Posts by Olivia Mendoza35

Jose White18 said:No biggie—we could backdate everything all the way to 2008. 😁 Honestly, we could even go back to 2000 if we wanted to. It’s not an issue at all.

Don't give away all our secrets just yet😬

It would honestly be so much easier if we just swapped out the English version for an American one in that FAQ section. I mean, when the rules tell you to "check the FAQ," you naturally click the first thing you see—which happens to be in English. As a new member, how are you supposed to know you have to hunt through the moderator kingdom under Wrbhh to find what you need? Even I didn't think to look there immediately.

Jacob Foster11 said:Check this out:

And specifically this part:

Great job. 👍
The only thing is, this stuff didn't even come to light until maybe April or May of 2010—and I've been a registered member since 2008.
I haven't seen any of this mentioned once, but hey, wonderful. 🙂 (As if we're missing a full dictionary of what constitutes trolling here. 😬)
But everything is scattered all over the place. Take my own situation, for example: I get flagged by the FBI, and then I have to go dig through the rulebook—if they actually wanted to be helpful, they’d just provide a direct link to those definitions right there.

For instance, this part is actually pretty straightforward according to the rules:
"Advertising is strictly prohibited (if you want to run an ad, please contact our marketing department to purchase a banner—www.monitor.com/marketing or email marketing@monitor.com)."

So, basically, everything is interconnected—you just need to know where to look and who to talk to.

hollowtrucker77 said:Olivia Mendoza35, all these concepts are already defined and well-known, so I don't see the point in constant copy-pasting or reinventing the wheel here.
Also, the rules act as a framework for behavior, but moderators are responsible for maintaining order within the sub-forums—including those where people treat the rules like an obstacle course, trying to weave through them or dodge them entirely.
Human relationships aren't something you can just summarize in a few paragraphs; there's an irreplaceable human element required when actually enforcing the rules.

I honestly can't find a specific definition for "trolling" in the FBI guidelines (I only managed to find one on Wikipedia).
And that idea of an "irreplaceable human element" in rule enforcement... well, I disagree.
Personally, I’m not the type to sit here and tattle on you every time a warning is issued, or start a conflict over what I perceive as improper moderator conduct, or just spam the report button. I’d much rather just walk away and stop being active altogether. In my view, the moderators deserve their positions, but I see how many people here have started distracting them from their actual jobs. It makes me think—if there's a set of laws meant for us (and I'm willing to read them, even if they're confusingly vague), then I feel just as entitled to see a code of conduct for how moderators should treat me.

If you're acting as both a moderator and a regular user, shouldn't you behave accordingly? The user handbook outlines what we can and can't do, but where is the transparency regarding how a moderator behaves while they're posting as a regular user? If everything boils down to personal opinion, then there shouldn't even be a visible set of rules for us to follow.🤷
The only rule I am aware of regarding moderators posting as users is the color change—when they're in mod mode, the text changes color, but when they're posting as a regular user, the color is the same as everyone else's.
It's a fact, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that users look at a moderator differently than they do a standard member.
It would be much simpler if we could just open a manual, read it, and know exactly where we stand.
It would make things easier for the moderators, too—they could just copy and paste a justified penalty based directly on the rules.

There are so many trivial gaps—for instance, when it comes to praise or complaints, the masses don't even know how to use the green or red formatting; we're left to fend for ourselves and share tutorials with one another. That's just one example of the holes in this place.

Also, despite English being the global language, everyone here writes in American, yet the domain ends in .com and the FAQ/rules are written in English.

As a member, I see quite a few gaps in the system. I don't mean this maliciously, but if you take offense, we can just delete this thread or even my membership entirely. I truly believe it would be better for everyone if these holes were filled.
Good grief, why am I even a member if I can't contribute to the community? Why do you guys keep thanking me for logging in if I can't actually help out?😬

hollowtrucker77 said:Olivia Mendoza35, why does it matter which mod hands out a ban, as long as there’s actual justification for it??
It's the same thing—if a ban isn't justified, you've gone too far and it'll be overturned anyway, regardless of which moderator issued it.

I didn't quite catch what you meant regarding the PM part either, so please clarify.

Generally speaking, a penalty can only be justified by law or a formal set of rules.
The site's policy regarding trolling hasn't been laid out in its entirety, and that's exactly where the loophole lies—that's the point I was trying to make.

I'm honestly not sure which specific quote about the PM wasn't understood. I can't really expand on it further, nor can I explain more right now, because I didn't start this thread to file a formal complaint—it's a suggestion. I have zero intention of turning this into a destructive argument over the thread title itself.

