Posts by dustyranger64

Ashley Price82 said:So, I just got hit with 10 points from Jason Morgan. And then? My post gets nuked. Total nonsense. It’s honestly not okay to delete a post like that for just one little reason—especially when it was meant for someone!

The points and the deletions? Totally justified. Honestly, I'm all for it.
And if someone gets sent off at 3 PM? Gone. Deleted. Just like that. It happens to everyone. Same exact thing.

Ashley Price82 said:The rules aren't supposed to force you to delete a 10-point post. So why hasn't that facepalm post been taken down yet?

You haven't seen the moderation guidelines yet. That post is straight-up spam, and we clear out all spam.
The post with the facepalm is gone too. Deleted.

Ashley Price82 said:So you think my post is useless? Honestly, that’s just you projecting. It’s not even about the forum rules at this point—it's just your own take on things, whether it's smart or not!

Spam is useless. Plain and simple. It’s just following the rules, not being biased.

That's it! This thread is officially closed from the mod side. Hey, any admins around?

Linda Price5 said:Got a question! What's on your mind? 😁 What are we even doing about all the misinformation floating around on the sexual education basics thread? Seriously!

Look, your posts and those cartoons have already been picked apart. We’ve gone over this topic a million times, back and forth, inside and out. There's no way we're chewing on the same old stuff again!

Rebecca Phillips57 said:If protecting those clueless kids really matters that much, then just take the controversial post down already! Honestly, whether they use cardboard or whatever—I don't care. Just get rid of it. Look, you can't just drop a post and then claim it’s "problematic" because someone might take it the wrong way. That logic just doesn't hold up! Once it's out there, it's out there. It stays right where it is, and yeah, people are still gonna misinterpret it regardless. Period.

The mods might’ve messed up by not nuking that misinformation post immediately. Look, moderators are just people. They make mistakes. Shocking, I know! But honestly, the cookie-in card is a total slam dunk. If anyone else has an issue with a specific post, just hit the report button. Case closed on this whole sexual education basics debate.

Rebecca Phillips57 said:Look, just being a jokester isn't the same thing as trolling. Period. Trolling is when someone intentionally dumps off-topic nonsense just to stir the pot, or when they start messing with the flow of the conversation because they can't help themselves from making it personal. That's where it gets messy!
On one hand, people want this place to feel casual, but then they go and slap you with the same old labels. You see it all the time—people pulling the "I don't have a single post meant to be offensive" card. Yeah, sure! It’s just way easier to dismiss everything as trolling. But when people start calling basic off-topic chatter "trolling," it's pretty obvious that the label doesn't actually mean anything anymore. It's just a way to brush things off.
Alright, let's call it what it is! If someone’s being straight-up insulting, just call them out by their actual name instead of hiding behind "off-topic." Sure, you've got trolls running around—believe me, I've seen my fair share—but let's stop sugarcoating things. If it's an insult or trolling, call it like you see it!

If you can write a pamphlet like that and define everything so clearly, then you already know there’s a gray area. Some posts sit right on the edge! It’s really up to the mods to decide if someone is just going off-topic, trolling, or actually being offensive.

Look, whether you think someone’s trolling or just being off-topic is just your take. It doesn't mean the moderator has to see it that way!
If you think that red card was unfair, go ahead and file an appeal! Just take it up with the mods and admins again.

Amen!

Honestly? There's a good chance this isn't even the first time your posts have vanished. You probably just didn't grab a screenshot before they disappeared!

Andrew Roberts5 said:Keeping things on the low... or am I? 🤔

Standard cash compensation based on what the victim decides + a free trip to wherever they want!

Nicholas King said:Easy to say—but who’s actually gonna buy that when I'm at an AA meeting saying, "It all started when I blacked out a hundred and fifty times celebrating my tenth thousandth post..."? 😁

So, what are they actually letting into AA meetings these days if you're making under $20k? 😁

Linda Price5 said:Look, if this is supposed to be a thread about using headphones, then we've already explained nineteen different times that you actually put them IN your ears.

Don't try to make this sound trivial. I already laid out exactly why this topic—and those other two pinned threads—get their own special status here. Take it or leave it.

wanderingbadger44 said:Honestly? Your irony doesn't bother me at all. I practically live for it. 🙂

Look, personally, I can handle anything—irony, cynicism, sarcasm, even a direct insult. As long as we aren't veering way off-topic, go for it!
But hey, I’m not exactly the gold standard for setting the "average" level of thick skin or how a Reddit thread should run. And neither are you.
We both just have to play the game and adjust to whatever level of sensitivity the rest of the crowd brings to the table. You gotta adapt too.

