redheron12 said:Today’s race might have been the deciding factor for the season—honestly, I was following the thread so intensely that I actually thought the race was happening this afternoon.
I just finished watching the race and catching up on this thread, and I honestly walked away with the exact same impression.
When you step back and look at the raw data—not this morning's specific thread, mind you—without being blinded by fanboy passion for any particular driver or team, one thing becomes glaringly obvious: if you were to cover up the left side of the screen, it wouldn't be easy to tell which user is the moderator and which one is... well, let's just say "some complete moron."
Furthermore, on this forum, a moderator considers quoting their own "complete moron" to be totally irrelevant because of how outdated it is, yet they point to it as the ultimate (actually, the only—since I didn't see any other "moronic" quotes myself) proof of partiality, saying, "See, now your character is on full display" 😲. It’s a rather curious novelty: handing out partiality penalties based on character.
Matthew Anderson said:Since when did a post count become a metric for "value"?
Of course it isn't—but I suppose there's nothing wrong with having a high one, right? 😁 See, it actually works quite well as an "idiot-eliminator" in all those instances where someone tries to brilliantly shut you down with that unassailable argument of... "you obviously don't have a life if you have this many posts"...
Gregory Cooper5 said:is there any way to get a second opinion from another administrator?
Which specific part of this "opinion" is unclear to you?
On this forum, the following is strictly prohibited: violating the laws of the United States (specifically, we want to draw your attention to hate speech or discrimination, justifying or glorifying criminal acts, copyright infringement, as well as pedophilia, animal cruelty, etc.)
I don't quite follow the logic of this argument—look, just try putting yourself in the opposite position here: if you owned your own forum, would you really risk exposing yourself to the possibility of being sued for inciting copyright infringement (regardless of how likely such a lawsuit actually is)? You might think you could fight for the expansion of freedoms or whatever...
Sam Green73 said:Are you honestly suggesting that even under a democratic system, my colleague would still walk away with a partial payout? I mean, seriously—is that really how you see things playing out?
Even if we were to completely ignore the fundamental fact that this forum is private property—making the proposal to introduce some sort of jury system about as sensible as my suggestion that a random handful of users should get to decide who attends a dinner party Henry Hernandez7 hosts at his own house tomorrow night—there is yet another absurdity baked right into the proposal itself.
So, here’s the deal—the proposal suggests that a "town hall council" would be selected by three administrators. Now, I guess you could look at that one way, but if you really sit down and think about the implications, there aren't exactly any safeguards in place to prevent those administrators from simply hand-picking three members who happen to agree with everything they've done up to this point—and, let's be honest, people who will likely rubber-stamp whatever they decide to do in the future, too. And just like that, we have ourselves a closed loop. The prospect of these sweeping reforms—if we can even call them that without rolling our eyes—is honestly quite exhausting to contemplate. I mean, I guess we were all expecting some level of upheaval, but the sheer scale of what’s being proposed right now feels less like progress and more like a chaotic restructuring of everything we thought was settled. It's all very much "move fast and break things," isn't it? Except, in this case, the things being broken are the very foundations of our current system. Maybe I’m being too cynical—perhaps I am—but there seems to be this underlying assumption that if you just tear everything down and start from scratch, the pieces will somehow magically fall into a more efficient shape. It’s a bold strategy, I suppose, though history suggests it usually just leads to more bureaucracy and a whole lot of wasted time. We see these grand gestures being tossed around by the higher-ups, and while they talk a big game about modernization and "moving forward," one has to wonder who actually bears the brunt of the transition. It’s rarely the people making the decisions, is it? It’s always the folks on the ground trying to navigate the mess left behind. It’s a delicate balance, really—trying to fix a flawed system without accidentally dismantling the parts that actually work. But then again, maybe nothing works perfectly, and maybe this radical shift is exactly the kind of blunt force trauma the country needs. I'm still undecided, but I certainly won't be cheering just because someone decided to shake the jar. We are facing a serious problem. 🙂.
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, the sentence "The existence of Auschwitz" (or, if we go by Ashley Bishop4's interpretation of what was read, "Auschwitz - Birkenau is something terrible, but not *that* terrible") is just a vile thing to say on a forum—in fact, there shouldn't be any place here for such a sentiment, nor for the person who typed it out.