Other users can jump in here if they've noticed similar gaps in our community guidelines (for instance, issuing a ban without citing the specific rule violated... that's another massive loophole). The goal here is to help you guys fix these issues.

Under the signature, it says:
"Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. Help us make this forum better and more civil."

And under the official site rules, it states:
"Literature intended to make everyone's stay on the forum more pleasant and straightforward."

Nicholas King said:There are only two moderators running things over on the CIA forum.😢Look, if you try to ban a moderator from moderating any discussion they’re actually participating in, you’re setting yourself up for failure—it’s practically impossible. Think about it: if they aren't allowed to jump into the fray, they’d have to spend their entire time just watching and policing others. And let’s be real—finding someone willing or able to do that kind of pure, unpaid oversight without ever getting skin in the game? That’s a tall order. You'll be lucky if you find anyone at all.

I wasn't talking about banning moderators from participating in specific debates—that’s not what I meant. My point is that it just feels inherently unfair when the same moderator you're arguing with is also the one handing out the penalty points. It creates this obvious conflict of interest. My suggestion is pretty simple: if a user is flagged, the penalty should be issued by a different moderator—someone who hasn't been caught up in the actual heat of the argument with that user. We have multiple moderators assigned to these sub-forums for a reason; we should actually utilize that structure to ensure things stay impartial. It’s about having a neutral third party step in so the process doesn't feel like a personal vendetta.

Nicholas King said:I’m assuming you got an automated notification about the fine via PM—that’s standard procedure, so I don't really see what the big deal is. Or are you trying to say you actually got a formal warning? Because... As for the PM—though I honestly don't see the issue there either?

I just got hit with a negative rating via DM, but honestly? I couldn't care less about the score—it’ll eventually phase out anyway. My point wasn't about me; based on my own experience, I was simply pointing out a massive flaw in the system. I’m not trying to dodge anything regarding my own record—I earned that mark by following the rules, and frankly, I’m perfectly fine with that.
Look, let’s get one thing straight—this is a PROPOSAL, not a formal complaint.

Jacob Foster11 said:Those reports go straight to the admins—so primarily to hollowtrucker77 and Tyndall.

Well, at least something is actually being done according to the rules.
Thanks for the info. 🙂

btw:

Jose White18 said:Since you went through all the trouble of pulling out a dictionary definition for "trolling," why don't you explain how that actually applies to this sub? 🤷 😁
You earned a penalty for trolling a long time ago, and honestly—given that moderators are notoriously hesitant to hand out sanctions when they're actively participating in the debates themselves—you only got flagged because you've crossed the line significantly.

Besides, asking that question is just baiting me into another trolling trap—it’s basically forcing me to copy-paste an entire defense to prove I'm not lying about receiving a warning via PM.

All this does is reinforce my point that my proposal still deserves to be considered. 🙂
I already made it clear that I have no interest in getting into mudslinging matches with the mods from the FBI (if that were my intention, I would have taken it to a private message).
LP

Jose White18 said:If you're asking if I'm ready—then yes, I am. Let's get to it. If you don't like a post—just ignore it. Or, if it’s actually crossing a line, hit that report button. And just let it go.

So, that whole "if" scenario—where even the moderators should be held to the same standard—is fine and all, but eventually, someone is going to snap. Someone’s going to lose their cool, and then you'll see the negative ratings start rolling in. And honestly? It won't even be clear what the reason is—whether they're being flagged for trolling or just straight-up spam. Then, you'll see them drop a slash mark just to signal that the content is slated for deletion later.
A clear, written set of rules shouldn't just be a list of restrictions—it should actually give moderators the confidence they need to make calls without second-guessing themselves.
So, if I decide to flag a post, where does that report actually land? Does it just go straight to the moderator in question, or is there some higher authority—someone overseeing their work—who actually reviews it?

Jose White18 said:Ban moderators from participating in discussions? Yeah, right... ain't gonna happen.

Look, if we’re talking about me—I’m just not someone who believes in running a discussion by starting fights over the topic itself while simultaneously banning people from the board. That kind of double-dipping is just messy. And as far as bans go? Whether they happen or not, it's out of my hands. I don't have the authority to ban anyone. 🙂 Look, I’m putting this suggestion out there regardless of whether anyone actually cares to listen—and by the way, as far as I know, you’re a moderator with the FBI—so I have absolutely no desire to get dragged into any further back-and-forth arguments with you.

