Posts by Nicholas King

Patrick Miller3 said:Well, I did exaggerate certain words just to make sure the Mexicans on the forum found them funny—though, honestly, what I was actually trying to say came through perfectly fine.
I have to hand it to you, though; the fact that you make such an effort to write in proper American English shows real respect for the country and the majority of people posting here.

If I were posting on a Mexican forum, I’d go out of my way to write in Mexican—or if it were a Mexican forum, I’d write in Mexican.

To me, that’s just the only logical and decent way to handle it. It isn't about racism, nationalism, or any kind of chauvinism; it’s simply about basic etiquette for participants from different parts of the world.

Actually, it would be quite interesting if some "pure" Englishman logged onto the forum and started "chatting" in English—since that's the globally accepted standard, right? That would be perfectly acceptable, wouldn't it? 😁

So, what exactly are you suggesting we do in a situation like that?

frozenowl3 said:You don't let others comment—you're always way too quick to hit that "closed" button.

Here is a comment from someone who finds a significant portion of the administration to be about as pleasant as a skin disease—and I mention that only because there might be grounds for an accusation of favoritism toward friends and acquaintances.

Look, I’ve already told you in another thread: you have this indescribable way of being repulsive when defending your views. You cling to these conspiracy theories, you clearly don't care about facts, and you aren't even slightly shaken when those facts actually debunk you.

An example? There are plenty, but take this recent one: "Have you ever penalized moderators, huh? No, have you? No. No. No, no, no... see how awful you all are, I knew it..." -> "Yes, we have penalized moderators" -> "Fine, then whatever." What kind of credibility—if any at all—do you expect to maintain while arguing like that?

You went so far as to threaten legal action; you claimed to have filed a lawsuit/report/whatever, and when nothing happened, you—in your typical fashion—declared it all to be some massive conspiracy against you and the entire community.

This "proof against the moderators" that you keep waving around so triumphantly isn't proof of anything: under what written or unwritten law is someone forbidden from calling a parade "garbage," or whatever else they called it? Why should a parade hold some sacred status? Just imagine if someone wrote on this forum, "When is this crap/bullshit regarding the Yankees-Red Sox game finally over so I can walk down the street like a normal person?"—and they got banned for it. I’d bet my life there would be screaming all the way to Washington, D.C.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that being gay isn't anything special on this forum—it's full of all sorts of people—nor does it grant you any special privileges over anyone else. In most cases, users here are known by their contributions—and yours are argumentative, unreliable, and frankly, off-putting.

There. Honestly, the admins screwed up by not locking the thread immediately; now you can't whine about being persecuted because others aren't allowed to weigh in.

Just take a breather, maybe stay off the forum for a few days, and try to reflect: it’s not as if you can't behave differently, right?

briskjackal5 said:If someone is just "trigger-happy," well, that’s their own damn problem.

But that’s not even the point here.

I am attempting to make a very simple observation: when two people get into a heated confrontation, there are incredibly rare instances where anything other than an equal split of points would be fair. If the second person was actually more aggressive, then the first person—well, they were the aggressor.

It’s always the same pattern: they go creating these unnecessary precedents, and then later, when someone actually tries to hold them to that standard, the only response you get is some variation of, "Because we said so, and we can say whatever we want, so deal with it." They really don't need to do that—or rather, you shouldn't let them.

BTW, it's honestly quite improper to drag that judoka's 500 points from a completely different incident—along with all the fallout from those points and everything else—into this discussion. How is that even remotely a valid "argument" in what should be a purely general debate? 😕

Daniel Ward87 said:It really all comes down to the nuances—those subtle, often overlooked distinctions that change everything. I mean, have you ever actually sat down and listened to those discussions regarding excessive use of force? It’s a heavy topic, and honestly, the specifics matter more than people realize.

Look, I’ve heard just about everything under the sun—really, I have. I think I made it quite clear from the start that I wasn't referring to any massive, glaring discrepancies in the actual dialogue exchanged.

However—in this specific instance (though I’d say it applies to others too, but then someone would start hunting me down for links, and frankly, it’s too damn hot out and I’m feeling lazy)—there was a total, absolute, and complete disregard for the fact that someone actually started this whole shitshow by attacking people's families. To insist that asking "were you abused as a child?" is merely some innocent, genuine curiosity regarding Judolin's upbringing... well, that’s just heavy-handed sarcasm and a blatant mockery of common sense.

