Posts by Nicholas King

Rebecca Diaz said:What can you even say about the current City administration, besides 👎

The only thing I’m happy about is seeing it clearly on this forum: thanks to the hard work of users like Zachary Anderson20 and the most die-hard fans of Spit and that golden boy Ivošević, they’ve finally realized how hollow this whole story actually is.

Use your heads at the next election, people. 🙂

Well, if you're feeling so helpful, why don't you tell us—who exactly should those less informed voters have been backing during the special elections?

Eric Lopez79 said:Is Slobodan going to mention that Maja reported them?
That place is a total dump—but Maja is definitely going to wreck them.
I stopped buying that crap years ago.

Honestly, Zlato, I think it would be worth finding out exactly how many people actually pay for a subscription to the Premium portal.

Which one of those opposition Councilmen—the ones who love making such a huge scene about everything—actually turned down a free lunch from the Mayor and decided to go pay out of their own pocket for some fast food instead?

goldeneagle36 said:I wouldn't delete it; I'd leave it up as a way to honor the person while making it crystal clear exactly what kind of behavior won't be tolerated around here.

I have the same question for you, actually, because your wording is a bit vague: are you saying you wouldn't even delete content that violates the law? Because, if we're being honest, this stuff about the Black community falls right into that category.

On another note, I do agree that you could be a solid moderator—though, as you mentioned yourself, you might end up being a total disaster, but hey, people have off days even worse than that 🙂.

Maria Barnes said:I asked what you'd do about problematic content, not how you'd handle punishments (those are secondary). You don't need to be an expert on moderation protocols or interface design to answer that. When faced with a direct test—a real scenario—your answer is "I don't know." If you're going to offer advice or criticism, you actually have to know something. 🙂Disclaimers and distancing statements aren't necessary if the rules of the Reddit community already cover it.

Byron said he'd delete everything. Hazen (who is already an advisor, by the way) has also weighed in.

Problematic: something open to doubt; dubious, questionable.

I said I would "delete everything" in this specific instance because we are talking about a violation of the law—so, this content isn't really "problematic" since there is absolutely no ambiguity about it.

There isn't a single, clear-cut answer that fits every single questionable situation—I realize it’s easy to sit back and theorize, but I suppose I might let some short-term "problematic content" slide if none of the parties involved actually have an issue with it, provided that the content hasn't poisoned or hijacked the thread. On the other hand, if there's already a rule for "you're writing too much, take a break" (or something to that effect), then personally, I feel we lack a "leave the man alone" policy—not that I have any fetish for handing out bans, mind you—but I suspect I might be the only one on Reddit who feels frustrated by how people I actively avoid—like a contagious disease—insist on dumping their absolute garbage all over me through their words, their posts, and their very existence.

Besides that, deciding how to handle moderation on a platform like this should be a matter of consensus among multiple people.

casualcanyon3 said:And what do you think—do I believe there’s a point or not? Honestly, I can't be bothered to waste my breath providing obvious answers to someone who is just looking for an argument and nitpicking every single word I say. You are perfectly capable of grasping the core of my argument without me having to spell it out for you.

Actually, based on my general impression of you, I found that phrase "I would just delete the chat" to be somewhat confusing, if I'm being honest.

casualcanyon3 said:One could take a controversial post as an example of what shouldn't be tolerated, highlight it in colored text to issue a warning that future infractions will result in a ban, but for now, refrain from banning the user and simply attempt to pivot the conversation away from it; then, if the behavior persists, move toward the ban. You might also warn others not to get dragged into the fray if the flame war becomes too intense. Perhaps even reshape that contentious mess into a more constructive version that actually allows for discussion, if such a thing is even possible. Personally, it seems far more logical to prune the pure spam and mindless clutter rather than nuking posts that are tied to the actual discussion, even if they occasionally cross a line.

But wait—does it really make sense to leave up posts that are clearly breaking American law?

I wasn't planning on dragging this whole thing out indefinitely—really, I wasn't—but since your post wraps up with a question (and it’s only fair to provide an answer), I find myself caught between two common tropes I see around here on the forums: either I'm accused of being a pedant, or I'm told I'm just running away from a debate the moment I start "losing." Well, if I have to choose, I’ll take being a pedant, so in that spirit, here are a few more thoughts.

Maria Barnes said:The chats aren't really moderated anyway. Things only get handled if someone actually reports them.

What's the point of deleting the original posts? You’re the one who highlighted the garbage in the first place. By dragging them out into the public eye, you just made them more visible. If we’re being consistent, we should start by nuking your post, along with everything else brought here. I doubt you'd be thrilled about that. They stay up because they show how this community reacts to spam and where we stand on it.

So, you want to moderate?

The initial argument was that "the moderator didn't notice," to which I pointed out the timestamps of two moderator posts located immediately adjacent to the first problematic entry. Honestly, I still find it hard to believe that someone can drop a post without glancing at even a few of the preceding ones. As for reporting, I don't have any proof, but it strikes me as incredible—and frankly, quite pathetic if true—that absolutely nobody flagged anything. I know, I didn't flag it either, but I'm certainly not going to offer excuses for why I didn't.