Jose White18 said:Honestly, you earned a penalty for trolling a long time ago—but let's be real, this was inevitable. That’s exactly why. It’s funny how the moderators always seem to hesitate when it comes to handing out sanctions in discussions where they’re actually participating themselves—it's like they can't police their own backyard. Usually, you don't see a warning until someone has already crossed the line way too far.

You don't actually get hit with a trolling penalty until a moderator finally loses their cool—or, to put it more bluntly, until they basically snap at you.

Given how things have been playing out lately, I’m putting forward a formal suggestion: we need a clear, visible code of conduct for moderators just as much as we do for regular users. Specifically, this should address a moderator's right to jump into discussions with other members—and the potential for them to spark conflicts within those very threads.
Because of that risk, I believe the administration needs to make their rules crystal clear. Furthermore, if a moderator gets into a heated argument with a user, that moderator shouldn't be allowed to hand out negative points or penalties based solely on that specific dispute. There’s a massive chance a user will see this as a blatant conflict of interest, which could lead to them feeling so unfairly treated that they simply stop participating in that sub-forum entirely—or worse, leave this site altogether.

For any community to actually function properly, both regular members and moderators need clearly defined boundaries.
I’ve noticed that most of our sub-forums are managed by more than one moderator, which is why I’m bringing this up as a way to ensure everyone stays on the same page and keeps things civil.

Looking at standard community guidelines, I don't think what's happening—where someone instigates a conflict and then uses their authority to punish the person involved—is considered legitimate or fair practice.

Just to be clear, my intention with these suggestions isn't to stir the pot or micromanage anyone's job; I’m simply offering these ideas as a member of this community.

Receiving a "congratulations" via PM from a moderator—after being a participant in a heated debate—felt like nothing more than blatant trolling. It actually prompted me to go back and dig through the FBI's code of conduct (since that’s the only place I was actually debating) and I found the single definition they offer under those rules:
# insulting other participants, intentionally provoking personal arguments, or engaging in non-constructive national, religious, or similar conflicts (trolling)

So, looking outside the site's official rules for a more comprehensive breakdown of what constitutes trolling, I came across this:
Trolling is the act of posting provocative content with the specific intent to trigger an intense reaction. Essentially, it involves derailing discussions or baiting others into senseless arguments just to make them look gullible, irritable, foolish, or ridiculous. Trolling is unwelcome. While some find it entertaining, the best approach is usually to ignore them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_Internet

The issue here is that the FBI's code of conduct lacks a truly precise or detailed definition of "trolling," yet users on this site still get slapped with these "congratulations" from the mod team. Therefore, I’m suggesting that administration update the site's rules to include a clear, thorough definition of trolling in standard American English. Right now, people are being penalized based solely on a moderator's subjective opinion—even when the moderator might be guilty of the exact same behavior.
I think everyone would find things much smoother if we actually knew exactly what the rules prohibit.

Just as an example (the thread is closed, so I can't easily isolate the specific snippet/don't know how to separate the text):

It’s never really been about what you buy—it’s about how you actually execute the idea. It is way easier to just swipe a credit card than it is to actually be creative. For instance, if you were looking for something to spice things up for the two of you, it would be much more effective to just grab some high-quality massage oil and get inventive with it, rather than buying a massive, overpriced dessert that's just going to sit in the fridge until it goes bad.

Kimberly Jones58 said:I have to brag a little—my iron levels plummeted to 3, and I was honestly starting to annoy the staff at the ER because they were seeing me constantly. It felt like every time I turned around, my levels were tanking. For an entire year, I was popping all sorts of random pills, which just ended up wrecking my stomach for nothing. The second I stop taking them, my iron crashes. But then I discovered this absolute game-changer: blackberry wine. 👍I’ve been drinking it for a year now, and my iron levels have been bouncing between 8 and 20. To be fair, I was having more than two or three glasses a day back then. Everything else has returned to normal except for my ferritin—now I have to figure out how to fix that, too, though I have no clue how.

I went through the exact same thing—iron at 3. I struggled with iron tablets for years, and the moment I stopped, everything would crash again. It felt like I was basically addicted to those supplements just to stay afloat.
Blackberry wine was a total lifesaver for me. A few years ago, we used to make our own blackberry wine at home, and I relied solely on that—just about a shot before meals. My iron stayed at a solid 12, so for a while, I didn't use any supplements at all. Then it dropped down to 7, so now I’m back on it, having about half a shot before lunch. I only take Ferum Lek during my period (for about 7 days), and my labs from yesterday showed an iron level of 11.