But if this is still the administration's official stance, then we’re looking at a serious precedent here—and not a good one. We already have Tyndall's contribution where he basically tells us that we "keep writing idiocy," which isn't even an insult anymore; now, we've reached the point where any outright insult can just be wrapped up in... I suppose I should address this—though I’m not entirely sure where to begin given the current state of things. It seems we’ve reached a point where certain discussions are becoming increasingly... well, let's call them "unproductive." I find myself constantly weighing whether to contribute at all, especially when the discourse feels so fragmented. Maybe I'm being too cautious, or perhaps I'm just tired of seeing the same patterns repeat themselves without any real resolution. It’s a delicate balance, trying to remain objective while feeling this level of frustration—not that I'm suggesting anyone else should feel the same way, of course. I guess it's just my own perspective, but it feels like we're circling the same drain. 🙄 This question feels like nothing more than a low-effort, 35-point troll—honestly. It’s been stated multiple times before that the issue isn't actually Judolov's specific line, "I might ask if you're an idiot," but rather the follow-up: "but, that would be redundant." In other words, when someone on this forum expresses their interest and wishes for someone to feel the exact same way... I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m not entirely sure where to begin—it feels like we're just circling the drain at this point. I mean, if you look at the current state of things, it’s almost laughable how little progress has actually been made, despite all the noise. It's all very... benign, I guess. Not in a good way, mind you, but more in the sense that it's a harmlessly stagnant mess that nobody seems willing to fix because, frankly, why bother? It’s just one of those situations where the lack of urgency is more frustrating than the actual problem itself. Maybe I'm being too cynical—perhaps—but from where I'm sitting, it looks like we're just waiting for something to break before anyone even considers lifting a finger. It's exhausting, really. To ask, "Is your mother perhaps a prostitute who’s been serviced by half of Columbus?"—there isn't even a shred of anything resembling a 30-point troll in that statement... and it's not even because Columbus isn't exactly a massive metropolis.

Now I’m just sitting here, waiting for someone to roll out the usual script—you know the one—with all the predictable "troll," "anti-vaxxer," and whatever other tired clichés they like to throw around. Honestly, just go ahead. Bring on the fashion police and the rest of those self-appointed moral authorities... if you think you're ready for the fallout.

Ironically, someone is bound to jump out and claim I’m once again playing devil's advocate for the trolls, even though any halfway decent connoisseur would know how utterly nonsensical that premise is... 😬. But this—as is always the case 😁—is about principle; specifically, it's about the way these online "street fights" are sanctioned.

So, User A jumps User B. The "correct" forum response from User B should be to stay silent or just report it, essentially letting "the authorities do their job." But very few people possess such perfect, self-controlled forum etiquette; sometimes, a person just wants to hit back at the provocation (willingly accepting the bans they'll inevitably receive), and there we have it—we're stuck in a street brawl.

Ever since we were kids, one question has always been a central element in these things: who started it. Many parents will tell their children a mantra I personally stand by: "never be the first to swing, but always swing back." And in certain adult (even official, legal) situations, it is absolutely vital to determine who initiated the conflict and who was merely provoked and dragged into it.

Because of that, it is—to put it mildly—strange that when forums handle these situations, they completely ignore the division of roles in the fight. Instead, they just bureaucratically list who said what to whom and hand out punishments accordingly, without ever looking at who actually started the mess. Important note here: I am talking about situations where the insults exchanged differ in nuance—not cases where someone responds to a light slap by trying to decapitate their opponent and bury them under the foundation of a new house in a small town.

We all know which users are "quick on the trigger"—this whole concept of banning is a wonderful opportunity for a "let's screw over the trolls" project: you toss a subtle, snarky insult at someone knowing it'll set them off, and then you happily wait for the retaliation and the moderator's tally of insults, in which the other guy will almost certainly come out on top.

Sanctioning things in a way where spitting back at a victim carries more weight than the person who did the initial spitting... it just isn't fair.

Brenda Cook4 said:Over in our Religion sub-section, under our rules, we have it set up like this:

4) All posts must be written clearly and intelligibly, using the English language and script.
If you're quoting someone or linking to a text in a foreign language, you absolutely have to provide an English translation. You don't need to go word-for-word for longer pieces, but it's mandatory to at least provide a summary covering the points essential to the discussion.

However, even here, we still run into users who write using different regional dialects, for instance 🤷

In other words, are you telling me there's a rule in place that nobody actually bothers to follow? 😕

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, the moderator just did what felt right at the moment to keep the vibe of the site intact. It’s not really about the official rules since there aren't any specific ones covering this. Having been a moderator for the Politics section myself, I’m totally fine with how they handled it.

Daniel Ward87

rustydrifter10 said:Look, moderators are granted a certain amount of autonomy, and they can set specific ground rules for particular threads even if those rules aren't explicitly laid out in the main handbook or the PDF guidelines. As long as they aren't breaking the core community standards and the discussion stays civil and productive, it's all good. In this case, since there was a clear need to allow people to write in Canadian within the Canada discussion, the moderator simply made that call to accommodate everyone.

If two people misunderstand me, I suppose it means I wasn't being clear enough 🙂.

