subforums? It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually read your post. Fine, let's say you think they're just "lesser" members—so much so that they need to be silenced when it comes to having a say.

They need a vote because it affects them; they're active participants in the very subforum where we're looking for a mod. Just like how citizens get to vote for the government and the President, even if they aren't perfect or "ideal" voters.

Man, you completely missed the point. Total miss.
Sorry, but that's such a fake example. Seriously, I don't see any reason to respect the opinion of someone studying social science if they actually believe some races aren't equal or that only idiots bother learning foreign languages.

And no, I wasn't belittling ( 😕 ) people on specific subreddits. I was just using some really obvious examples to prove my point that we don't need to value absolutely every single opinion out there.

Brenda Hayes16 said:I mean, what else were you going to do besides talk down to people on certain subforums? It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually read your post. Fine, let's say you think they're just "lesser" members—so much so that they need to be silenced when it comes to having a say.

They need a vote because it affects them; they're active participants in the very subforum where we're looking for a mod. Just like how citizens get to vote for the government and the President, even if they aren't perfect or "ideal" voters.

Like steelskipper5 said, this forum isn't a democracy. It doesn't have to be a dictatorship, but it definitely isn't a democracy.

Brenda Hayes16 said:The goal should be aiming for something better—finding that sweet spot between what the mods want and what the users want.

And this idea that you don't want people from the "patient" subforum to vote? That’s honestly laughable. It’s basically just waving a white flag.

Don't forget, even in an asylum, there are doctors looking after the patients. Not everyone is sick, and the mods are the ones who decide which couple of candidates will eventually be voted in as the new mod.

But hey, I guess you could say: why bother sharing the strawberries when you can just eat them all yourself, right?

Nope. But I see you have zero issues putting words in my mouth.
That isn't waving a white flag. Seriously, feel free to explain to me why those specific examples should even be allowed to vote in the first place.

And that comparison to an asylum and doctors? Which I guess was supposed to imply I think all forum users are crazy or whatever? Honestly, it's just rude.

Bradley Sanders4 said:I was actually just about to try and talk some sense into you. 🤣

It’s not really true that all the forums looking for mods have "failed." It's just that on some of them, there simply aren't people willing to take on the responsibility. Most folks would much rather just post and stay blue.

You've got a point, veto might be a bit of a heavy word. It might work on some boards and fail miserably on others. I can already picture the crowd over at a site like Reddit failing to reach any kind of consensus. But whether you call it a veto or just consultations, the core idea is the same: ask the community if they want user XY to be a mod, and if not, find out why.

Fair enough. I’ve actually done something similar behind the scenes—basically "interviewing" the heavy hitters on the PDF via private message to see if they had any suggestions for mods and what their reasoning was.
And honestly, that’s how I ended up vetoing some of my own ideas! If I saw that the serious, long-time users didn't view user X as expert or level-headed enough to moderate, I'd scrap the idea myself.
I'm not sure a big public debate would even get us anywhere, though. People usually prefer venting on PP rather than getting into a massive public shouting match.

Anyway, that approach works once in a while. But as a rule? It's tough.
Think about it—like you mentioned earlier, what happens if you and I are the only mods willing to step up on a PDF where quality talent is basically non-existent? We suggest candidate X because we really need the help and there's nobody else interested (you know how that goes).
Then, one or two big-name users throw a veto on that single candidate. They block him. Boom. Now what?

Bradley Sanders4 said:Look, I’d actually give Pero Perić the benefit of the doubt here. There’s a massive difference between him saying he doesn't want some evolutionist moderating his thread, and him saying he doesn't want Davor running the show. I mean, Davor has barely even touched this board—he’s popped up maybe twice on some random sub-forum, and both times he was acting like he owned the place and talking down to everyone else. You can ignore the first point if you want, but you really can't just brush off the second one.

Just like they do to the enemies of liberal democracy, for that matter. ☕

I was kind of hoping we could start with the assumption that someone with only two posts wouldn't even be a candidate. I specifically mentioned an orthodox creationist (it's pretty obvious from his posts) and the natural sciences. I was going with a hypothetical scenario where he doesn't want an evolutionist running things. I don't see why he'd get a vote on that specific issue on that particular PDF.

steelskipper5 said:Go tell Anderlon to let the admins swap out moderators whenever they see people ditching a subforum. There—that's your version of "controlling moderator tyranny."

How many people actually have to walk out on Reddit and for how long before that decision finally counts? Seriously.

Does it even matter which users are leaving the PDF? Honestly, I just care about the numbers.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Back to my thoughts on Yahoo!.
Even if we changed one specific thing that isn't quite like how Yahoo! does things, it wouldn't suddenly turn this forum into their mess—and honestly, I’d be the first person fighting against that happening.

Over there, the users get to pick whatever they want, whereas here, the mods present five candidates (who actually *want* to moderate) along with a voter list.

The group of five moderators would essentially be the ones making the choice, just like how right now they pick one final moderator for a specific sub-forum without giving the regular users a vote.
So, there really isn't much room for complaining here, much like how you all managed to convince yourselves there's nothing to complain about regarding the current system.

Practically everyone active on a sub-forum would have a real shot at choosing from those five. The only people who'd get filtered out are the ones who show up to chat once every few days or something. It's usually not a big deal to put a list together, so there's no reason to whine; if you aren't on the list, just be more active and move on.
People start getting loud when you strip away their freedom and their right to vote just to impose someone else's whims.

Wishful thinking and reality don't always play nice together. Honestly, there's no need to turn it into some massive Yahoo! headline. Just getting it close to the level of a Yahoo! story is plenty. Or honestly? Maybe don't even bother if the change isn't actually making things better.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Back to my thoughts on Yahoo!.
Even if we changed one specific thing that isn't quite like how Yahoo! does things, it wouldn't suddenly turn this forum into their mess—and honestly, I’d be the first person fighting against that happening.

Over there, the users get to pick whatever they want, whereas here, the mods present five candidates (who actually *want* to moderate) along with a voter list.

The group of five moderators would essentially be the ones making the choice, just like how right now they pick one final moderator for a specific sub-forum without giving the regular users a vote.
So, there really isn't much room for complaining here, much like how you all managed to convince yourselves there's nothing to complain about regarding the current system.

Practically everyone active on a sub-forum would have a real shot at choosing from those five. The only people who'd get filtered out are the ones who show up to chat once every few days or something. It's usually not a big deal to put a list together, so there's no reason to whine; if you aren't on the list, just be more active and move on.
People start getting loud when you strip away their freedom and their right to vote just to impose someone else's whims.

Why wouldn't they complain? Honestly, nothing is stopping them!

Brenda Hayes16 said:Back to my thoughts on Yahoo!.
Even if we changed one specific thing that isn't quite like how Yahoo! does things, it wouldn't suddenly turn this forum into their mess—and honestly, I’d be the first person fighting against that happening.

