Posts by Nicholas King

Look, this is one of those classic "agree to disagree" situations—except, since you’re the ones holding all the cards, my disagreement feels a bit like barking at the moon. It seems pretty pointless to keep wasting my breath trying to explain or argue why your logic is fundamentally flawed.

Isn't this supposed to be a discussion about the users here on Reddit rather than some meta-commentary?

By the way—the little hints like "it’s her call" and the idea that "she’ll eventually realize no real-life connection can ever replace Reddit"—those remarks actually say just as much about why and how the moderator is leaving as they do about all those previous announcements regarding "revelations" and the subsequent month spent "studying" whether real life could ever truly fill the void left by this platform.

hollowdrifter79 said:It doesn't even matter if it’s technically incorrect—just have them follow the template.

If you're looking to append "ish" to a comparative, or "most" + color + "ish" for a superlative, I suppose you could just use =A1&"ish". Or, more specifically, ="most"&A1&"ish".

Jack Hayes said:you need to sort by the column you're using for the VLOOKUP.

Honestly, there is absolutely no reason to bother with sorting.

Since (that absolutely terrible, awful, subpar, mediocre, whatever 🤦boldwalker12>>) has stepped down from her moderation duties, I honestly feel it would be only polite to either rename this thread or just shut it down entirely.

Amanda Hughes37 said:In my opinion, measuring a kid's success based on their performance in fifth or sixth grade—especially when they weren't even aware of the stakes back then—is just wrong.
I don't care what anyone says about "consistent effort across all school years."
It’s like being at work—you can't have someone tell you that you needed specific results or certain milestones to get a promotion, only to drop that info on you after the window for achieving them has already slammed shut.
Period.

Don't get me wrong, I support tracking progress through all the grades, but the system from my era was probably the most logical... 40% coursework, 60% entrance exam, and that's that.

For instance, I aced my entrance exam perfectly, even though my grades during middle school weren't exactly stellar.

Though, I should admit, we were given study guides back then with maybe 300 potential questions, where 20 were guaranteed to show up on the test. It certainly made prepping a lot easier...

I suspect there might even be some specific statutes out there that were violated by all of this—though I suppose it really depends on how strictly one interprets the legal framework.

I have to say, back then, they actually handed out a study guide containing maybe 300 potential questions—and you could be pretty certain that at least 20 of them would show up on the actual entrance exam—which, I guess, made the whole preparation process significantly easier.

Unless we’re talking about some specialized training program designed specifically to churn out call center operators, this whole classification method is—honestly—one of the most idiotic things I have ever had the misfortune of hearing.

Drew Vaughn said:So, I’m heading into seventh grade now, and I’ve got this question... what kind of four-year vocational high school can I actually get into if I manage to pass with a 3.0 GPA? Honestly, my heart is set on joining the police force, so I know I need to aim for one of those specialized four-year police academies first. Also—and this is the part that worries me—how much money am I looking at losing if I fail out of the police program?

If you happen to take a tumble weighing less than a hundred pounds, I suppose a few hundred bucks should probably do the trick.

Adam Parker2 said:Regarding the unknown, looking at the big picture, I find myself agreeing. Most topics are delicate, though certainly not all of them.
One really needs to recognize those nuances, along with the natural flow of a discussion.

Roughly speaking, cutting off a massive thread of posts—where the debate is actually flowing, well-argued, and stays on track despite strong opposing views—is just unnecessary, especially when people keep their tensions within civilized bounds.

Demanding such rigid adherence to a topic, without allowing any tangential connections (that infamous off-topic behavior), basically turns a conversation into a series of monologues.
It becomes: "this is my view," "well, here is mine," "it’s like this for me..."—and by the time everyone on the forum has had their say, we might as well just hand over the keys.
At that point, you aren't having a forum discussion anymore; you're just reading comments.

If a discussion crosses the line of politeness, a moderator should be able to evaluate the specific problematic posts and remove only those—rather than nuking the last 50 messages.
It's particularly odd, given the current practice here, to leave the insulting posts visible while punishing and deleting the response.
That essentially sends the message that you shouldn't respond to someone who insults you; instead, you should just hit that "report" button.
It's a bit of a silly way to handle things.

If they have to pluck ten pages out of a single thread just to "bring it back on track," then what is the point of moderation? A simple automated script could probably do that job just fine, and nobody would complain.
--------------------------------------

As for emojis, I haven't seen rows of icons on the unknown, as boldwalker12 mentioned. I don't go overboard myself, though I do use them occasionally to set the tone.