You're the one highlighting unwanted content by bringing it into such a visible public space.

Imagine if some graffiti popped up in a small rural town in the Midwest about how certain groups from Saudi Arabia (🙄) shouldn't have anything to do with white women, and then a news outlet wrote an article about how the authorities ignored that graffiti. To me, that article wouldn't be considered "highlighting unwanted content."

...so we'd have to delete your post first, along with all the subsequent replies. I doubt you'd appreciate that.

Not only would I actually appreciate it (which is exactly why I wrote the post in the first place), but the practice of "deleting the original post and everything following it" is actually applied here quite often—usually accompanied by a broom emoji. If that happens frequently regarding chat logs, I fail to see why it would be an issue to do the same for content that clashes not just with forum rules, but with actual legal standards.

If a moderator didn't react to a problematic post the moment it was written, and instead a chain of posts from other users follows immediately after, creating pages of replies, what would they even do?

A "problematic post" is when Peter calls Marina a stupid cow, or when Steve messes with Stephen over donuts and Stephen hits back about some minor stuff. You could argue about how to handle those kinds of posts right here, where variables like the seriousness of the topic or how strict the moderators are on the platform come into play.

But these aren't "problematic posts": this is—and the assigned warnings suggest we agree on this—a concentrated dose of racism that has no place in the public square, according to both our community guidelines and the laws of the United States.

Leaving this kind of content up on the site just makes it seem perfectly fine to a lot of uneducated readers—which is how you end up with people using certain slang terms that everyone seems to toss around, yet they genuinely can't wrap their heads around why calling someone an "uneducated minority" is considered blatant racism.

So, do you want to moderate?

Without getting into any speculation about whether the offer is actually serious or not: no, thank you.

There are plenty of reasons, though I suppose the head of the department could probably recall the main one—and honestly, I don't think I even need to remind you. Dammit, I have a memory.😬.

Maria Barnes said:This is exactly why I advocate for moderating forum users. 👍

Mods don't catch everything. Thanks for pointing it out. Your reaction matters way more than any sanction, and trust me, sanctions will come.

Honestly, please don't—it’s actually quite awkward to read.

The show kicked off at 2:02 PM. Moody has posts timestamped at 1:48 PM and 2:02 PM; we aren't even looking at different pages here, but rather right at the very start of the broadcast. There is really no way she "didn't notice."

BTW, issuing a warning without deleting the content completely misses the entire point: the whole idea is to ensure that sentences like that simply don't occupy space in a public forum.

If I had a dollar for every single time you promised you’d actually watch your step, I’d probably be driving a brand-new Tesla by now.

But honestly—it’s just completely unclear to me why you’re insisting on dragging yourself into this argument. It isn't even about you, really; it's about those people who—heaven knows why—just keep quietly buzzing along despite the fact that their entire job is to sweep up the trash in the subforum.

I suppose you think all that nonsense and playing pay-to-play was some kind of brilliant investment on your part...

Look, I am completely fed up with this little script you're running—this whole "oh, you misunderstood me" routine where you claim that even though you actually called Marina a total slut, what you *really* meant was that she plays the piano beautifully.

What you’re typing out right now has absolutely nothing to do with discussing those irrational Black men that white women shouldn't be messing around with in the first place.

The third of the fifteen forum commandments states:

(On this forum, it is strictly prohibited to) insult anyone on any basis (race, nationality, religion, age, gender, etc.)

In what universe is this next low-IQ gem anything other than a blatant manifestation of racism???

TNT1980 said:I've never understood what a white girl sees in those Black women from the Middle East... it's gross

TNT1980 said:...why on earth would you go looking for Black women when there are plenty of normal white guys right here...

TNT1980 said:A white man goes with a white woman
A Black man goes with a Black woman..

TNT1980 said:If I say I don't find Black people attractive, am I suddenly a racist... such drama queens...

The author of these gems is still alive and well on the forum, while almost everyone's reaction seems to be just Hihihihahah, watch out now.

What’s the catch here? It’s because the author is apparently cognitively incapable of grasping that saying "I'm not a racist, but...", and especially "it's just my opinion" isn't some kind of wild card that lets you spew total garbage? Is it because the author is actively trying—making a fool of himself just to entertain the interlocutor and —presumably most importantly—paying for everything? Or is it because he didn't touch a single Mexican or Jew, so in his mind, it can't be that bad—so why make a fuss over these crazy Black people, come on, let's not nitpick...?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the author or his specific user status on this forum—but, as much as I don't give a damn about the whole situation, I honestly believe that allowing this kind of trash to linger on the forum is a personal disgrace to anyone who saw it and should have removed this filth immediately, instead choosing to just wave it away and walk on by.

Hihihihahah.

