Posts by Nicholas King

Since hunting down trolls seems to be such a hated and explicitly forbidden activity in basically every single troll nursery out there, I suppose it would be only polite if someone else stepped up to deal with them—at least the particularly dim-witted ones.

To start things off, maybe we could direct all those countless individuals who can't even string together two coherent sentences—yet somehow possess the uncanny ability to parse through Facebook feeds, emails, texts, and their partner's brain waves (only to inevitably "discover" some scandalous, disgusting nonsense... oh boy, the drama...)—to a dedicated thread where they can share their "expertise" with us mere mortals.

I realize it's summer and the forum is running on autopilot, but if anyone actually believes that a flood of idiotic, uninteresting, illiterate, and unoriginal troll threads contributes to a sense of vitality here—well, they are sorely mistaken.

Alternatively, we could just declare an official moratorium on mocking trolls altogether—which, honestly, would also be just lovely 😬.

Bryan Jackson98 said:Or is it just the rural parts of the Midwest?

After reading this, I honestly wonder if you even finished high school.🤦.

A high school student in a preparatory academy is essentially someone who has made a conscious choice—perhaps even a slightly questionable one—to enroll in a school that offers zero immediate leverage in the job market, all for the sake of setting themselves up for higher education later.

Despite all those tired forum clichés about how brilliant restaurant servers can be, statistically speaking, it’s a fair assumption that a prep school grad is more educated than their peers from vocational programs.

I honestly don't have the energy—or the patience, really—to deal with anyone who might try to jump down my throat over the eternal debate regarding "that piece of paper that doesn't mean anything." Or, for those who might struggle to distinguish between actual education and raw intelligence, they might start attacking my premise (which, for the record, I didn't actually claim—but hey, whatever 😁) by suggesting I'm equating the two.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Where am I defending the indefensible? Did I even say my first post wasn't just trolling? Is that settled now?
But I’m still sticking to my guns—asking "And did you enjoy it?" is definitely trolling.
That's all.

Actually, you didn't—not really. At the moment when both posts (the first one unbanned and the second one sanctioned) were sitting right there on the thread, all you said was that you had nothing more to add to what blissine said. There was zero mention of trolling, and certainly no talk about deleting the troll post once the whole situation became clear.

is this resolved?

It’s been resolved—but honestly, you don't have much to do with that resolution to be citing it now; it only got settled after an entire thread broke out regarding your moderator actions. This whole "everything is fine, nothing happened, let's move on" rhetoric is just a joke, regardless of where you're standing.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I mean, how does a post like that make someone a troll? Especially on such a sensitive subject.

Edit: Look, Nicholas, if you’ve got an issue with me, just say it. You're starting to trip over your own logic just to try and knock me down for "not doing my job."

In my very first post, I wrote...The only real blunder this cardboard-thin forum dweller made was failing to be explicit enough with his allusion—he really should have just dropped a direct link to the original post to prove the girl was clearly just trolling.Look, maybe the post could have been phrased better—I’ll give you that—but that doesn't change the fundamental reality of the situation. It was clearly just someone playing the troll on a sensitive topic. Even if we ignore that specific post entirely, it’s blindingly obvious from the context alone that the whole thing reeks of bad faith and deserves a bit of investigative scrutiny. And honestly? Now you know that too.

It isn't really the initial reaction that bothers me—I mean, if you leave out a crucial link, it’s perfectly understandable why someone might misinterpret the point of a post. That part is easy enough to forgive. The real issue—the thing that actually gets under my skin—is that even after the whole situation has been laid out and everything has been clarified, they still choose to dig their heels in and stubbornly defend a position that is, frankly, indefensible.

Look, Nicholas King—if you actually have some kind of issue with me, then just say it. Seriously.

Don't try to flatter me—and for heaven's sake, stop making this about us personally.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Why? You think her post is suddenly perfectly fine now?

Perhaps because she actually did your job for you—effectively calling out a troll on an incredibly sensitive subject?

melloworca6 said:Since when is trolling allowed to troll? 🙂

Take ZUD, for example. They deal with trolls all the time. The people there are smart enough not to engage in pointless arguments or rack up useless strikes. Instead, they pull specific posts and demand the troll actually explain their logic. Either they clarify themselves, or they get tangled up in their own lies and end up banned. 😁

That’s how it should have been handled here. Pull her actual posts and ask her what she meant, rather than attacking a troll on such a sensitive topic. Honestly, I think the ban was totally justified, and the user isn't even complaining—she knows she crossed the line.

I’d say you aren't around ZUD that much,
.🙂
Actually, it's quite the opposite: most of those troll threads just devolve into this grotesque speculation by forum members about what the initial (entirely fabricated) situation might actually look like, while the troll—after maybe two or three opening posts—wisely retreats from the discussion (and is probably laughing their head off).

I honestly can't remember the last time a troll actually ended up getting banned.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, the post was flagged and taken down. But let's be real: sometimes we just can't tell if someone is making things up on the fly or not. We can strongly suspect a story is fabricated, but usually, suspicion alone isn't enough to hand out a sanction. If a user had provided a link to another one of the author's posts proving this whole situation was made up, we would've handled it completely differently. Moderators don't go digging through a user's entire posting history just to fact-check every single claim unless it's one of those really extreme cases.