Using them in moderation helps the atmosphere—since they act as a tonal guide for the person you are actually addressing, rather than just every reader. A dry sentence can be misinterpreted in a dozen different ways, which can send a conversation off the rails.
There isn't any form of social communication via text where emojis aren't a valid option.
I assume no one expects you to type out "grrr" or "hahahhaa" to modulate your tone, nor do they expect everything to be written like a legal deposition.

People are talking about posts where there is nothing but a single smiley face, or just someone saying "signed."

Steven Chavez2 said:On other forums, this is totally normal. It adds a sense of spontaneity and a relaxed vibe.

So, the issue isn't about some tiny smiley face; it's about the lack of spontaneity and casualness here. In my opinion—and I think I have every right to voice it—the rules on this platform are being taken far too rigidly. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any illusions that anyone is going to change a single thing based on what I say.

I am praying to every god—whether they belong to this forum or elsewhere—that this never becomes the norm here.

Honestly, I fail to see how scrolling through endless likes, rofls, and signatures contributes anything at all to "spontaneity and relaxation."

So, the point isn't really about the smiley itself, but rather the sense of ease and spontaneity that we're missing here.

How? When? Where?

In my view, true spontaneity and a relaxed atmosphere are achieved by not forcing discussions through a "narrow hallway"—both in terms of topic and level of seriousness—rather than by allowing mindless "I agree" posts, which, if you look closely, are nothing more than elementary ego trips.

Steven Chavez2 said:I'm with you on that.

Generally speaking, one of the reasons (aside from the fact that I have way too much going on in my actual life to get sucked into endless internet debates) that I don't enjoy posting here is this overly rigid approach to moderation. Look, I get it. You have to penalize blatant insults, doxxing, advertising, spam, or bot garbage. That makes sense.

But when someone starts hovering over you like a hawk, throwing warnings and threatening bans like they're wielding a stick, just because you thought a post was funny and responded with a laughing emoji? That is, quite frankly, nothing more than mindless authoritarianism. What’s the big deal? Someone says something, you find it funny, you drop an emoji. It’s not rocket science. Online discussions are supposed to mirror real life, where someone says something and the other person just laughs. Or am I supposed to write out, "Haha, yes, I find your comment incredibly witty, I also ________ (insert whatever the author said here)." Give me a break. It's ridiculous.

On the flip side, I actually agree with the mods that off-topic clutter should be cleared out. If the thread is about a favorite craft beer, there’s no reason to pivot into a debate about fuel efficiency in a Ford F-150. But, if the topic is about a conflict between a non-smoker and her boyfriend who smokes, and the conversation drifts toward the broader dynamic between smokers and non-smokers, then you really ought to show some flexibility. Looking at the bigger picture can actually help the original poster navigate her specific issue. It’s the same logic as how a broad discussion about the pros and cons of Japanese versus German engineering might actually help someone deciding between a Mazda or a BMW.

Bottom line: whenever I come here to type something, I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. Don't get me wrong—I'm not advocating for chaos or lack of etiquette. In fact, I value discipline and order immensely; even digital spaces shouldn't be a free-for-all. But you mods could really benefit from a little more nuance.

I don't have any illusions that this post will change anything, but since this section was created for complaints and feedback regarding moderation, I believe I have a democratic right to voice my opinion—and I think I've done so politely enough. I just hope no one hits me with another infraction because I went off-topic by having boldwalker12 veer into a critique of the entire moderation team instead of sticking to the original point. Yes, there's a bit of irony in that. Life happens everywhere, including on internet forums.

Best regards. 🙂

The turnaround to that specific claim—if we want to be pedantic about it—is basically saying "people who actually bother to write posts on forums don't have much going on in their lives," which, I must say, is quite offensive.

What’s the big deal? Someone says something, you think it’s funny, you drop a smiley face.

You seem to be conflating the whole concept of a forum with the Facebook idea of liking things or posting little statuses. A forum post is intended to be a message directed at everyone reading the thread—a message that people read and then react to by laughing, getting angry, throwing their hands up, or whatever else, and then perhaps composing their own response. A post consisting of nothing but a smiley face (or just "Agreed," or any other low-effort filler) is essentially a broadcast to every reader saying, "I found this amusing."