Even worse is the claim that "The existence of Auschwitz camp - Birkenau isn't all that horrific and should be understood within its historical context." Someone writing a sentence like that shouldn't just be banned from this forum; they ought to face criminal prosecution.
The little issue with this entire thread is the minor fact that Mr. Smoogj didn't actually write either of those horrific sentences.
No matter how much you try to muddy the waters by complicating things with the sheer illiteracy used to draft what he actually wrote, it remains blindingly obvious that this attempt to reinterpret his words is nothing more than a common personal vendetta—I wouldn't dare suggest that someone could be so utterly incapable of reading comprehension that they actually believe the claims being made in this topic; therefore, I see no other explanation than some desperate attempt at nursing a bruised ego.
If one views it strictly as a fact, the memory of any human historical monstrosity will remain just that—a depersonalized recollection of a fact. On the other hand, if that fact is placed within a historical context (and I feel the need to clarify: this isn't about making excuses or downplaying anything, but rather about recognizing a pattern), then—contrary to the accusations of revisionism and justification being pushed here—that monstrosity becomes more than just a gruesome historical fact about what humans are capable of doing to one another; it becomes a starting point for identifying that very same pattern and, hopefully, preventing such horrors from ever happening again. Furthermore, examining a horrific historical event through a spatial, temporal, or political lens isn't an act of minimization at all; quite the opposite, really: it is only through that lens that one can truly grasp the full extent of the evil within the mechanisms that led to it.
Things are pretty straightforward here: when we were discussing arranged marriages, you fixated entirely on the idea of mandating sexual intimacy as a legal component of marriage. You basically suffocated the entire conversation with something that is, at its core, completely irrelevant to the actual subject matter—and in doing so, you managed to kill the thread. That whole tangent was—if I’m being honest—so incredibly tedious and pointless that it didn't even occur to me (and I'm sure others felt the same) to type another single word in response. Jebogapatak, you clung to it like a drunk clinging to a lamppost, trying to lecture everyone on what Congress intended when they drafted comment 🤦.
But wait, there's more: you also managed to be one of the rare few on this forum who straight-up ignored a direct warning from the moderators, kept pushing your own agenda anyway—and somehow walked away without any sanctions.
Since they failed to step in and react the way they should have when they actually needed to act, well, look where we are now—that thread is dead, and here we are, just continuing this endless, mind-numbing debate over something totally inconsequential.
Drew Lee7 said:By your logic, that would be like walking into a church, dropping an offering in the basket every single time, only to have the priest call you out repeatedly for not leaving one.
Your contributions to Lumber aren't some sort of charitable donation—they're more like you’re writing directly on the altar itself. I mean, look at the flow of this thread—where people who wouldn't even want to share a cruise ship, let alone a more intimate setting, are all saying essentially the exact same thing—it pretty much proves my point.
Once again, I am calling on the moderators to protect me from insults, disparagement, discredit, and constant humiliation.
Up until now, you've mostly been asking to be protected from the moderators themselves 🤔.
I agree with one thing: any kind of personal insult directed at anyone on this forum should be sanctioned.
Drew Lee7 said:Ban both the Pride parade and Mass. (...) A-ha, so I guess my restriction of freedoms is somehow less valuable than yours—to quote Nicholas King: ...there is no right to public expression of every single opinion. So, by what logic are my personal liberties worth less than your own?
Who knows which time this is: this is a private forum. Any invocation of personal freedoms, constitutional rights, or whatever else is just completely misguided argumentation. This isn't a place where what is allowed or disallowed is dictated by "personal liberties."
I’ll use your own example: it isn't about someone wanting to ban both Mass and a Pride parade—it's about how you, through your posts, are figuratively insisting on organizing a Pride parade inside a church (and anyone who takes that as a literal identification of this forum—or perhaps even Lumber 🤦—with a church should probably swallow their keyboard before replying and donate their computer to some charity).