George Diaz said:SO, WE’RE PUTTING A GIRL IN CHARGE OF PUBLIC WORKS NOW?
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahhahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaha, I can't even deal with myself right now,
thinking about who the hell I actually voted for, 🤦

No worries, people are laughing at you too.

Nicholas King joined back in June 2021, got activated in December 2022, and looking at his entire history—all nineteen posts—it’s nothing but constant bashing toward the local administration. Seriously, maybe try having some variety? Otherwise, I guess nobody is even going to understand what you're trying to get at... 🤦

quietbadger11 said:That is so true. Honestly, I can't tell you how many parents I've met who act exactly like this.
They sign their kids up for eight different activities because they've convinced themselves their little ones are some kind of prodigy athletes... it's just foolishness, really...

I have honestly never met a single parent whose kid is actually doing eight different after-school activities.

How many people like that have you actually met—and what on earth would those eight activities even be?

...until then, I suppose we can just let George—better known as Senna—take the wheel. You know, the guy famous for that little gem where he claims he actually drives better after a few drinks because it forces him to pay closer attention?

ruggedscout76 said:To pivot the conversation slightly...

Your post brought to mind a rather eye-opening moment with my little one back when he was about four years old and going through a phase where he seemed entirely indifferent to anything I said. I would ask a question, and there would be silence. I would make a comment, and nothing. It felt as though I were speaking into a void.
I found myself raising my voice and repeating questions a hundred times, until one day I decided that from then on, whenever I asked a question and received no response, I would say "beep"—a little auditory cue to remind him that I was actually addressing him.

So, he would be playing, I would ask something, he would give me nothing, I would say "beep," and then he would answer my question—meaning he had actually heard me, which was a clever little workaround. 🤣 It worked quite beautifully until, naturally, he being a child, started saying "beep" to me. 🐔

While I am busy preparing dinner, he will shout, "Mom, look at this!" or "Mom, look at that!" and anyone who has ever parented knows it is physically impossible to witness everything a child thinks is vital; even all the hours in the world wouldn't be enough. 🕺
Then he says, "beep." I just stare at him, bewildered, and he tells me, "Well, you aren't listening to me."

And truth be told, he was right. 🙂 Regardless of whether it felt particularly urgent to me to notice a tiny spider near the window while my rice was boiling over, it was important to him, and I had ignored him. In the same way, he doesn't view my adult questions as significant, so he ignores them because he is preoccupied with what matters to him: his play.

When I finally realized how many of those "beeps" occurred throughout the day, I was somewhat taken aback. 😲

That whole "beep" phase and game did wonders for our relationship, on both sides. 🕺

Since then, we often engage in similar things—establishing rules or games that apply equally to both of us. I have learned an immense amount from this, and I would venture to say he has learned just as much, if not more.

That’s all there is to it, Stanković.

Lock this thread down.

Socializing is overrated, if you ask me.

driftingtinker said:It’s honestly unlikely the city's hydrant system can pump out that much water fast enough, which is probably why they're relying on those fire department tankers. Notice how he didn't just pull that claim out of thin air from an exhaust pipe, but rather after actually talking to the commanders.

He showed up right when he was supposed to, once the crews had already handled the heavy lifting. It’s a far cry from that Delator guy, who loved playing the hero firefighter and trying to shut down the commanders in front of the cameras during that CIA blaze.

The fire captain himself stated clearly over the radio that New York City has more hydrants than the rest of the country combined; apparently, it is perfectly standard for the grid to struggle when you try to hook up that many vehicles simultaneously, and according to him, there is absolutely nothing unusual or alarming happening here.

northernhawk33 said:And will the city even check if these developers actually paid taxes on the money they're using for construction? Or are they just pulling untraceable cash out of a suitcase? Ensuring only clean, legal money enters the market is huge—it's what would actually bring down apartment prices in New York City.

I mean, in what universe does business with the city involve someone just "shaking money out of a suitcase"?

On the other hand, I guess the city doesn't really have the legal authority to go digging into where someone keeps their private funds anyway.

northernhawk33 said:Covo is basically like Professor Balthazar from the cartoons—he spends forever thinking and thinking, then finally comes up with something and announces it with such pride.
Then you look at American life, where people spout terrible, heavy accusations every single day and nobody bats an eye.
Take sports—when the national soccer team or some big club plays, you'll have an entire stadium screaming death threats and absolutely nothing happens.
Insults, threats, and straight-up crudeness have just become part of the standard scenery in American public life.

That’s just not how it works.

We certainly could have! They didn't seize power by shouting, "Give us a vote, we're just like them!" So, I suppose the fact that other politicians are just as bad—or perhaps even worse—doesn't somehow mitigate today's absolute disgrace. It doesn't excuse Celakoski, who basically dug his own grave by doubling down with that brilliant excuse claiming he was actually addressing the Speaker of the Assembly 🤦, nor does it absolve the entire coalition, which hasn't bothered to issue a single apology yet.