It leads me to a very simple question: who actually cares? Do you honestly believe there is a pressing need to notify every single reader in a thread that you personally found something funny? Would anyone truly want to scroll through topics where every participant feels compelled to inform the entire forum collective that they had a momentary chuckle? What is the actual utility of these forum likes and these statuses stating "Steven Chavez2 is laughing" (which, by the way, I can't help but notice is a bit of an oxymoron 😁)?

If someone says something and you find it funny, just laugh to yourself and move on with your day.

Susan James said:...or if other schools drop their capacity, which would just put even more pressure on the high schools.
Alternatively, maybe the reporter has some inside scoop suggesting there’s a massive surge in top-tier students this year. If that's the case, despite the changes to how points are calculated, we might see a huge crowd of kids all tied with those same high scores...

Either way, this feels like nothing more than baseless speculation designed to stress out kids and parents during the middle school transition.😳

Look, if you have 1,000 students competing for 100 spots at a top-tier prep school, the total amount of pressure remains exactly the same—regardless of what the enrollment quotas look like for any other school in the district. Any shift in the selection criteria simply means that someone who qualified under the old rules is now being shut out, or perhaps someone who wasn't even interested in a prep school before is suddenly deciding they want in.

The actual pressure can only be ramped up in two ways: either by increasing the total number of applicants or by shrinking the total number of available seats in those prep schools—or, I suppose, by setting an entry threshold so high that it leaves vacancies unfilled (which, effectively, reduces the total number of available spots anyway).

Bryan Jones82 said:It’s going to be much tougher—honestly, impossible for some kids who would have cruised into high school under the old rules. The new minimum score for high school entry is now 56, whereas it used to be just 46. Some schools used to take anyone with around 50 points and still had spots left over for the second round of enrollment.

Edit:

I see they've changed the scoring system too. Instead of five subjects, they're grading six for general high school tracks because they added biology. Though, I'm still scratching my head at how the maximum possible score ended up being 80.

Which, I suppose, implies it will be easier—or at least more feasible—for everyone else.

Essentially, my point is that the overall "barrier to entry" hasn't actually shifted at all.

If I saw an article headlined with some vague nonsense like "Getting into high school will be even harder this year," I wouldn't believe it even if the entire thing was just a printed multiplication table. Honestly—and I mean this quite sincerely—the only way admission could actually become "harder" is if the schools decided to slash their enrollment numbers. A journalist who fails to grasp such basic logic... well, they aren't worth a single second of anyone's time.

David Wilson11 said:I have 5 cells containing numbers within different ranges—for example, 18-25 (First), 25-31 (Second), 32-36 (Third), 36-40 (Fourth), and the last one is 41-infinity (Fifth).

If the data is typed into a single cell exactly how you described it in your example (meaning, a single cell literally says "18-25 (First)"), I honestly don't see how you can accomplish anything using just the two and a half functions you mentioned.

Similarly, I don't see how you'd even attempt to write, say, "First Second" into the same cell.

The only real solution I can see is to organize things properly—put the lower bounds in Column A, the upper bounds in Column B, and the range names in Column C. Then, you could potentially use two absolutely gi-ga-ntic IF statements in two separate cells (one to check if it belongs to one range, and another to check for potential belonging to a second range).

Walter Jackson48 said:IF(A1=31;"First and Third";"").

😕😕😕😕😕

The fundamental issue with these cock-teasing (I’ll elaborate on that later) threads is that they are perpetually kept on life support, even when it crosses every reasonable line of suspicion that someone might just be playing games. Despite being completely useless as a case study—and let me be clear, this wasn't one of those "if it isn't true, it's at least entertaining" topics that are clearly fabricated just to provide fuel for a debate—it still happened. Moderator warnings have mostly focused on banning "troll-hunting" and "staying on topic," but regarding troll-hunting, there are actually two distinct rules at play. The first is "don't go hunting for trolls," and the second is "we will handle it for you instead."

It’s a rather unfortunate solution where people are being disciplined and forced back onto a topic that—well, doesn't actually exist. In reality, the subjects shifted as quickly as our authors could churn them out: moving from pregnancies with deadbeat partners to incompetent doctors, then to car accidents, or strangely brief hospital stays due to hemorrhaging, and so on—all punctuated by those classic, long silences between posts, which is a tried-and-true recipe for building tension :milena:. The most logical conclusion in the world is that people are naturally going to start posting whatever nonsense comes to mind. One important note here: it wouldn't be fair to single out any specific moderator as the culprit for this or that; in this particular instance, boldwalker12 was doing exactly what I believe any other moderator would have done if they were holding the reins; all her actions were strictly within the lines of how we moderate the site.