I often compare a forum to a local neighborhood diner: you persistently barge into a diner where Mike is mourning over someone else's split hair, where people who want to touch the very core of their quiet souls are ordering a round of shots, and you burst in, climb onto the table, start blasting the latest ladybug's gift hit—and then complain when the patrons and staff push back. To be clear, what I am writing here is universal, meaning it doesn't apply solely to you: there are quite a few "diners" on this forum that I—since the music coming out of them is absolute garbage or the waiters are constantly messing up orders and serving undrinkable coffee—have no desire to visit.
Yes, the moderators have every right to say, "we don't play that kind of music in our diner." Yes, that might grate on someone's nerves—but all one can do in that situation is fill out the complaint book and wait for a verdict. Expecting the entire diner to be remodeled to suit us based on our "personal liberties" is—well, it's ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous not to understand that this isn't about "suppressing different opinions"—sparks fly on this forum every single day because of wildly different viewpoints. But there is a line beyond which, frankly, people simply do not want to listen or engage, regardless of what you, me, or tenth person thinks about it.
What is the actual difficulty in grasping these elementary truths?
Drew Lee7 said:Do we actually have the right to express our opinions here?
No.
On a forum—much like any other media outlet, for that matter—there is no such thing as a protected right to broadcast every single opinion.
Regarding the subject at hand, the mere fact that a thread based on the premise that "women exist solely for sex and domestic chores" is even allowed to persist is a testament to just how incredibly lenient the administration is being. Furthermore, the idea that one could claim personal intolerance within a single thread is, frankly, a joke.
Ashley Taylor45 said:Why don't you try explaining to us—in what kind of context you were being such a Dick?
There isn't some deep, hidden context here: I looked at a post that I felt was absolutely full of Dickery, and I wrote that—well, that it was full of Dickery. I don't believe anything from that was actually deleted (and, mind you, I am not permitted to quote any subsequent President's PMs 😬).
Paul Ruiz86 said:Or maybe I was just being clairvoyant...😍
If you really can't help yourself—if being "unfiltered" simply isn't enough for you—may I kindly ask that you refrain from doing this here? ☕
(Disclaimer: I find this situation just as confusing and, frankly, as disheartening as everyone else. These warnings aren't just being read by the few people here who actually give a damn about this forum; they're being devoured by those whose sole purpose is to hunt for fresh material to mock—people looking to trade high-fives over comments like "hey, remember how you told him, hey, you totally screwed him over, hey, you're a legend...". It's confusing because I simply cannot wrap my head around this self-destructive urge to obsessively scrutinize and ignore someone who is clearly just being tedious and exhausting. And it's disheartening because these random outbursts in threads like "hey, you know what some forum circles call you, hey..." end up ruining topics where people might have actually wanted—granted, it might be dull and taxing—to write a thoughtful comment.
If there is one single word upon which any semblance of justice rests (and I assume I shouldn't have to explain why fairness is a fundamental component of forum moderation and administration), then that word is—of course, despite how tedious and draining it may be—"consistency." Even when accounting for the specific nuances of a particular PDF, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that similar circumstances should lead to similar consequences. The problem is that the only alternative to consistency is appealing to the argument of force; every time someone in the hierarchy writes—whether they admit it or not—that they did something "just because they could", they are essentially signing a surrender of their own authority and admitting they lack the ability to justify their actions.
The debate regarding the profanity that briefly flared up in a completely inappropriate thread (and which, for heaven's sake, once again overshadowed the substance of what prompted steelskipper5's outburst) serves as a perfect illustration of the kind of damage this inconsistency causes. Just as a desperate attempt to salvage the topic: this is not a discussion about profanity. Let me repeat that: this is not a discussion about profanity.
Let's take this step by step. To start, it’s never a bad idea to check Merriam-Webster: - Dicking around: vulg. acting important; showing off - Bullshit: vulg. 1. nonsense, absurdity [talking bullshit]; 2. foolishness, nonsense [making a mess of things] - Troll: vulg. to outsmart (someone)
I don't think I need to go into exhaustive detail to explain that the F-word, the C-word, and the S-word—as a poet might say—“are twin sisters, born at midnight, one slightly before the other, one slightly after” (WTF, if Bryan Adams can claim "pride" is a "sister," I can certainly claim three distinct vulgarities are twin sisters 🙂), or rather, that they all belong (not necessarily all at once 😁) to the same context of sexual profanity. Another connection between these three terms is the fact that all three are treated equally and identically, without any gradation in their "intensity," as mere vulgarisms. I also assume it isn't necessary to clarify the difference between vulgarities that aren't directed at anyone specifically ("he's dicking around") and direct, offensive slurs ("go screw me").