Linda Price5 said:No? 🙂

Look, I actually find your post pretty funny. Seriously! But you posted this in a thread filled with kids who honestly don't know jack shit. They show up asking the absolute dumbest questions on the planet because they just DON'T KNOW. If they haven't even grasped the basics, you can't talk to them like this. Someone’s going to take you seriously. Even though the irony is screaming off the page for us, you have to realize that kids who don't even know when to use a condom have zero damn clue what irony is, let alone how deep your sarcasm actually goes.

wanderingbadger44 said:Look, if a serious discussion hits page 25 and there are about ten regulars who have basically said everything they need to say, the topic naturally winds down. People relax. They start posting stuff that isn't strictly about the debate. Does that really have to be flagged as off-topic, spam, or trolling, as long as nobody is being rude or offensive?

If a topic is serious, it stays serious. We have plenty of lighthearted threads where we can joke around, use irony, or throw some banter, as long as it ties back to the subject eventually.

My deepest apologies that we want to keep a single monthly thread focused on being constructive and meaningful.

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s obvious to me that moderators find it easiest to manage threads like that one that sits at the top of Reddit for weeks: Zodiac signs and all that. But honestly? Those topics are boring. Why aren't there any interesting discussions anymore? Not just on Reddit, but anywhere.

Oh! So *you're* bored. Well, thank God you told us. That changes everything.
From now on, I guess we'll just open and close threads based on whether wanderingbadger44 finds them dull or not.
🙂
If you're craving something more interesting, just hit "new thread" and start it yourself.

Linda Price5 said:Sure, it’s perfectly fine to insist on communication that feels like talking to a DMV clerk: "Good morning, I'd like to renew my license," "Here's the form," "Here's the clipboard," "Thanks, bye."

Maybe you should just rename this place "The DMV Attack Zone." That way, anyone trying to be a little more relaxed or crack a joke knows that messing around with the clerks is a crime, and even a hint of irony gets you penalized. Or would that be considered trolling too? Would we get banned for that? 😁

Reddit is pretty "chill" when it comes to moderation. Try posting like that in a history or psychology sub.
There is plenty of irony allowed here. My sincere apologies that things have to stay on track and that every thread doesn't have a giant "CHAT ROOM" sign next to it.
Don't act all high and mighty with 5,000 posts under your belt claiming irony is punishable. It's not. Maybe go look up the definition of irony?

Thanks much, bye.

Timothy Robinson2 said:I think you nailed it. I totally agree—that’s really where the whole issue lies. It's better to let a guilty person walk than to convict someone innocent.

I wasn't implying that. The post won't just sit there unmoderated; it'll get flagged as spam or harassment, which honestly feels like just another way to troll sometimes.
If you meant that in terms of letting the wrong person take the fall, then yeah, you're right.

William Cooper11 said:Person D is definitely being provocative, but since there isn't a direct personal insult involved, I don't think they should be sanctioned.

Nah, if it actually included a personal attack, it would definitely get flagged for harassment.
Trolling is basically just taking shots at an entire group because you don't like their take—labeling them all idiots or whatever. Honestly, that kind of stuff does way more damage to the conversation and heats things up much faster than a single targeted insult would.

Timothy Robinson2 said:It's just someone trying to make the debate interesting! They want to push people to actually think about their beliefs and explain how that feeling of God can serve as comfort, or even something else...

There's no way someone can make a thread titled "What does prayer mean to you as a Christian" more "interesting" by implying the whole thing is nonsense without proof.
The topic is super specific, and it's framed that way for a reason.
It’s like if you were on a thread about "How do gay men find partners" and someone chimed in with, "Ugh, that's unnatural, how can you do that?"
You know, endless examples like that.

The only thing is, trolling is such a slippery slope. Sometimes it feels like spam, sometimes it feels like straight-up harassment, so you really have to be careful when deciding how to handle it.

Edward Booth9 said:A couple of days ago, I was scrolling through USA Today and stumbled upon this commentary from some physiotherapist or whatever... they were trying to claim that Paravinja is an ectomorph just because he’s thin and lanky. Their whole argument? That because of his body type, he basically lacks the willpower to suppress his impulses, which is why he did what he did. It felt a bit off to me.

Has anyone else run into this kind of thing? Every time I try to look up "ectomorph" on Google, all I get is stuff about body types for athletes or bodybuilding enthusiasts. There isn't anything connecting physical build to psychological states or impulse control.

Edward Booth9 said:I was just digging through the trash earlier—not from USA Today, mind you, but a July 3rd, 2011 edition of the New York Post where Ljiljana buhač, who works as a communications consultant and physiognomy trainer, wrote this piece.

...Paravinja falls under the ectomorph personality type. They’re characterized by a thin, almost gaunt appearance. People of this type tend to be hypersensitive, mostly because they have such a large surface area relative to their body mass. They possess intense nervous energy, struggle to relax, and can be intellectually volatile. It’s difficult for them to find harmony between mind and body, making them prone to fragmentation. They deal with deep insecurities, often masking them through aggression or violence. Emotionally, they can be stunted or schizoid. In these types, the connection between head and body seems severed; they often have elongated necks and heads that tilt away from the body's central axis...