Cock-teasing troll threads follow a very rigid structure. First, there is the presentation of a tragic story designed to tug at the heartstrings of many (usually from a brand-new user who, amidst the chaos of their own life, decided the best course of action was to register and open a thread)—then, they begin layering on more heartbreaking details (much like adding kindling once a fire starts to die down), which no serious person would overlook initially. Then comes the division of participants into those the author favors and those they despise—offering thanks and hugs to some while absolutely tearing others apart—which inevitably leads to infighting. And finally—most importantly—there is that aforementioned dramatic pause in posting, after which a spectacular new revelation is invariably dropped, kicking off "another round."

Personally, I don't have anything (effectively 😬) against these trollish threads, provided they remain somewhat logically coherent (for instance, until the number of fetuses in a pregnancy starts fluctuating wildly). However, I don't think it's a wise strategy for the moderation team to allow these topics to persist past the point of reasonable doubt—that is, until someone loses their cool and starts trying to unmask the troll. It isn't good for the community: not every click is a good click, and not every post is a quality post.

I realize that my opinion is likely just my own personal problem 😁.

bluejackal7 said:I’m starting this thread because I’ve reached a point where nothing makes sense anymore. Since I was a kid, it’s been the same old lecture from everyone around me—parents, teachers, whatever. You need straight A's in school, don't touch a cigarette, stay away from drugs, God forbid, behave yourself, pick up a bunch of hobbies, learn foreign languages, stay active in sports, be polite, be smart, listen to "cultured" music, watch "important" movies, do this and do that. Otherwise, you're told you'll end up nowhere and never be happy or satisfied with life...
Then I look around at all these people who followed the script perfectly. They're totally programmed, and honestly? Most of them aren't even happy. Then there's me. People judge me because I drink, I smoke, I go out, I don't have a college degree, and I don't have a list of impressive hobbies. I’m not exactly jumping through hoops to stay busy. But I’ve had great relationships, I have a solid group of friends, and I make decent money—actually, more than some people with Ivy League degrees. I’m completely content. I'm not frustrated. I just live my life how I want to. Meanwhile, these "perfect" types can barely find a date—I mean, they post on social media about how successful and fulfilled they are, yet they can't find anyone. They don't go out, they don't socialize, they don't actually enjoy anything. So, what's the point? Why go through all that effort if it doesn't lead to happiness? I'm not saying it applies to everyone, but I'm curious about the general pattern.
Can someone explain this? I figure some people here might understand the psychology behind it better than I do.

...but then there's you—unlike those other types, you're young, good-looking, and successful—yet here you are, posting an "ISO a girlfriend" ad on an American forum😬.

Susan Price30 Asks:
Potential legal liability—it’s one of those things that people just seem to gloss over until it’s too late, I guess. There's this constant, nagging question hanging over everything: where does the responsibility actually lie? Maybe it's a gray area, or maybe we just don't talk about the consequences enough. It's a messy subject, honestly—full of nuances and "what-ifs" that can turn a simple situation into a total nightmare if you aren't careful. One wrong move, one oversight in following the Law of the USA, and suddenly you're staring down a massive headache that could have been avoided with a little more foresight. It’s a heavy topic, but it bears repeating—you really have to consider the fallout before you dive headfirst into something. Honestly, I’ve got to say—Reddit is absolutely killing it lately. It makes those old-school message boards look like ancient history..

I don't think you're quite right on this one—if I may be so bold.

steelskipper5 said:Look, I said that’s an argument you could—if you really tried—actually back up. But just repeating it isn't providing an argument. ☕
Reporting crimes (or things people *think* are crimes) is basically a civic duty. The institutions, assuming they do their jobs, are the ones who decide if a report is legitimate or if there’s actually enough ground to move forward.

Unfortunately, the government even encourages this by allowing anonymous tips and acting on them, but that's a whole different conversation...

So, what—the laws and the people enforcing them are encouraging system abuse? 😵
Setting aside the fact that a lot of stuff couldn't be reported unless it was anonymous because people don't feel safe coming forward—but yeah, sure, you're probably right. 🙄

The legal consequences are a joke. The fallout from someone being harassed or subjected to an investigation based on malicious or fake reports is irreparable.