Regarding the use of the first two terms, the admin commented with a rather vague sentence (due to the parenthetical addition, which makes it unclear whether the statement applies to the rest of the forum as well): "Dicking around and bullshit is not the vocabulary we want to foster in this place (anyway)". So far, so good—but in the ensuing discussion, it turned out that "trolling" was considered a completely benign and non-problematic term. And that is exactly where the trouble begins.
Another great example of what I am trying to get at is a series of posts on the US site, where an unsanctioned—it could have been for real reasons, but let's not go there 😬—and as blunt as possible, "suck my dick" was posted, justified by citing the "unique personal style of forum members", only to be sanctioned after an extensive amount of trol... excuse me, after extensive moderator😬Outsmarting those who were calling for sanctions. On that same US board, I was slapped with 10 disciplinary points for "Dick swinging"—which, as I already told the moderator, I have absolutely no regrets about.
Situations like this—where I haven't repeated enough times that this isn't a debate about being rude—lead to an unnecessary expansion of what I call "discretionary moderator intuition." In the specific discussion on the US board, this reached grotesque levels of outsmarting people with the attitude of: "you go ahead and write, and then we'll feel free to decide whether it warrants a ban or not." I’d be an idiot—and the moderator lecturing me clearly thinks I am—if I believed that moderation was some algorithmic process a trained chimpanzee could perform; however, it is actually healthy for a forum and its moderation that this "space for subjective judgment" is narrowed down to where it is truly unavoidable. Honestly, if you take that approach to its logical extreme, you could abolish all rules entirely and reduce everything to "...because I said so."
This approach generates two problems for users and one for administration: first off, nobody likes unnecessary and senseless repression—and any move based on the "...because I can" argument is repression, usually unnecessary and mostly mindless. It’s not about always bureaucratically quoting the rule the moderator is leaning on; it’s about writing a human sentence like, "I closed the thread about growing pansies on the first day of summer because..." and then explaining the personal reason behind it. A more human sentence would be, "I didn't mean to do anything wrong by closing the pansy-growing thread, I'm sorry if it came across that way." Throughout my tenure on this forum, I’ve seen apologies from the owner, apologies from the administrator, and even apologies from a handful of moderators—either they remain so thoroughly flawless, or it is simply easier to die than to tell people 'sorry.'"
The second user problem resulting from such practice is self-censorship. No matter how much—without any irony or outsmarting—I believe in the sincerity of the administrator's statement, "It is not my intention, nor anyone else's, to turn this forum into a space where discussions are only permitted using literary and carefully selected words." (just a side note: "Dick" is literary enough 😬), such inconsistencies ultimately achieve exactly what they shouldn't: the shrinking of the forum (or parts of it). When a person is faced with "you write and we'll judge", "why don't you just open another thread on the General Interest board" and similar ways of dispensing justice (even if the judge isn't prone to their own trolling or messing with their own PDF), when "suck a Dick" isn't punishable because it's supposedly personal expression, when threads are moved around the forum without any meaningful explanation (while at the same time, several massive chat threads remain neatly locked and un-moved—so there's no real server load issue here), it is perfectly natural that a person, unable to predict the reaction, begins to censor their own sentences. Before anyone triumphantly claims that this is the whole point of moderation, they ought to consider the fact that the main driver of all forum activity is enjoyment, and that "enjoyment" and "censorship" do not live at the same address. The title of this thread should have been "Trolling and Dicking around: Two peas in a pod"—that title would be better, punchier, more effective—but it's unclear what kind of reaction it would trigger. No, that wouldn't be an "improvement"—it would be shrinking the forum, the long-term consequence of which is a graveyard.
There is also a problem produced by this inconsistency "on the other side": consistency makes it easier to defend decisions. This could be elaborated upon extensively, but I suppose it's clear enough as it is.