Over there, the users get to pick whatever they want, whereas here, the mods present five candidates (who actually *want* to moderate) along with a voter list.

The group of five moderators would essentially be the ones making the choice, just like how right now they pick one final moderator for a specific sub-forum without giving the regular users a vote.
So, there really isn't much room for complaining here, much like how you all managed to convince yourselves there's nothing to complain about regarding the current system.

Practically everyone active on a sub-forum would have a real shot at choosing from those five. The only people who'd get filtered out are the ones who show up to chat once every few days or something. It's usually not a big deal to put a list together, so there's no reason to whine; if you aren't on the list, just be more active and move on.
People start getting loud when you strip away their freedom and their right to vote just to impose someone else's whims.

So, seriously... why on earth should some homophobic, misogynistic troll on Reddit or Yahoo! get a say in who handles the moderation? Makes zero sense!
Why on earth would a historical revisionist get a say in who handles moderation at a history site? Seriously? Makes zero sense.
Why on earth would an orthodox creationist get a say in who handles moderation for the natural sciences? Seriously. It just doesn't make sense!

Just because they aren't random chatters, but actually regular users on Reddit?
Look, I’m out. I refuse to post on a forum where someone like Pero Perić gets a say in who moderates the PDF files—especially when that guy thinks being gay is on the same level as being a predator or a murderer. And there's no way in hell I'm letting some hardline creationist, who wouldn't know basic biology or scientific proof if it hit him in the face, decide who handles the natural sciences. Just isn't happening for me!

Bradley Sanders4 said:I agree that picking mods solely through popularity contests is a desperate move. That said, I think it would be fair if the users on a specific subforum had the right to veto a proposed moderator candidate. Of course, it should work both ways—mods should also have the power to veto a user's candidacy.

Edit: Brenda Hayes16, having just five people is basically impossible. Sometimes we wait months for a mod because there's literally nobody willing to step up and deal with the headache of a particular subforum.

A veto? Honestly, respectively, I think that's a terrible move. You can't stop people from letting personal vendettas or old grudges drive their decisions through a veto. It’s way more logical to ask the folks on Reddit for moderator suggestions rather than asking them to handle vetos. That feels much more constructive—plus, some of us are already doing that anyway!
In fact, those kinds of discussions are exactly why I decided to stop suggesting certain users for mod roles. Once I saw that some of the more experienced users on here didn't think someone was competent or mature enough for the job, I just backed off.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Were you ever a moderator over at Yahoo!? Because I used to be a Supermod, and at one point, I was managing a pretty massive collection of PDFs. Back when they introduced that new system where anyone could become a mod just by hitting a certain post count on the PDF section and then getting a vote from the community—the best part of the staff vanished from the forum forever.

I won't even get started on how a specific group of people were appointed just to go on personal vendettas against everyone else. Or how often it happened that two mods on the PDF section had totally opposing views, leading to one banning someone while the other unbans them, or one locking a thread while the other unlocks it.

How are you even going to prevent people from voting using clone accounts? And if the voting is public, what stops a group of people who aren't even active on the PDF section from casting votes? At the end of the day, just because someone has racked up 232,352 posts and is "popular" doesn't mean their contributions are actually objective or high quality.

If I’m following correctly, that whole clone issue gets bypassed by having only certain high-quality users—handpicked by the mods—do the actual voting.
But hey, that doesn't fix the bias problem where the mods are basically picking both the candidates AND the voters.
If you move the decision of who gets to vote down to a poll where the community chooses the voters later during moderator elections, then yeah, you won't be able to stop people from rigging votes through friendships or clones.

Brenda Hayes16 said:The regulars in a specific sub-forum, as well as any mod going through the impeachment process, know everything about everyone there.

Because of that, they’re the ones best qualified to choose. Post count definitely isn't a measure of authority. Sure, let's say popularity plays a role—that makes sense. People naturally gravitate toward popular figures, but being popular doesn't mean someone is a clown just performing for the crowd to keep a sub-forum entertained. Most popular users earn their status through objectivity and smart posts, things people actually value. Besides, nobody actually wants a clown in a moderator position.

Let me give you a concrete example:

Mods for a particular section should nominate five candidates from within that section and notify all the forum members who have voting rights.
They’ll be the ones who know who actually shows up regularly, and those are the people with the right to vote.
Then a public vote happens. Simple as that.

Why would that be considered bad? And why would appointing a moderator's buddy be any fairer?

Also, why are you assuming the forum would turn into Yahoo! or some endless chat room? First of all, enforcement there is almost non-existent, off-topic posts happen on every single thread, and the principles are totally different. Here, we actually have penalties and reports, which is the fundamental difference.

So, yeah, your arguments don't really hold water.

Awesome. First thing's first: let's trim that list from five candidates down to just two. Honestly, out of those five, only two actually seem even remotely interested in picking up the mod mantle. That's point number one. We've had several top-tier users on here—super popular, totally objective, and highly respected folks—turn down the moderator role multiple times. And that's even when the offer was made by people they aren't even buddies with!

So, now that you’ve split into two groups, what’s the game plan? How are those biased, compromised mods going to decide who actually gets a vote? Who are these two candidates even supposed to be? And more importantly, how are you going to stop everyone from losing their minds when people like Perica Bukić or maca Maradona realize they aren't running or don't even get a say in the matter?
Why do you think the whole "rigged" thing and all those conspiracy theories are already settled?

Brenda Hayes16 said:The regulars in a specific sub-forum, as well as any mod going through the impeachment process, know everything about everyone there.

Because of that, they’re the ones best qualified to choose. Post count definitely isn't a measure of authority. Sure, let's say popularity plays a role—that makes sense. People naturally gravitate toward popular figures, but being popular doesn't mean someone is a clown just performing for the crowd to keep a sub-forum entertained. Most popular users earn their status through objectivity and smart posts, things people actually value. Besides, nobody actually wants a clown in a moderator position.

Let me give you a concrete example:

Mods for a particular section should nominate five candidates from within that section and notify all the forum members who have voting rights.
They’ll be the ones who know who actually shows up regularly, and those are the people with the right to vote.
Then a public vote happens. Simple as that.

Why would that be considered bad? And why would appointing a moderator's buddy be any fairer?

Also, why are you assuming the forum would turn into Yahoo! or some endless chat room? First of all, enforcement there is almost non-existent, off-topic posts happen on every single thread, and the principles are totally different. Here, we actually have penalties and reports, which is the fundamental difference.

So, yeah, your arguments don't really hold water.

No way, that definitely wasn't me!

Brenda Hayes16 said:The regulars in a specific sub-forum, as well as any mod going through the impeachment process, know everything about everyone there.