If we're talking about a malicious report over something posted online, the consequences for the person being investigated are also non-existent. Not "irreparable."
I once reported some extremely explicit threats, and the absolute worst those losers got was a little chat with the police. Because the Department of Justice decided there were no criminal elements since they claimed they were "just joking."

So much for those "irreparable" consequences.
Save the fairy tales for someone else.

Someone who publicly threatens to report others (or brags about doing it) is saying way more about themselves than anyone else.

Don't do that.

Fine. From now on, I'll just report every single crime I see on this forum directly to the police, without bothering to discuss it with anyone else or the moderators.
There's really no point in warning forum users that certain behavior might have elements of a crime.

I’d just love for an admin to confirm what you said here, just so I have it in writing that administration is on the same page. ☕

I mean, why should the administration even need to agree or disagree with someone's personal decision to report something to the cops? 😕

Susan Price30 said:you're right, of course🙂 but until a rule or classification is actually introduced stating that such behavior constitutes unnecessary trolling (which it seems to be), then I guess we need four or however many pages of differing opinions and "thinking out loud"...

Anytime someone injects elements into a discussion that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, that's trolling.

I really don't see any distinction between the relevance of saying "I reported you to the police" and saying, "Oh, we were out at a BBQ yesterday and I was recounting your posts—man, we were cracking up—and then Pero opened a bottle of Knopfltrunkov's Traminer, which is quite a remarkable wine, by the way..."

brightcyclist2 said:That’s the real question, I suppose—whether this apology actually carries enough weight to offset—or perhaps fail to offset—the lingering feeling that the anonymity of the users on this Reddit thread is being toyed with.

And what, would you want the Moderator to just commit ritual suicide as well?

brightcyclist2 said:That’s exactly the point the OP is making here. It's the deciding factor, really. We are talking about a moderator who is acting unprofessionally.

Doesn't it bother you—even just a little bit—to inhumanely distort the meaning of what you're quoting and commenting on?

The author was specifically discussing the breach of trust that users place in administrators and moderators. Honestly, the fact that it involves a moderator doesn't even change the core issue; no specific authority or special trust was abused here, because the whole mess happened based on information that is available to everyone.

Good grief, "unprofessional behavior"? That's all you've got? The girl completely messed up, she apologized immediately, she asked for the post to be deleted right away, and she even stated she was ready to face sanctions—it's all just one series of unfortunate mistakes...

Any attempt to throw mud at the thread starter is essentially a collective assault by the crowd. Because, apparently, she brought it on herself with her short skirt, her mesh outfit, and her manicured nails. She should be ashamed for even complaining about those zealous cops who pinned her against the hood of a squad car.

Doesn't it bother you—even just a little bit—to inhumanely distort the meaning of what you're quoting and commenting on?

Who exactly is throwing mud at the author? Who said she deserved any of this? Who denied her the right to appeal?

All anyone told her was that anyone who recognized her original username would have known exactly who she was immediately. To twist that into accusations of mud-slinging, assaults, or forcing guilt onto someone is just... it's bottom-of-the-barrel behavior.

Four pages spent debating a question that doesn't even exist in the first place🙂.

Whether or not someone decides to report posts to this or that instance—well, that’s entirely their business. It's a personal choice and an individual right, and frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual mechanics of how a forum functions. I mean, people have the right (let's set aside the potential consequences of such reports for a moment) to call the police if a neighbor is cooking cabbage again and the smell is drifting into their house, or if a neighbor stumbles in at 3 AM and wakes everyone up with footsteps in the hallway; so, why shouldn't they have the right to report a forum post they believe violates some specific Law of the USA? 😕 The suggestion that "instead of calling the police, you should be reporting to moderators" is just a massive fail, in more ways than one.

By the same token, it is everyone's prerogative to view those who report posts as either conscientious crusaders or, conversely, as petty nuisances. Again, that perception has zero connection to the fundamental nature of forum culture.

What *does* actually pertain to forum etiquette is the simple fact that saying "I reported you to the police," "I'm going to report you to the police," and things along those lines, is trolling—and as such, it ought to be met with the appropriate penalty. There isn't a single discussion where a sentence like that would be considered on-topic, constructive, or even remotely sensible.

And that is really all there is to 🙂it.