No, it wasn't that; it was because of that "complete idiot" comment. I'll admit, at first glance, I wasn't even sure if she was targeting the author or someone else, but I eventually decided it was an insult and acted accordingly. Honestly, looking at it again, I'm having second thoughts 🙈, so I think I'm going to go ahead and rescind that warning. My apologies if I overstepped there.

That would be fair, I guess 🙂.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:So why keep bringing it up if it’s off-topic then?

Regarding the moderation stuff, I don't really mind admitting when I messed up and asking for a fix—something everyone could clearly see anyway.
I honestly don't have much else to say about it, other than my reaction at the time was just based on how things looked, which is exactly what Joshua Jones13 explained. I guess there isn't much more to add to her reasoning.
The thread was asking for more feedback, but you know, you can't always react to everything instantly with 100% certainty. A little report or a PM and some patience goes a long way. But I suppose it's just easier to open a whole new thread on the UN first. Fine. 🤷

Now, I realize this sentence could easily be taken as a joke—or perhaps just a sarcastic jab—but I’ll stand by it: bringing it up isn't actually off-topic, because it points toward a certain pattern of exotic IOV/Bovi moderation (and, granted, we aren't necessarily talking about one specific instance here)—now, an extensive, rambling elaboration on the subject... *that* would be off-topic.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Look, setting aside the fact that nobody actually reported this and the mods haven't even bothered to explain what they're announcing, why do you keep bringing up my ban from the Reddit thread? Do you even know how the subreddit rules work, or are you just looking for an excuse to take a little dig at me every single time my name pops up on the UN forums??

And let's also set aside the fact that even after the report was made and things were clarified, your stance remained basically, "I don't have anything else to add to what Joshua Jones13 said." — without any indication that the report or the explanation changed your mind at all regarding your own moderator procedures?

It wasn't "every single time," it happened twice. I could pull out specific examples if I really wanted to, but I suppose we’d just end up drifting off-topic then.

Joshua Jones13 said:Maybe take a breath? 🤷 I guess we should be allowed to consult one another occasionally instead of being expected to react instantly every single time.

Anyway, they wiped the entire thread, not just the problematic post.

At the exact moment I was typing, it hadn't happened yet.

The issue isn't whether someone met the requirements or not—that's beside the point—but I honestly don't see what there is to "negotiate" in situations like this. After she recently took the lead in hijacking an off-topic discussion right on the main forum boards, the moderator here decided to apply that rather colorful "punishing the messenger" logic, which, frankly, isn't up for debate.

I've never been shy about calling out trolls—mostly because nobody likes being treated like an idiot—and if the community isn't allowed to do it, then the moderators have a secondary obligation to step up and handle it themselves. This? This certainly isn't how you do it.

Joshua Jones13 said:Exactly. I guess fighting fire with fire usually just leads to getting banned yourself. If you don't want to get kicked off the platform, maybe don't be a troll. It's pretty simple, really.

What’s missing here—and I mean truly missing—is any actual instruction on how this process is supposed to work... specifically, how a blatantly trollish post (especially on such a sensitive topic, mind you) gets deleted and the offending user actually gets sanctioned.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: what is a regular forum member supposed to do when a moderator handles a controversial situation this catastrophically?

melloworca6 said:Comments like that have absolutely no business being on threads like this. Period.

If some woman is trolling, just report her and move on. It’s up to the mods whether they actually sanction her or not. But mocking people on topics like this? It's pathetic. I doubt anyone dealing with actual trauma finds those comments helpful or "funny." Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't think certain subjects should be treated as a joke.

There is a massive difference between trolling someone on a stupid thread about some guy peeing in a pool next to you, versus trolling on a thread where people are sharing something genuinely sensitive.

Whereabouts explained quite brilliantly a while back why it is actually vital to call out and neutralize trolls in these specific discussions—to put it simply, trolls using fabricated stories tend to relativize and discredit actual lived experiences. A victim who has truly experienced trauma will feel a much deeper sense of distress reading an obviously fake story (which would have been obvious even without the link to that other post) than they would from reading someone pointing out that the story is a troll attempt.

The only real mistake this clueless forum user made was failing to make his allusion clear enough—he really should have provided a link to the post that proves the girl is trolling.

That whole line of reasoning—"if they're trolling, just report them to the moderators and move on"—is a complete joke, and this situation is the perfect proof: the moderator was active on the thread, didn't even acknowledge the blatant troll post, yet went ahead and banned the person who pointed out the troll—furthermore, the troll post is still sitting there perfectly fine on the thread.

With moderation like this, suggesting "just report it to the mods and they'll handle it" feels like a direct insult to anyone's intelligence.

Patrick Miller3 said:What exactly is "dramatic," "pragmatic," or "educational" about using profanity?
Do you have any idea how many minors browse this site?
This is a perfect example of what we're teaching kids.
Just lovely.

Dick. You can totally say it without the asterisks.