Because of that, they’re the ones best qualified to choose. Post count definitely isn't a measure of authority. Sure, let's say popularity plays a role—that makes sense. People naturally gravitate toward popular figures, but being popular doesn't mean someone is a clown just performing for the crowd to keep a sub-forum entertained. Most popular users earn their status through objectivity and smart posts, things people actually value. Besides, nobody actually wants a clown in a moderator position.

Let me give you a concrete example:

Mods for a particular section should nominate five candidates from within that section and notify all the forum members who have voting rights.
They’ll be the ones who know who actually shows up regularly, and those are the people with the right to vote.
Then a public vote happens. Simple as that.

Why would that be considered bad? And why would appointing a moderator's buddy be any fairer?

Also, why are you assuming the forum would turn into Yahoo! or some endless chat room? First of all, enforcement there is almost non-existent, off-topic posts happen on every single thread, and the principles are totally different. Here, we actually have penalties and reports, which is the fundamental difference.

So, yeah, your arguments don't really hold water.

Ready?
Punishment is weak, there’s way too much off-topic nonsense, debates are total garbage, and the rules feel totally inconsistent? Oh, you think that has nothing to do with them changing the rules to let people vote for moderators based on popularity? Yeah, right. If you actually want to chat with the people who used to moderate and supermoderate Yahoo!, no biggie—they’re hanging out right here on this forum. I can give you the lowdown on how Yahoo! actually runs and how being "popular" basically kills any real moderation.

Look, let's be clear—I'm not saying this way of picking moderators is perfect. Far from it. I’m definitely not claiming it's the gold standard. But honestly? This whole "popularity contest" alternative has some massive holes in it. Just huge gaps.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Signature.

To me, the most logical move would be for the users who actually hang out in a specific section to vote on or pick from a pool of candidates. And if a mod is currently being replaced, they should probably share their thoughts on potential candidates publicly.

I honestly don't get why the selection process is almost exclusively admins and mods picking from among themselves. Moderation isn't a job done for the staff; it's done for the people using that specific part of the site.

The whole "mods need to be similar and aligned" excuse doesn't hold water. Not even a little bit. Why? Because it’s blindingly obvious that moderation styles and criteria vary wildly from one sub-forum to the next, and from one mod to another. It always has been, and it always will be.
It feels like mods are picked based on friendship, familiarity, or just being from the same city—basically, building a little clique so they can back each other up no matter what, making them harder to unseat.

No matter how much any individual mod messes up, the blame also lies with the people who decided to put them in that position. The way new mods are selected needs to change.
I just hope you guys are getting some sort of private benefit from this system, because the community definitely isn't seeing anything but losses.

I want to hear some actual, worthy arguments for why new mods are chosen this way. There aren't any. There are zero arguments that actually make sense.

btw. I'm not complaining about Nica; it's just the sheer lack of logic here that bugs me.

Honestly, this is a total disaster of an idea. It’s basically just a carbon copy of that Yahoo! model, which really just boils down to nothing more than a popularity contest.
Look, you've got a few things to deal with here:
So, how exactly do you decide who gets picked as a moderator? Like, what's the actual criteria for that "top contributor" status? Honestly, it feels like there's a huge flaw here. Post count doesn't equal quality. You end up with spammers circling the top active users list just because they post constantly, while some absolute legend of the forum—someone who actually adds value but posts less often—gets totally overlooked. It’s frustrating!
And that’s when you finally hit the popularity contest issue—which, let me tell you, is way more complicated than it looks!
I don't see how picking people that way actually solves anything. You think you're cutting out the cronyism, the brown-nosing, or the favoritism toward whoever voted for you? Not gonna happen.

If you actually think this voting method helps the community, just go take a look at the state of the Reddit threads and the level of discussion happening there. Seriously.

Brenda Hayes16 said:Signature.

To me, the most logical move would be for the users who actually hang out in a specific section to vote on or pick from a pool of candidates. And if a mod is currently being replaced, they should probably share their thoughts on potential candidates publicly.

I honestly don't get why the selection process is almost exclusively admins and mods picking from among themselves. Moderation isn't a job done for the staff; it's done for the people using that specific part of the site.

The whole "mods need to be similar and aligned" excuse doesn't hold water. Not even a little bit. Why? Because it’s blindingly obvious that moderation styles and criteria vary wildly from one sub-forum to the next, and from one mod to another. It always has been, and it always will be.
It feels like mods are picked based on friendship, familiarity, or just being from the same city—basically, building a little clique so they can back each other up no matter what, making them harder to unseat.

No matter how much any individual mod messes up, the blame also lies with the people who decided to put them in that position. The way new mods are selected needs to change.
I just hope you guys are getting some sort of private benefit from this system, because the community definitely isn't seeing anything but losses.

I want to hear some actual, worthy arguments for why new mods are chosen this way. There aren't any. There are zero arguments that actually make sense.

btw. I'm not complaining about Nica; it's just the sheer lack of logic here that bugs me.

Probably happens sometimes. But honestly? It’s a far cry from being an actual rule or some official guideline.

feralotter2 said:Featured from the thread Complaint regarding moderator Nica Quote

Nica Quote

Regarding this, I have a few questions to pose.

We keep seeing cases where a moderator is shuffled from one sub-forum to another—one day they're here, the next they've moved elsewhere—even when those sections have absolutely nothing in common. It seems like they just want anyone to moderate, regardless of context; it's as if they were sent by God to oversee this place and everything is perfectly fine. Yesterday they're in Politics, today they're in LjES, tomorrow who knows where... personally, I think this is wrong—please weigh in, everyone.

The second thing I can't wrap my head around is why existing moderators aren't suggesting new candidates or successors. After all, who are they going to nominate if not someone exactly like themselves? If the current mod is good, fine—everything works. But if the current mod is incompetent, they'll just pick someone equally useless, creating a cycle where certain sub-forums are doomed to stay stagnant forever. 🤷
Do you think it might be better to ask the active users within a specific section for suggestions, rather than just relying on the moderators?

Why do you think nobody ever asks?

Sam Wright21 said:Well, I actually went ahead and requested a permanent ban from Lies just to escape that moderator who refuses to follow any actual logic.

But even then, he manages to haunt me over at Linguistics. It feels like a lost cause 🙂 The man is simply immune to reason.

I’m asking if you could please reverse my Permaban on Lies; I used to find such fascinating psychological discussions there, and unfortunately, they aren't available here in the USA, which leaves me with nowhere to ask questions or offer advice.

As for Philosophy, I took a permanent ban there too, though the Executioner operates with a much more sophisticated level of malice.

dustyranger64 isn't quite like that, so I suspect I could easily bypass him just for the sake of my own amusement.

What’s your take on all this?

Best,

I'm worried you aren't exactly the spokesperson for common sense here.
And hey, make sure to put it in the official record: two (2) strikes on Lies and one (1) redefined as—harassment.