One more thing: nobody is advocating for compiling some sort of "list of forbidden words" or a list of anything prohibited on the forum—but it is simply insufficient to say "Dicking around is not good, trolling is good, because I say so, now split into smaller groups"; it isn't rocket science to provide at least a vague criterion that would categorize these terms. Not to mention the simple fact that an approach of...In dubio pro reo—it really made this forum a much more pleasant place to hang out.
swiftbear86 said:Honestly, it's probably better that we're looking at this from different angles.
Since the topic is music school, that's where I'm staying. I'm speaking from my own experience watching my kid go through a standard public music school—the kind with an official curriculum approved by the Department of Education. They have the tests, the grades, and the formal report cards.
Now, you can definitely make music without being in a formal school setting, which usually forces a strict schedule of lessons and practice onto a kid. At the end of the day, a child needs to have the drive and the genuine interest, plus enough maturity to follow a structured program. Some kids will be ready for that in first grade, some won't be ready until third... and some just never will.
I think there's been a fundamental misunderstanding here. Of course, I am also talking about the Juilliard School. However—and this is where I think we're diverging—I believe our entire perception of what attending such an institution actually means is worlds apart. Even if we set aside the rather obvious fact that scoring a perfect grade on an entrance exam, especially in those early years, isn't some rare feat reserved for a tiny elite (so, frankly, it shouldn't be used as a metric for anything), your assertion that the "outcome is determined on the exam" essentially renders any further discussion moot.
swiftbear86 said:The results speak for themselves during the exam. Every piece of music carries its own level of difficulty. If you attempt a piece that requires advanced skills or higher-level theory, the instructor will know right away if you actually have the foundation to move up to that grade. I don't even need to mention that she passed everything with flying colors.
It seems we are discussing two entirely different subjects here: I am talking about music, the actual art of performing, and everything surrounding it—whereas you seem solely preoccupied with exams and grades.
swiftbear86 said:My bad, I didn't read that closely enough. Obviously, starting earlier is better, but our situation proves that even starting in 4th grade isn't too late. We didn't actually skip a grade—she just packed two years' worth of intense High School coursework into a single year.
She didn't sign up for music just to chase credits (though that was part of it); it was really because she fell in love with playing the piano after spending time with a friend who was already in the first year of High School. The talent was always there. She finished school a few years ago, and she still plays every single day. Of course, she picks her own repertoire now, so it’s moved way beyond just following a standard curriculum.
The reality is, you’ve effectively bypassed a year of actual playing time.
Sure, plenty of kids have the talent to breeze through the initial curriculum of a music conservatory in less time than expected—but let's be honest here, that syllabus isn't designed arbitrarily. The whole structure exists because you simply cannot compress two years of musical experience—and I mean the actual practice and performance, not just sitting in a classroom—into a single year without compromising the quality of the end result.
swiftbear86 said:I wasn't saying you need to graduate from a specialized High School to get those extra points. You just need to have at least four years under your belt.
My daughter actually graduated from one of those programs.
I was mostly talking about those bonus points Nicholas King brought up. Plus, there's the issue of it being way too late to start that kind of training if the kid is already heading into 4th grade.
"Evaluating other exceptional achievements from previous schooling Candidates can also receive credit for other outstanding achievements from their prior education, provided that: - they completed middle school while simultaneously finishing at least four years of a music or dance academy that holds approval from the Department of Education, earning 2 additional points toward enrollment in "
I was specifically talking about the points awarded when a kid drops out of music programs after third grade. I wrote that it was a shame they lost out on points over just one single year—so, no, I wasn't claiming you have to finish all of High School to get them.
As for that story of yours involving grade skipping and all that other nonsense, I honestly see it as more of a confirmation than a refutation of my point. I mean, why would anyone even bother skipping a grade if it wasn't because the kid enrolled "too late"? Why wouldn't a child just follow the standard 😁year-by-year progression?
coastallynx13 said:It seems more appropriate to say, "I kindly ask that you write..." so long as you are acting as a representative of the staff here on Reddit. To maintain a clear distinction between regular users and those in positions of authority, I believe a certain level of decorum is quite necessary. I sincerely hope you take this critique to heart, if only as an opportunity to refine your own cultural, moral, and professional standards. Much appreciated!
Quite the opposite.