Actually, I’ve been coming at this from "the other side" the whole time: my issue isn't with allowing Canadian, but rather with the part that says "...only in the Canada thread"—because when you apply that logic to the US Constitution, it implies that Canadian isn't allowed elsewhere (whether due to lack of clarity or whatever else), which seems fundamentally wrong to me. That specific part feels like here it's just the moderator's own personal restriction.

Back when I was looking for some travel tips, I reached out to folks on a Canadian forum by writing in English, and I ended up getting responses in both Canadian and "English," and all sorts of things. I think there's this misguided assumption that everyone from Canada necessarily understands English perfectly (as if they understand it better than Americans understand Canadian), which—especially among the post-American generations—is just plain incorrect.

Daniel Ward87 said:They haven't decided yet, and honestly, I don't think they will anytime soon. If you haven't noticed, even the site itself hasn't been translated into American English—so when you get a warning, you end up getting a greeting from the admins in English. It’s basically the same issue as someone posting in Canadian; it's just that people don't seem to complain about that quite as much.

Then just point out exactly which law is being broken regarding that Canadian writing and file a lawsuit. At the end of the day, a private forum is just that—it's owned by a private individual who has every right to set the rules. It’s all governed by the laws of the domain where it's hosted.

Daniel Ward87

I get where you're coming from and I accept that—it’s just that, in this specific instance, the moderator restricting Canadian content strictly to the Canada thread seems more like a personal rule of theirs rather than anything actually tied to the official forum guidelines.

Daniel Ward87 said:As far as I know, this is a private forum owned by Internet Monitor, not some national platform. Just because the domain ends in .us doesn't mean everyone is forced to write exclusively in American English. There was actually a huge debate once that shook up half the Politics section when Anderlon mentioned that posts could be written in English.

Since this is a private forum, the owner gets to call the shots on the house rules.

Daniel Ward87

Well, obviously.

The issue here—and I mean this quite specifically—is that neither the owner nor the administration has actually set those boundaries (my apologies if there’s some obscure mention of prohibited languages in the fine print somewhere, though I haven't stumbled upon it yet).

Where, for instance, is the explicit rule stating that "Canadian is allowed, but strictly limited to threads about Canada"?

Furthermore, regardless of how clever it might seem—since it effectively turns the average reader against what they perceive as "disruptive elements"—this whole tactic of saying, "Oh, you're just trolling again, stop bothering us with trivialities," is honestly pretty pathetic (and I don't mean you—actually, I suppose in this specific instance this isn't directed at you 😁).

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:That question is just plain stupid, so I didn't even bother responding. Obviously, we aren't talking about people being more or less valuable or anything like that... It's just about whether American languages are easy to understand or not.

I'm not deleting English—within reason, obviously—but I’d wipe Chinese or Arabic right off the map. Doesn't mean I think Englishmen are any better than Chinese or Arab people... just how I feel.

I have no clue, just start a thread over in the US Politics section and ask them...

Maybe people just don't know American English, or maybe they're just too lazy... personally, I wouldn't even bother re-reading my own posts two or three times just to make sure every single word was written in perfect English.

I'm telling you... you guys are wasting your breath with this question. Total waste of time...

I should probably remind everyone that this whole debate was actually kicked off by the sentence, "I only allow Canadian in threads regarding Canada."

As I've already stated: using "(un)understandability" as a metric for language is—well, it's a shaky, unstable criterion at best. It is completely unclear who the moderator is supposed to be protecting—from whom, or from what—by allowing or disallowing a specific language in a given thread? Is the moderator protecting the author from the fact that only a handful of people will understand them? Or perhaps they're protecting people from reading text that—good grief! 😱 they can't even parse?

Let me repeat myself: there are texts written in perfect, high-level English for which it turns out a massive crowd of people lacks the capacity to comprehend; likewise, there is plenty of text written in "broken-ass English" that simply makes no sense, so there isn't much to understand in the first place.

I don't delete English (within reasonable limits), but I would certainly delete Chinese or Arabic—which doesn't mean I consider Englishmen to be more valuable than Chinese or Arab people.

No. That just means you're trolling, because Mexican and Canadian aren't in the same relationship (in terms of understandability) as English and Chinese.

It also suggests you aren't actually reading the posts in the discussion you're participating in, because I explicitly wrote that the criterion for allowing (or not) a language could simply be the (im)possibility of moderating it.

This "useless nagging over questions" is going to become truly useless once someone eventually finds the rules regarding language usage on Forum.hr and realizes, "Well, that's that; if you don't like it, go cry into your pillow"—even if those rules include something as nonsensical as "Canadian is allowed, but only in threads about Canada."