Sam Wright21 said:Look, my first instinct was to just request a permanent ban from every single board he moderates, but once I actually thought about it, I realized how futile and pointless that would be.

Besides, you remember that whole mess over on the Linguistics thread, don't you? After hollowtrucker77 made those vulgar outbursts that clearly warranted a permanent ban—which were flagged twice, mind you—he showed up just to lecture all of us in bright red text, specifically targeting Sam Wright21. Then, he went ahead and slapped me with a warning card over some nonsense involving Felix, even though I hadn't insulted him and he certainly wasn't directed any animosity toward me.

The point is, being persecuted by this individual seems to be a recurring theme for me, but since I haven't caused any trouble over on the Lies boards, I see absolutely no reason why you wouldn't lift my permanent ban. 🤷

1) You don't get to decide what counts as a strike and what doesn't.
hollowtrucker77 got a strike for one of the reported posts, but not for the other. Even if it doesn't involve you, hollowtrucker77 has way more points than I do, so surprisingly, they aren't exactly suffering from the idea that I'm harassing them.

2) You got a strike for Felix because you broke the rules, not because of an insult, even if it was borderline:

Please, don't get mad. I actually feel bad for you because of everything you've been through. I'm saying this with the best intentions: if you haven't realized it yet, you really need therapy. I mean, everyone does, but man, you're on a mission here. This isn't normal.

Just because you think therapy is a good thing doesn't give you the right to hand out diagnoses or tell people they need it on any forum. Especially not on the ones where I'm supposedly harassing people. By the way, you had other posts that deserved a strike, but they let it slide.

Sam Wright21 said:My personal impression is that he effectively controls half the site, simply because he's present in almost every corner where I happen to wander.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?p...9#post44841379

That was the issue in that specific thread, but what's the point of filing a formal complaint? I tried reaching out to dustyranger64 directly via private message, but he wasn't even remotely interested in listening. 🙂

I am well aware of what a Permaban is. If I held any semblance of authority here, hollowtrucker77 would have been hit with one ages ago; I haven't encountered anyone more obnoxious in my life, whether online or in the real world.

Well, have it your way. If they strip my partial access to Lies, it'll be about as permanent as moving a mountain, so don't come crying to me later.

In any case, I frequently stumble upon fascinating discussions where I could offer some insight or advice, only to feel that familiar sting of disappointment when I realize the conversation isn't happening on the USA site and I'm unable to participate. 😢

Listen to reason = bowing down to claims that striking me is "harmful" to the forum and accusing me of harassment without actually providing any arguments?
True, that's not how I "listen to reason."
And you aren't even trying to have a civilized conversation.

Sam Wright21 said:My personal impression is that he effectively controls half the site, simply because he's present in almost every corner where I happen to wander.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?p...9#post44841379

That was the issue in that specific thread, but what's the point of filing a formal complaint? I tried reaching out to dustyranger64 directly via private message, but he wasn't even remotely interested in listening. 🙂

I am well aware of what a Permaban is. If I held any semblance of authority here, hollowtrucker77 would have been hit with one ages ago; I haven't encountered anyone more obnoxious in my life, whether online or in the real world.

Well, have it your way. If they strip my partial access to Lies, it'll be about as permanent as moving a mountain, so don't come crying to me later.

In any case, I frequently stumble upon fascinating discussions where I could offer some insight or advice, only to feel that familiar sting of disappointment when I realize the conversation isn't happening on the USA site and I'm unable to participate. 😢

Wow, you sure do have a lot of Sash in your mouth. Like, every single post has a few mentions. Maybe if the admins took a moment to explain how the appeals process works or how to request a partial ban reduction, things might actually get sorted out.

-----
Regarding that whole thing about lifting partial bans after two weeks—I'm staying out of that one since I'm not directly involved.
If Sophia Thomas7 and Jack Bishop94 think access should be restored, then I'm all for it. If they think not, then fine by me too.

The mods missed the mark on this one—honestly, they should've handed out more warnings and hit that ban button way before the halftime break!
Look, it’s not about picking on you. Not even close! It’s honestly just hoping that maybe—just maybe—it’ll finally click for you, you'll realize what you're doing wrong, and you can stop before things get messy.
Look, if you had come to us with a legitimate request to scrap this partial, we would have actually taken you seriously. But honestly? This whole thread is just a mess of fake claims, accusations, and baseless finger-pointing about persecution. It’s all noise. Because of that, the three LJES moderators have reached a consensus: your partial stays exactly where it is.
Just a few more details, besides the fact that the whole conversation is just one big, disrespectful mess:

And what about that... Allowed. It’s just plain wrong. Like, "cheat on your husband and you deserve..."—you know the kind of stuff people say. Total nonsense.

You need a catchy word.
Look, it’s not up to the mods or this forum to play moral police. If someone wants to cheat or back a shady decision, the moderators aren't going to step in and defend that behavior. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Your take isn't "problematic" just because it's different from mine. You were only being problematic because you jumped into every single thread involving cheating or hookup culture just to lecture everyone else on their morals. Something extra, even when it wasn't even what we were talking about!

It’s such a basic one—one of our regular ladies starts an easygoing thread. Just a simple "Hey guys, what are we all hoping for in this new year of 2012?" she asks.

I’m totally craving one—or maybe even a few—passionate nights with a guy I definitely shouldn't be messing with! 😉

What are you responding to?

Wow... What a wish! Honestly, aren't you just fearless? Just jumping right in and diving headfirst into bed with anyone like that? No hesitation at all. I mean, aren't you worried about catching something, or maybe that they won't actually look out for you or take care of you? Just curious!

I've only got one wish: I hope everyone else starts thinking as smart as you do!

And that was on a totally harmless topic! Seriously. But then, whenever things actually get heavy—like when we're talking about real fraud or those brutal, life-altering decisions—your judgment just kicks in. It’s constant. You don't just critique; you go way beyond.

I mean, seriously, the kind of garbage that was being posted and allowed there? It’s honestly sickening...

Just because you think it’s disgusting when a guy admits he cheated—because he’s torn between his wife and this new woman he’s actually falling for—doesn't mean we can just ban people from talking about it. It doesn't work like that! Every time someone even mentions promiscuity, you lose it. You get all worked up and start preaching, but honestly? I haven't seen any change in your attitude at all.

That doesn’t mean you should be okay with that kind of behavior. Honestly, most people on the forums over there aren't fans of it either. But even when they don't agree with what someone is doing, they don't just treat that person like some lost sheep crying out for help. They aren't about that life.

Honestly, that doesn't mean anything to me.

Nothing! I just want the whole thing.

A forum for us to hang out and actually read what everyone’s putting down!

And since I’ve already got two failed marriages under my belt...

Honestly, I might actually know how to

help people with this more than you guys do...