So, basically, all that fluff is just a way to sell a column?

Man, honestly, it feels like everyone is pushing that psychology stuff lately. It's getting ridiculous! And what’s even worse? Every single news outlet out there will interview just about any random idiot to get their "opinion."
Communication skills coach and physiognomy expert! 🤦
Man, her rant about Ectomorphic Body Types was just next-level. Such a massive, vulgar generalization. Seriously... wow.

silverwalker27 said:Personality tests should be conducted periodically and mandated for every citizen—it would provide a solid foundation for drawing meaningful conclusions after a few years.

To be honest, I find it quite unsettling that psychology, as a scientific discipline, cannot predict who might turn into a killer due to standard life stressors. It’s essentially like physics being unable to determine if a bridge is going to collapse or not. (After all, the entire purpose of scientific theories is to forecast outcomes and ensure those results align with reality.)

Honestly, it scares the hell out of me. I can't believe someone could actually say something like that and still be walking around today!
Drawing a parallel between psychology and physics? Now that’s impressive.

silverwalker27 said:The principle remains the same—it's what matters.

If I were in charge:

1. Implement systematic psychological screening for all citizens.
2. Push for progress and new paradigms in psychology—current theories are far too shaky. On one hand, we have a hyperinflation of "disorders," yet on the other, we fail to detect actual killers. It simply isn't working.
3. Expand current legal frameworks to allow society to preventively restrict certain rights for dangerous individuals.

Number two is the key, dear psychologists. Everything else will follow easily—just give us a reliable litmus test to identify those who are truly dangerous.

I don't know how many sci-fi movies you've been binge-watching lately, but this mashup of Minority Report, Equilibrium, and Gattaca is just terrible. Especially item three—that one is actually hilarious.
Is this really what someone out there wants for humanity? Total robotization? A wonderful New World?

Source, this answer isn't actually for you—it's for the OP.

Emily Kim67 said:🤷I honestly think the old one was pretty great too!

🙄 Someone clearly has way too much free time on their hands.

Emily Kim67 said:Look, they have to. I mean, I guess I should probably know what’s supposed to happen if I want to be posting on PDF, right? Nobody’s actually holding a gun to my head making me write on this forum. I post exactly where I feel like posting, trust me on that one!

Exactly. Nobody’s forcing anyone here to post anything. You don't have to go around complaining about every little thing you don't like!

End of day. Done!

Emily Kim67 said:Before I post on a new thread, I read the rules. If they updated the old ones, I check those too. You say the caps lock in the sticky thread looks wild, but then you wonder why I’m reading the rules? Well, honestly, it was hard to avoid that ~RELOADED~ in the title.
Bob, don't do this to me! Now I have to explain to a moderator why I actually read the rules.😠

We aren't on the same page. It looks wild because it's the only way to grab the attention of the old-timers who effectively "don't see" the rules thread.
I don't know any other way that's "gentle" but still works.

Emily Kim67 said:But hey, it isn't even that bad if the vibe is, you know, friendly.

I mostly agree.
But look, we don't have the budget for professional editors specializing in "friendliness," and being cute isn't the primary, secondary, or even tertiary function of the rules. Their job is to be taken seriously. Not to go—"pwease if it's not too much trouble, don't be mean, it's just a baby."

Emily Kim67 said:Has anyone actually complained about that mistake? I don't think so—correct me if I'm wrong. So, either people didn't get it or they liked it.

If I showed you everything people complain about, you wouldn't believe it even if your own mother handed you a notarized affidavit.

Emily Kim67 said:Now I totally disagree. Of course I have to like them if I'm planning to post there.

No, you don't *have* to like them. They just need to not drive you away. There's nothing in those rules that would stop a decent, polite person from posting on Microsoft.

You got flagged for trolling because, besides being totally off-topic, your post is just:
-set up to derail the whole conversation in directions that have nothing to do with the actual subject (and honestly, you aren't just hinting at it, you're asking questions specifically designed to pull people away from the point)
-basically implying that every other approach is wrong (except yours, which is apparently the only sane one). I mean, in this specific case, you might actually be right, but that's not what we're here to talk about, and it's definitely not your call to make.

Do yourself a favor and Google the definition—then go read the site rules.
If the mods think the warning was unfair or that an "off-topic" tag would’ve fit better, they can always change it or pull it.

Honestly, nothing’s really changed. The rules and the core principles are exactly the same—they just reworded everything and called it a day. Nothing new was actually added.

Nobody’s getting a warning just for missing a capital letter, but man, some people write absolute gibberish. It’s getting ridiculous. I bet the next 10 replies will be totally unreadable.