Honestly, what is so "dramatic" about using the word dick that it requires this specific level of censorship? If we follow that line of reasoning, it’s not even the only thing that should be censored on an American forum like this. I mean—what about the entire NSFW subreddits or adult sections, where people discuss much more than just dicks and pussies, including all sorts of sexual activities involving all kinds of people?

And finally, how exactly does mentioning the word dick corrupt our youth? What terrible catastrophe is going to strike a minor who happens to stumble onto a forum and sees that awful, horrible word? It’s just a word like any other—even Dictionary.com recognizes it as a perfectly legitimate term (and please, don't come at me with those condescending questions like, "Oh, is that how you talk at your job? Huh? Is it?"—this forum isn't some formal corporate environment where this kind of language is considered unprofessional).

steelskipper5 said:There is also the option of saving a page as an .mht file...

Aren't all of those just ways to save a single webpage—which, honestly, isn't exactly the most practical approach when we're dealing with a thread that spans dozens of pages?

velvetwalker23 said:Thanks, but the real issue here—if you can even call it that—is that I don't actually recognize a single letter in that username 😁

Just take that coincidence as a sign from above and let it go😬.

velvetwalker23 said:Well, isn't that just lovely... 😢

Maybe you should request that she writes something equally gentle to you next time 😁.

Kevin Williams56 said:Of course there’s an ulterior motive—just like there’s a motive behind you even showing up to this thread.

Would you mind, please, actually explaining what kind of "ulterior motive" my participation here supposedly has? I am asking you in all seriousness: nothing—absolutely nothing comes to mind, and the way you're framing it makes it sound as if my writing is part of some "larger picture," or rather, some sort of coordinated plan.🤦.

I'm not dreaming up any conspiracy theories here; it's just your behavior and the behavior of a few other regular forum users who are bored with everyone else and have suddenly "discovered" the FBI.

The ratio of my posts regarding the FBI versus the rest of the forum (where I am allegedly "bored") proves how nonsensical this claim is—even if, I'll admit, it sounds quite punchy to an uninformed reader. I am not bored with the rest of the forum, nor did I "suddenly" discover the FBI.

What would you have me for punishment then? My head on a silver platter, perhaps?😛

What you stubbornly refuse to grasp is the simple fact that you aren't even the subject of this discussion, so this attempt to cast yourself as some sort of victim—combined with your "ulterior motive" conspiracy theories—is frankly laughable.

I couldn't care less about your head or anything else belonging to you—all I want is for there to be actual criteria and for them to be applied consistently across the forum. If a female user isn't allowed to tell a moderator to grow up, yet a moderator is permitted to call a user paranoid (by wrapping it in a YouTube clip as the sole content of a post), then we don't have consistency, no matter how much someone tries to argue otherwise.

It would be wise for you not to fall into the trap—a classic mistake made by several members of the "old guard"—that is so prevalent here: grouping us into some imaginary interest group working toward some goal. Not only does such a "group" not exist, but we are actually dealing with individuals whose forum relationships are, shall we say, extremely volatile. In this specific instance, you have the woman who was targeted because of a message telling someone to grow up, the man who was told he was paranoid, and people I've had massive forum arguments with—these are all just individual interactions, not some orchestrated "forum plot." So, as much as it might be easier to claim there is some mutual back-scratching or some other hidden agenda, you're going to need a different story.

It all boils down to one single sentence: the fact that the vast majority of the administration is such beautiful, clear proof that a little kindness and consistency doesn't hurt anyone (and often works wonders in communication)—so why do you and a few members of the "screw you" school of thought so persistently refuse to consider that?

I knew that, well, it wasn't exactly the wisest move to tell someone they need to grow up. Now I’ve realized—and I suppose I should have seen this coming—that being accused of being a glutton is actually far less damaging to one's paranoia than that.

But hey, why not just sing it from the rooftops? 😬.

Kevin Williams56 said:Without having any actual knowledge about... In the background...

We finally have some background information!!! 👋 Honestly, it feels like nobody from the old guard—the ones who actually remember how things used to be—has been around for quite some time now...

What kind of "silencing" are you even dreaming about here? And specifically, what exactly do you mean by this supposed "preferential treatment"? I don't recall ever drafting a post quite like the one you put up in the administration questions section—and that is precisely why I am asking if this is actually allowed, as I’m expecting everyone to be held to the same standard.

(Insert your custom YouTube spot here—I’m feeling a bit lazy today).

Daniel Ward87 said:That’s why the post was deleted without any penalty being issued.

I would honestly love to see an example of a bigger trolling post than that YouTube link—or anything more insulting than that paranoid outburst—that actually got wiped without a warning strike. Especially considering this happened in the "question for administration" thread, which isn't exactly some random free-for-all topic. But, I realize I probably won't get an answer, so I'll just ask again: if an observer's interference in an argument with you—specifically that post where they called bluecyclist64 a paranoid freak via a YouTube link (which was then doubled down on in a follow-up)—was "deleted without punishment," does that mean everyone else is allowed to act that way too? If it is, just give me a simple "yes" or "no" without the sarcasm and/or ad hominem attacks about having no life or being bored.

If it isn't, how is a person supposed to know when their post will be quietly removed versus when they're going to get slapped with a ban for trolling and insults?