It doesn't seem like you even care. And bringing up two failed marriages in a family doesn't prove anything. For ŽuD maybe, but for LJES? Not at all.

Henry Kim3 said:

Look, you’re really out of line here. You are intentionally and consciously trying to degrade me.

What exactly is your motivation here? What's the reasoning behind this? I guess it's just because you don't like it.

I suppose, given my faith, it seems to me...

I guess you have some other thoughts on this.

So, the way I figured it out, things around here...

I guess that degradation is based solely on that one specific stance.

And this is exactly why the bias regarding the LJES mods stays.
It’s hard to put into words just how much we don't care whether you believe in God, nothing at all, or even some Holy Shoe.
Your refusal to accept any lifestyle different from what you personally deem "moral," that whole "poor me, I'm being bullied" routine—which is totally far from the truth (I'm pretty sure the mods and admins have seen your old threads and deleted posts, along with everyone else's)—all of that, plus your inability to see where you're messing up forum etiquette while instead spinning conspiracy theories about moderators going on crusades just to target you specifically (interestingly, not anyone else), is a way bigger issue.

Looks like Smod already gave his take, so I'm done here. Admins?

Nicholas King said:But honestly, looking at how it’s phrased, this isn't even an attempt at being provocative. If anything, it feels more like a total forum suicide mission and a weird way of praising atheists. The whole idea that "only my fear of God keeps me from torturing and killing" doesn't just insult atheists—it actually puts them on a pedestal above the author. It implies atheists don't kill or torture just because they aren't afraid of God (and yeah, no need for a silly disclaimer here; I'm not claiming no atheist has ever killed or tortured anyone).

Well, it all depends on how you read it. Personally, I pick up on irony in those posts, so I figure it’s actually the exact opposite of praise.
Maybe my take is skewed because I've dealt with people asking things like "so why don't you just go around killing people if you're an atheist and don't fear God?" Or worse, people outright saying, "You atheists are basically amoral, and the only thing stopping you from murdering everyone is the law." It's always some variation of that—treating atheists like wild animals held back from the edge of a cage by nothing but a flimsy paper chain of criminal law.
Still, hey, I could totally be misreading what the author intended.

urbantrucker5 said:Basically, the author is arguing that everyone is a sadist—which is wrong from the jump because sadism is a psychological disorder classified by experts as unnatural behavior.

You could stretch this topic to fit under Sociology or Philosophy if you asked, "Are formal social norms and religion the only things stopping humans from killing their own kind for no reason?"—but even then, it’s highly debatable.

But written like this, making these specific claims:
this whole thread belongs straight to the Psychocouch.

Anyone describing how they’d torture and kill someone without any motive is a sadist. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to know that sadism in that form is a pathological disorder that needs clinical treatment.

Brenda Scott is right if you ask me. This is just a classic, nothing-out-of-the-box provocation from an Atheist. That tired old "moral arguments come from faith and religion" thing is one of the dumbest arguments ever, and honestly, it just makes the person using it look bad.

That aside,
psychiatrists aren't exactly quick to pull the trigger and label someone a psychopath or a sadist based on a sentence or two, especially when there's a utilitarian component in this hypothetical scenario (the island case).
But hey, it's nice that someone is so sure right off the bat that the topic belongs straight to the Psychocouch.

Controversial quotes?

First, "I couldn't resist if I were an Atheist" sounds like total atheist trolling to me.
The dream part? Please.
Third claim: she’d kill him if he was evil and useless for survival on the island? That's pure utilitarianism. No psychiatrist would put someone on meds or lock them up in an asylum for that.
If the "dilemma" had been framed differently—like, if he was evil, unhelpful on the island, and killing him (or ordering his death) saved two other lives—your brain would react exactly like a sadist's or a psychopath's. Basically, on a brain scan, your prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex, cingulate cortex, and superior frontal sulcus would look almost identical to his. If you changed the variables, you might see differences in amygdala activation, but
just changing the way the dilemma is set up isn't nearly enough to justify sending someone to a padded cell, popping pills, or anything out of a psychopath's memoir.

Are there other comments here suggesting someone has psychopathology? Maybe.
But based on what's actually here, the thread might be trolling and provocation, definitely stupid generalizations, and probably questionable values,
but calling for the Psychocouch and straight labeling this as psychopathological behavior? No way.

Usually, we don't do the whole formal "Sir/Ma'am" thing on these forums.

If the goal is just to act super official (especially on an informal site) to show respect, then that energy should go both ways.
I mean, if the rule for respecting moderators is addressing them formally, then it’s only fair and right that regular users address mods and admins with that same level of courtesy in PMs or on the community boards.

steelskipper5 said:That’s just because you were reading between the lines and looking for subtext from old LjES threads.
Since I haven't found anything interesting on LjES in ages, I have no clue which topics you mean, but since the author actually weighed in on the very topic I'm talking about, this clearly goes way deeper than just a misunderstanding.

Ah. My bad! 🙂

steelskipper5 said:That’s an interesting point, dustyranger64. Honestly, I’ve been flagging almost everything you just mentioned—well, except for that first bit—as trolling over on the Social Science boards for days now.

Got it. Ready to roll!
Not sure why you’re tagging me, though! I don't moderate the DZ, so I don't even see those reports. 🤷

granitefalcon26 said:We totally got what they meant, but honestly, no matter how you spin it, it still comes off like an excuse for genocide.

Honestly? It doesn't look that way at all.

He was just saying we need to walk people through the historical context—the "why" behind everything—to understand how the existence of Auschwitz camp even happened in the first place. If we don't know why it happened, we can't stop it from happening again.

It’s basically a paraphrase of that classic line: "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." If you don't recognize the warning signs and the steps that lead up to a crime, you're defenseless. He was being crystal clear.

I think this topic is pretty broad, but part of it clearly ties back to the LUES situation—specifically those one or two points already chewed over in that nearby appeal thread. But, just to give you the quick version of where we stand with LUES:

-The mods have already admitted they messed up how they handled those two threads. Because of that, the plan is to tighten things up over there.
That means dealing with certain users who just love to troll (which is super obvious looking at the appeal thread from the person you're talking about—honestly making this thread feel a bit redundant if it's just about LUES), but it also applies to anyone who can't stop venting. Like I always say, sometimes you just gotta chill out.

Using Wikipedia as a source isn't a punishable offense. It’s on the users to shut those claims down with better arguments or links.
Faking quotes and stuff like that? Yeah, that gets you penalized. But a wrong interpretation or even something that looks just plain stupid shouldn't be punished on its own. That's the tricky part—it's hard to draw the line between someone genuinely struggling to grasp a concept (or just lacking the capacity, let's be real) and someone actually breaking the rules. I'm not talking about controversial topics here, just general rule-following.