As long as everyone stays respectful toward each other, we're good. Mutual respect is key.

I’d much rather have rules that are clear and punchy. It beats having people nitpicking every tiny little detail in the fine print later on. These guidelines aren't just here to make the mods' lives easier; they're here to make sure we all have a high-quality experience hanging out here.

Merged this because it’s a duplicate. Just copying my previous answer here:

dustyranger64 said:Since poverty and bad environments can push anyone toward crime—and let's face it, violence isn't anything new to humanity—I’m guessing your question is really aiming at the
sociopaths and psychopaths.

Research actually shows they definitely have a biological predisposition. Most studies on convicted heavy murderers and serial killers show that over 50% of them have one disorder or another, a neurological diagnosis, or something similar.

It's also been found that 65% of them have damage to the frontal lobe of the brain. This is characteristic of a condition where their brain was essentially bathed in too much serotonin (that "happy hormone") during the fetal stage, which makes them totally numb to things that would give us pleasure. They need way more intense stimulation.
The frontal lobe houses many of the mechanisms that make us social beings, like self-control, planning, reasoning, and balancing individual needs against social ones.

So yeah, there's a biological predisposition. Then you add early childhood and environment into the mix.
About 85% (we're talking about those heavy hitters, the serial killers, etc.) suffered severe physical and/or sexual abuse during childhood.
That can trigger certain behaviors, leading to what's known as the McDonald's triad—three specific traits of sociopathic behavior: constant bedwetting after age five or six, cruelty to animals, and an obsession with fire and arson. This triad shows up in a lot of serial killers during their youth.

Basically, biology + abuse + a traumatic upbringing = the perfect storm.

EDIT: I'm not putting Paramount in that category above; that was just my general take on the topic.

mistyhound said:Look, here's how I see it: if a healthy person wouldn't kill anyone regardless of how selfish they were, then why would someone like Paramount do what they did? It’s because they're sick. Honestly, the only thing that bugs me is all the name-calling—why not just lock them up and be done with it?

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.
Murder vs. non-murder has nothing to do with health. It's about social norms.

The controversial post was nuked immediately just to stop people from taking things out of context. We couldn't slap him with the same penalty you got for attacking users personally, because his comment wasn't an ad hominem attack like yours.

Technically, it could have been flagged as hate speech, which carries the heaviest penalty—a permanent ban.

But we didn't go that route since he wasn't saying stuff like "Hey, you Americans are a bunch of bloodsucking trash." Instead, he was basically saying "the PEOPLE are a gullible mob." He actually clarified that himself in his next post, where he admitted he shouldn't lump everyone together with that "anything is better than nothing" mentality—including himself.

Honestly? To me, it doesn't feel like hate speech. It just felt like clumsy, stupid phrasing where he used "Americans" instead of "the nation."

If there had been even a hint of actual hate speech in there, I would’ve banned him on the spot, maybe even permanently.

The only mistake was not issuing a formal sanction sooner, given how chaotic the thread was getting and how fast we had to moderate. But we fixed that! He's been hit with a 70-point deduction plus a verbal warning.
I think that's plenty. If the admins disagree, then sure, go ahead and hit him with a week-long ban for hate speech.

rustywalker17 said:Look, I wasn't trying to call anyone out, seriously... I was just asking. It felt weird, you know? Like, it’s common sense that people who are overweight and people who are thin aren't going to see eye-to-eye on everything. But those comments about what they eat were just straight-up proof that they didn't understand basic nutrition. My comment was basically just a LOL. They had been posting for hours before 😁

Aha, so you started a thread in the Complaints section just to ask questions—not because there's an actual issue, but because you can't wrap your head around why other people don't get what you're seeing?

Some folks really have way too much free time 🤦

Voyager 1 posted several times in the 45 minutes before I dropped the warning. If that feels like "hours" to you, then hey, go ahead and LOL all you want.

rustywalker17 said:Of course, but I still asked... everything I read while I was writing is still there. Some of it might have been deleted for "certain people," I don't know. 👍

And they're staying.

The warning is out. The posts stay up because that's my call as a moderator. Maybe some people will actually learn something from them, and the next person who tries to jump on that bandwagon is getting a strike or a ban.

EOD on my part.

Exactly what she said.

Besides, I don't see any heavy-handedness here. Honestly, the mods have been cleaning up the chat and the off-topic sections more aggressively lately than they have in a while.

Plus, about that example you brought up—that kind of topic naturally pulls in sub-topics. It’s just an extension of the main conversation, which spills over into this page and the next.

The thing is, some people were given a bit of breathing room to wander off-topic. Instead of handing out red cards to seven or eight users for a tiny bit of off-topic chatter—which was actually pretty friendly and mostly fit the theme anyway—they just posted a warning. And boom, everyone stopped immediately.