Since we are living in what I suppose could be called the "seventh internet age"—spanning every conceivable form of online interaction, from the early days of the Internet and various Reddit threads all the way up to modern social media—regardless of how hierarchical or structured that communication might be—addressing someone with "you" is actually considered standard netiquette. On the flip side, using overly formal language is often perceived as being condescending—or, as we might say, mocking the recipient—as is any stiff, forced politeness intended to achieve that same goal of mocking them. By the way, in your own sentences where you claim what "would be correct," you are actually misusing the formal address—you should be using a capitalized "You" rather than a lowercase one 😬.
I have carefully reviewed the other moderator correspondence within this thread, and I can say that a professional, formal approach generally prevails.
That may be true—but, if one actually takes the time to observe those "other moderator correspondences" in this thread, it becomes painfully obvious that they only resort to such formal addressing when they are attempting to be patronizing—essentially mocking the users.
Regardless of whatever standards Brian Edwards6 claims to hold regarding his moderation criteria or how zealously he applies the rules here, I would happily witness two miracles before I die: seeing Brian Edwards6 address a moderator unprofessionally, or seeing him write a sentence that doesn't end with 👍. Since the latter miracle seems far too unlikely for me to ever actually witness, I will settle for seeing a quote of his inappropriate treatment of a user.
David Miller5 said:That whole thing about motor skills just isn't right, at least when you're talking about piano. I know this from my own experience—even though I didn't start music school until second grade—and I know it for a fact from a family member who's a professional musician.
Let's look at this logically: your entire argument rests on a single anecdotal instance involving one "professional musician"—which, if you think about it, isn't much of a data set—whereas my position is based on the actual policy stated in the link provided, which shows that most local music programs generally don't accept children past the 2nd grade. I mean, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume there's a specific, intentional reason behind such a criterion.
I really have no desire to drag this out or engage in some sort of intellectual sparring match.
The statement "this person bothers me on the forum, do something about it" is arguably just one step below a slapped-on psychiatric diagnosis.
We have all sorts of people on this forum, and honestly, it wouldn’t just be impossible for everyone to get along—it would be incredibly boring and frankly quite pathetic if they did. Every single one of us has those users we’d love to see tossed into a vat of acid, and others we’d rather just tuck under a blanket and hide away. But, what does this general call for "attention being diverted" toward one user or another actually mean in practice? I am asking without a shred of irony: what specific measures are actually being proposed behind this demand to "shift the focus"? You can't just say, "I don't know, my job is to shift the attention, let them figure out the measures"...
There is already a system for reporting posts. There are warnings, temporary suspensions, and permanent bans based on the decisions of various levels of administration. That is more than enough to keep this forum in order.
Jessica Chavez4 said:But if you look further down the page, it says 😕
If you miss the window for standard music school, students between 12 and 15 can enroll in one of two PREPARATORY PROGRAMS to get into the MUSIC HIGH SCHOOL for specific instruments: bassoon, harp, clarinet, double bass, oboe, French horn, saxophone, tuba, trombone, and percussion. These prep programs allow older, more driven students to make up for missing the initial music school years, which isn't even an option for certain instruments like the double bass, tuba, bassoon, or percussion.
Thanks. I missed 🙈.
Admittedly, I was aware that the rules might differ for certain "major" or larger wind instruments—it's just that most parents rarely have the double bass in mind when they think of "music school"🙂.
Rachel Jones8 said:Sure, being convenient is one thing, but saying it’s actually "practical"? Not really:
Anything after third grade is too late.
That sounds kind of weird to me. Can you really not start later? Is it not practical? Do you not learn enough? Are you just a year older than everyone else? Or is it seriously... way too late, like there's no point at all and it's hopeless... like if you don't start a year earlier, you have zero chance at anything? By the way, why wouldn't it be practical to finish music training after middle school? I'm sure some people don't even go on to high school for music.
I previously hesitated to bring up the fact that High Schools don't even consider older kids—mostly because I didn't have the hard evidence or solid arguments to back it up at the time, despite hearing it mentioned quite frequently.
Looking at the link someone shared here, it clearly states that High School enrollment is reserved for students who have just finished either 1st or 2nd grade. I suppose there might be exceptions, but those would likely require some pretty substantial justification—maybe continuing a curriculum from a private tutor or demonstrating some sort of extreme giftedness or something along those lines.