The moderators have the authority to delete posts and hand out warnings whenever they see fit, regardless of official bans or strikes (and as a user, you won't even see if a deleted post was tied to a strike). It's all based on their judgment.
The rest of your post is a bit too vague for me to link directly to the LUES drama, and I don't really want to get sucked into rehashing stuff that's already been settled, so I'll leave it at that.

Carl Fisher7 said:The bolded part is basically the crux of the issue—it's what everyone has been fighting over, debating, doubting, misinterpreting, or using to insult me by calling me a demagogue or a liar.

Let me repeat (and yeah, I'd probably say it for the 100th time after the 77th): I never said that kind of marriage isn't legitimate. In fact, I explicitly stated that such a marriage *is* legal. Expressing my opinion and stance clearly didn't break any forum rules, which is why you haven't actually punished me—and frankly, there's no reason to. You don't have the right to try to discredit me or steer me toward other topics. If this thread doesn't belong here, the mods should have just moved it themselves instead of making it an issue.

Besides, I don't see much point in us going back and forth on this PDF since we could have just kept arguing on the original thread anyway. So, I'll just ask you:

- By banning the interpretation of the law while simultaneously interpreting it yourself in the same post, did you actually make a mistake?
- Do you consider yourself biased or objective? As a mod, you're supposed to be neutral.

Neither the legislature nor I am doing that. If I haven't made myself clear by now, I doubt I ever will be.

So, am I actually just being a demagogue here? Or maybe the whole concept is flawed—you know, the idea that marriage is just this contract signed between two straight people where they basically agree beforehand that... In that marriage between partners, there’s just no sex. Period. And because of that, you won't see any kids coming from it—at least nothing born out of a real physical connection. Honestly, seeing a marriage like that discussed on these forums... it's just wild. It’s a total mess, honestly. We’re looking at a massive clash between what’s actually right and what’s actually legal. It’s that classic, head-scratching conflict where the lawmakers' rules just don't line up with basic human ethics. Total deadlock! Is it just me, or is the idea that an "open marriage" holds more moral weight than a traditional one—the kind where people actually choose each other because they're in love and want to start a family—total demagoguery? It feels super dishonest. Sure, on paper, everything stays within the legal lines, but I have my doubts about that part too. Honestly, if a regular couple walked into a courthouse in Chicago and told the officiant their actual motives and exactly how they planned to structure their marriage, I bet they wouldn’t even be allowed to tie the knot!

Of course you didn't. You were just pushing your own opinion on what a marriage should look like instead of actually trying to get it passed as law. Right.

Here’s the quick rundown:
You used to say that if there isn't love, sex, and kids involved, it just isn't a real marriage. That was your take!
You’re totally missing the point! Sure, you can think whatever you want, but under US law, the government recognizes it as a full-blown marriage—regardless of whether there's sex or kids involved. It's all legal. Period.
Look, you’re the one who started dragging legal marriage definitions into this! You actually brought up those clauses about sexual intimacy being a "partner need" just to try and back up your own argument.
Look, they made it clear to me—just because you're married doesn't mean sex has to be part of the deal. It’s just how it is!
After pages of back-and-forth arguing about chickens and eggs, you finally land on this conclusion. A marriage that just doesn't click, plus all those messy legal and ethical questions. What a mess!
Which one is the most important part of that sentence you keep pushing?

Marriage? It’s basically just the law saying a man and a woman are officially living life together. Simple as that!
When it comes to what they actually need, men and women in a marriage tend to look for different things personally and... Common ground. Things we all need.Feeling things deeply! I can't really dive into that topic here. Let's keep things respectful and stay on track!Look, marriage comes in all shapes and sizes—procreative, moral, financial, cultural, you name it. Sure, the law lays out how it's supposed to work, but honestly? Those are just basic guidelines. You can pass all the legal rules you want, but at the end of the day, no law on the books can actually dictate the real quality of a relationship. It's about what happens behind closed doors!
The whole point of marriage? Honestly, it’s hard to pin down. There isn't one single "goal" that fits everyone. It's more like a big umbrella that covers all sorts of different kinds of partnerships. Every couple does their own thing!

Look, let's be real. If there isn't even a shared desire for sex in the first place, then you can't exactly claim that the institution of marriage is being violated. It just doesn't work that way!

If you actually stuck to your guns and stayed true to your morals, you wouldn't get anywhere in this world.

Signing OFF. Catch you guys over on Smod to deal with the admins.

Edit: sorry, I'm running late—feel free to delete this.

Carl Fisher7 said:Let me sum this up in a nutshell—if you’re going to ban people from interpreting the law, then you don't get to claim that right for yourself.

Honestly, I don't need your apologies. As for legal interpretations, here’s my suggestion: go find someone who actually understands family law instead of constantly putting words in my mouth—or rather, under my keyboard—that I never even uttered. That’s pure demagoguery because I never actually stated that sex within a marriage is legally mandated by the state or that it's a requirement —all I said was that the law (via family law) takes it for granted. Do you see the distinction there? I could go on about this forever—it's a waste of breath. By the way, you seem to only write comments on things that fit your specific narrative, while skipping or ignoring everything else.

It's true, Tupelo doesn't moderate the forum—I was just pointing out that different moderation standards are being applied within the same forum.

And frankly, it would be nice if you'd tone it down and stop being so rude. You're a moderator; you're supposed to be setting the example here.

Btw, you told me in a DM that the next step is filing an appeal with the oversight board, only to have you handle it again. Is that like when the fox is in charge of guarding the henhouse? If that's how it works, we might as well end this now, because it feels pretty Orwellian.

And since it’s already been explained to you multiple times here and even via DM, let me say it one last time:

Even if the law assumes sexual intimacy exists within a marriage, if two people decide together they don't want it, the government can't and shouldn't step in. That is still a totally valid, legitimate marriage. And that's exactly what everyone has been trying to tell you for pages now, only to be met with your excuses about how it "isn't a real marriage" because of what the law assumes.

Carl Fisher7 said:Let me sum this up in a nutshell—if you’re going to ban people from interpreting the law, then you don't get to claim that right for yourself.

Honestly, I don't need your apologies. As for legal interpretations, here’s my suggestion: go find someone who actually understands family law instead of constantly putting words in my mouth—or rather, under my keyboard—that I never even uttered. That’s pure demagoguery because I never actually stated that sex within a marriage is legally mandated by the state or that it's a requirement —all I said was that the law (via family law) takes it for granted. Do you see the distinction there? I could go on about this forever—it's a waste of breath. By the way, you seem to only write comments on things that fit your specific narrative, while skipping or ignoring everything else.

It's true, Tupelo doesn't moderate the forum—I was just pointing out that different moderation standards are being applied within the same forum.

And frankly, it would be nice if you'd tone it down and stop being so rude. You're a moderator; you're supposed to be setting the example here.

Btw, you told me in a DM that the next step is filing an appeal with the oversight board, only to have you handle it again. Is that like when the fox is in charge of guarding the henhouse? If that's how it works, we might as well end this now, because it feels pretty Orwellian.

The forum users have spent more than enough pages explaining the obvious. Between those explanations and the moderator warnings and DMs I've sent personally, I'm done. I'm out.

Are you serious??
I'll make this quick, because I really don't feel like wasting more pages on this thread or blowing up anyone's inbox just to explain simple stuff again:

Carl Fisher7 said:Interesting take. Smod bans us from quoting or interpreting the law and marriage rights, yet here they are doing exactly that in the very same post?!...

And that’s just plain wrong. Plus—as the guy himself pointed out—apparently the mods are having "issues" with how they interpret the rules? So, what happens next? They just take their own version of the law and force it on everyone as if it’s some absolute, unchangeable decree. It effectively shuts down any actual discussion regarding marriage law, because at that point, nobody is going to risk speaking up if they know they'll just get flagged for it. It basically kills the conversation entirely since, naturally, everyone just stops responding. I don't get it. What kind of "problems" could the moderation team possibly be having? Because apparently, when a mod misinterprets the rules, suddenly everything is fine.

Since the rules on this forum start out like this...

Just so we’re all on the same page—here are the ground rules for the forum:
Breaking federal laws.

I’m just hoping that includes a spot-on interpretation of American law, too.

Look, I’m not going to waste my breath trying to explain why this interpretation is dead wrong—mostly because the mods have already shut that down—but if the forum editorial staff wants a real answer, they should probably go find someone who actually understands marriage law, rather than someone who just skims the legal code. It would be nice if the moderation here focused more on fostering actual, reasoned debate instead of throwing out incorrect claims and bad examples like the one below...

Look, you can't exactly walk down the aisle with an ulterior motive like that. Marriage isn't some temporary contract or a deal with a built-in expiration date—you can't just add fine print and conditions to it. A marriage is supposed to be a permanent commitment. With the primary goal of making things last forever. "Till death do us part"—which, let’s be honest, is really just a fancy way of saying marriage is intended to be permanent—doesn't mean it's an unbreakable bond, since we actually have the legal option of divorce here in the States. Now, if someone enters a marriage under false pretenses—basically lying to the officiant about their actual intentions—that's a whole different ballgame. In a case like that, any commentary should really just come down to your own personal moral compass and what you believe is right. Anyway, I'll drop a guide on where to post this stuff in a bit...

Yeah, true—the OP actually started this thread right here, but I honestly don't see how you can have any kind of spark in a marriage without love and sex—which basically means there's zero romance involved (so, no LJES). Honestly, maybe the mods should have just moved this whole discussion over to the social sciences section or some other appropriate sub-forum.

Here’s another look at how inconsistent the moderation rules—and the actual writing standards—can be around here...

There’s absolutely no difference between those two statements—even if the context isn't visible here, I'm not cherry-picking bits to make things look different than they actually are—but the mod is typing it out like it's some huge deal, while I’m getting hit with a (totally justified) penalty along with a full-blown explanation...

The exact same moderator is running interference on that controversial thread—you know, the one about arranged marriages—and they’re basically handing out free passes for trolling, insults, and straight-up harassment. Instead of actually doing their job by issuing a warning or a ban, they’re actually jumping in to join the fray. They hit me with this massive, condescending wall of text, grading my entire contribution like some middle school teacher while digging up old posts just to twist my words. It's honestly absurd.

The law is pretty damn clear on this one—it doesn't leave much room for debate. So, here’s a thought—technically speaking, sexual intimacy within a marriage isn't actually defined by the law. Which means, if you look at it strictly from a legal standpoint, it doesn't fall under the official set of rights and obligations that two people sign up for when they walk down the aisle. It's one of those weird gaps where the legalities just... stop.

The legal system just sits there—completely unresponsive to this kind of interpretation. It’s like shouting into a void while the rules get twisted right in front of you. Even if a ridiculous loophole like that actually existed in our laws—which, let’s be honest, it doesn't. I'm not going to list all the other examples—I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here.

What exactly do we mean by "moderation" here? Is it actually objective? Unbiased? Are we even following a set of rules that applies to everyone equally?

The moderator is stopping you from debating using that logic only after you spent pages telling users that the legislature regulates and mandates that sexual relations shouldn't be forced in a marriage, and then after people tried to quote you back your own words:

The legislature MAY NOT assume the mandatory existence of a sexual component in a marriage.

By bolding that word—hoping you'd catch on, since you were basically drawing a line saying no one has the right to suggest that a married couple is obligated to have sex, while you kept doubling down that no one should force it, but they need to have sex and that it's legally regulated. People tried to explain that there are adultery laws and issues regarding the failure to fulfill the sexual component of a marriage as grounds for divorce, but that doesn't mean anything if both partners don't want to have sex. It was pointless.

That led to this circular arguing loop between you and the rest of the world, which should have been shut down sooner. I'll admit, the mod messed up by waiting until then to step in.

Also, gotta mention you were pushing those definitions of what a marriage "means" onto the other thread too, claiming that any marriages entered into by people who explicitly say they don't want kids are "void" in their own way. Like, they can legally sign the papers, but they aren't real marriages.

Carl Fisher7 said:Interesting take. Smod bans us from quoting or interpreting the law and marriage rights, yet here they are doing exactly that in the very same post?!...

And that’s just plain wrong. Plus—as the guy himself pointed out—apparently the mods are having "issues" with how they interpret the rules? So, what happens next? They just take their own version of the law and force it on everyone as if it’s some absolute, unchangeable decree. It effectively shuts down any actual discussion regarding marriage law, because at that point, nobody is going to risk speaking up if they know they'll just get flagged for it. It basically kills the conversation entirely since, naturally, everyone just stops responding. I don't get it. What kind of "problems" could the moderation team possibly be having? Because apparently, when a mod misinterprets the rules, suddenly everything is fine.

Since the rules on this forum start out like this...

Just so we’re all on the same page—here are the ground rules for the forum:
Breaking federal laws.

I’m just hoping that includes a spot-on interpretation of American law, too.

Look, I’m not going to waste my breath trying to explain why this interpretation is dead wrong—mostly because the mods have already shut that down—but if the forum editorial staff wants a real answer, they should probably go find someone who actually understands marriage law, rather than someone who just skims the legal code. It would be nice if the moderation here focused more on fostering actual, reasoned debate instead of throwing out incorrect claims and bad examples like the one below...

Look, you can't exactly walk down the aisle with an ulterior motive like that. Marriage isn't some temporary contract or a deal with a built-in expiration date—you can't just add fine print and conditions to it. A marriage is supposed to be a permanent commitment. With the primary goal of making things last forever. "Till death do us part"—which, let’s be honest, is really just a fancy way of saying marriage is intended to be permanent—doesn't mean it's an unbreakable bond, since we actually have the legal option of divorce here in the States. Now, if someone enters a marriage under false pretenses—basically lying to the officiant about their actual intentions—that's a whole different ballgame. In a case like that, any commentary should really just come down to your own personal moral compass and what you believe is right. Anyway, I'll drop a guide on where to post this stuff in a bit...

Yeah, true—the OP actually started this thread right here, but I honestly don't see how you can have any kind of spark in a marriage without love and sex—which basically means there's zero romance involved (so, no LJES). Honestly, maybe the mods should have just moved this whole discussion over to the social sciences section or some other appropriate sub-forum.

Here’s another look at how inconsistent the moderation rules—and the actual writing standards—can be around here...

There’s absolutely no difference between those two statements—even if the context isn't visible here, I'm not cherry-picking bits to make things look different than they actually are—but the mod is typing it out like it's some huge deal, while I’m getting hit with a (totally justified) penalty along with a full-blown explanation...

The exact same moderator is running interference on that controversial thread—you know, the one about arranged marriages—and they’re basically handing out free passes for trolling, insults, and straight-up harassment. Instead of actually doing their job by issuing a warning or a ban, they’re actually jumping in to join the fray. They hit me with this massive, condescending wall of text, grading my entire contribution like some middle school teacher while digging up old posts just to twist my words. It's honestly absurd.

The law is pretty damn clear on this one—it doesn't leave much room for debate. So, here’s a thought—technically speaking, sexual intimacy within a marriage isn't actually defined by the law. Which means, if you look at it strictly from a legal standpoint, it doesn't fall under the official set of rights and obligations that two people sign up for when they walk down the aisle. It's one of those weird gaps where the legalities just... stop.

The legal system just sits there—completely unresponsive to this kind of interpretation. It’s like shouting into a void while the rules get twisted right in front of you. Even if a ridiculous loophole like that actually existed in our laws—which, let’s be honest, it doesn't. I'm not going to list all the other examples—I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here.

What exactly do we mean by "moderation" here? Is it actually objective? Unbiased? Are we even following a set of rules that applies to everyone equally?

Like I already explained in your DMs, even though you can't stand before a judge and say, "Hey, marry us, but we're splitting in six months," you *can* just stay silent about it and get married anyway.

Carl Fisher7 said:Interesting take. Smod bans us from quoting or interpreting the law and marriage rights, yet here they are doing exactly that in the very same post?!...

And that’s just plain wrong. Plus—as the guy himself pointed out—apparently the mods are having "issues" with how they interpret the rules? So, what happens next? They just take their own version of the law and force it on everyone as if it’s some absolute, unchangeable decree. It effectively shuts down any actual discussion regarding marriage law, because at that point, nobody is going to risk speaking up if they know they'll just get flagged for it. It basically kills the conversation entirely since, naturally, everyone just stops responding. I don't get it. What kind of "problems" could the moderation team possibly be having? Because apparently, when a mod misinterprets the rules, suddenly everything is fine.

Since the rules on this forum start out like this...

Just so we’re all on the same page—here are the ground rules for the forum:
Breaking federal laws.

I’m just hoping that includes a spot-on interpretation of American law, too.

Look, I’m not going to waste my breath trying to explain why this interpretation is dead wrong—mostly because the mods have already shut that down—but if the forum editorial staff wants a real answer, they should probably go find someone who actually understands marriage law, rather than someone who just skims the legal code. It would be nice if the moderation here focused more on fostering actual, reasoned debate instead of throwing out incorrect claims and bad examples like the one below...

Look, you can't exactly walk down the aisle with an ulterior motive like that. Marriage isn't some temporary contract or a deal with a built-in expiration date—you can't just add fine print and conditions to it. A marriage is supposed to be a permanent commitment. With the primary goal of making things last forever. "Till death do us part"—which, let’s be honest, is really just a fancy way of saying marriage is intended to be permanent—doesn't mean it's an unbreakable bond, since we actually have the legal option of divorce here in the States. Now, if someone enters a marriage under false pretenses—basically lying to the officiant about their actual intentions—that's a whole different ballgame. In a case like that, any commentary should really just come down to your own personal moral compass and what you believe is right. Anyway, I'll drop a guide on where to post this stuff in a bit...

Yeah, true—the OP actually started this thread right here, but I honestly don't see how you can have any kind of spark in a marriage without love and sex—which basically means there's zero romance involved (so, no LJES). Honestly, maybe the mods should have just moved this whole discussion over to the social sciences section or some other appropriate sub-forum.

Here’s another look at how inconsistent the moderation rules—and the actual writing standards—can be around here...

There’s absolutely no difference between those two statements—even if the context isn't visible here, I'm not cherry-picking bits to make things look different than they actually are—but the mod is typing it out like it's some huge deal, while I’m getting hit with a (totally justified) penalty along with a full-blown explanation...

The exact same moderator is running interference on that controversial thread—you know, the one about arranged marriages—and they’re basically handing out free passes for trolling, insults, and straight-up harassment. Instead of actually doing their job by issuing a warning or a ban, they’re actually jumping in to join the fray. They hit me with this massive, condescending wall of text, grading my entire contribution like some middle school teacher while digging up old posts just to twist my words. It's honestly absurd.

The law is pretty damn clear on this one—it doesn't leave much room for debate. So, here’s a thought—technically speaking, sexual intimacy within a marriage isn't actually defined by the law. Which means, if you look at it strictly from a legal standpoint, it doesn't fall under the official set of rights and obligations that two people sign up for when they walk down the aisle. It's one of those weird gaps where the legalities just... stop.

The legal system just sits there—completely unresponsive to this kind of interpretation. It’s like shouting into a void while the rules get twisted right in front of you. Even if a ridiculous loophole like that actually existed in our laws—which, let’s be honest, it doesn't. I'm not going to list all the other examples—I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here.

What exactly do we mean by "moderation" here? Is it actually objective? Unbiased? Are we even following a set of rules that applies to everyone equally?

The stuff from Tupelo you're quoting isn't from an LJES moderator, and they don't really have any authority there. You didn't receive any warnings or bans on LJES because of that statement, even though that's the whole reason this decision is so controversial. Honestly, what kind of strikes you got on Tupelo's PDF? The LJES mods couldn't care less, seriously. It's none of their business.

The official stance of the LJES moderators is that nobody has the right to dictate to a married couple (whether they try to force it or not) regarding their sex life or whether they should have kids. Pushing that kind of legal interpretation on LJES isn't allowed.
If the administration, or anyone who actually knows how US marriage law works better than the LJES mods, says otherwise, then the LJES mods will owe you an apology—along with one from me personally—right before I pack my bags and move to some country that's way less Orwellian.