BTW, the assumption that every Canadian is capable of writing a text in a language that would be more intelligible than literary Canadian is—in the case of relatively young Canadians—completely wrong: it is often much easier to read a text in Canadian than some clumsy attempt at writing in "Americanized" English.

melloworca6 said:And let's be honest, they're closer to our own language than Canadian or Mexican ever would be. Even if there weren't so many users from those areas, they'd still be easier to understand—at least for me—than something like Mexican.

If we start nitpicking, we could technically ban any dialect that isn't standard, but I don't understand certain regional accents at all, and I bet most people outside those specific pockets wouldn't either. 😁

You’re moving too fast with your arguments—you’ve actually managed to trip yourself up into a complete contradiction.

The hypothetical ban on certain dialects would be the direct result of exactly what you’re advocating for—the (un)understandability of a language to a larger group of forum users. If we say Mexican is allowed because it’s "understandable," then by that same logic, someone could demand a ban on obscure regional dialects because they're too confusing—and then we're all stuck in a loop going nowhere.

This whole debate about which languages should or shouldn't be permitted on the forum isn't nearly as simple as some of the posts in this thread are making it out to be—and no, this isn't about whether or not someone hates Mexicans. Asking "why would Canadians be considered less valuable than Mexicans?" isn't trolling or being pedantic. The idea that "Canadian should only be used in threads about Canada, while Mexican/English is allowed everywhere" is inherently inconsistent, so it can't really function as a legitimate "rule."

Using "(un)understandability" as a metric is a fundamentally flawed criterion. We have to consider everything from the fact that this forum is frequently filled with posts in "American" that are completely unintelligible, to the reality that if a post is only understood by a handful of people, that’s nobody's business but the author's. Who exactly is going to judge how many people can grasp a post written in Canadian, Czech, Swahili, or whatever else? And where exactly is the line that makes a language "unacceptable"?

The only logical boundary here is whether or not the administration can actually understand a post, purely for the sake of moderation.

casualharbor9 said:I honestly don't think literacy has anything to do with eloquence. I know plenty of people who can express themselves thoroughly, extensively, and clearly without following a single rule of grammar.
For what it's worth, I write everything in lowercase too, so (hopefully) I’m making myself clear enough...

Self-control is vital when you're communicating—and let's be real, a lot of it depends on the other person; some people make it easy to pick a fight, while others make it nearly impossible... so how do you actually maintain self-control? There must be some techniques out there (Zen, Bushido, counting to a hundred, digging a ditch... 🤷)

My mistake—I didn't explicitly clarify this earlier, though I’ve hammered this point home multiple times in my various white papers and PDFs: when I use the term "literacy," I am referring to it in a much broader sense than just basic spelling or grammatical correctness. One might even argue that true literacy involves semantic depth, rather than just sticking to syntactic rules 🙂.

The author's lack of literacy is inextricably linked to her lack of eloquence—which, in my view, is just a short step away from resorting to insults as a substitute for an actual inability to articulate a thought.

David Mendoza73 said:Hey 🙂
Ever say things you don't actually mean to people you care about? I hate it. Every time I get into an argument, the anger just takes over and I lash out with things I don't even believe. It’s the worst feeling.
I tell myself a thousand times I won't react like this, but I can't just stay quiet when something's bothering me. So the fight happens, the words fly, and then the regret hits. Once they're out there, you can't take them back.
I want to change how I handle things—even the small stuff, like bickering with my parents or siblings—but honestly, it feels impossible. 🙂 Is it even possible to change your gut reactions? If anyone has advice, let me know.
The title is pretty blunt. Couldn't think of anything else.
Thanks

Honestly, this is perfectly fine.

and that's how arguments start

This point is rather pointless—why do you assume (and it seems quite obvious that you do) that an argument is the only way to express that something is bothering you?

I want to change it—my reaction to certain situations, even if they are just those small daily squabbles with my parents, brother, or sister—but somehow it feels impossible. 🙂

As long as you believe it is impossible, it will remain impossible. As long as you continue to justify your own selfish rudeness—and let's be clear, "saying whatever comes to mind" in the heat of the moment is both selfish and rude—by hiding behind some supposed "vigilante nature" that simply cannot tolerate being annoyed, nothing will change.

Otherwise, of course, it isn't impossible.

How many times have you actually apologized to the people you "said everything" to? How many times have you told them to stop you the next time you start acting like that? How many times have you genuinely attempted to have a dialogue with people when your opinions differ? Communication is a skill—one we aren't born with—and it certainly requires practice and learning.

BTW, it isn't illogical for someone with such tragic literacy levels to struggle with communication. It isn't illogical for someone with such poor command of language to "solve" their conversational issues by just lashing out—essentially replacing coherent, well-articulated arguments with a barrage of insults.

feralranger said:

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
It is an undeniable reality that out of hundreds of thousands of individual actions, there will inevitably be a handful of irregular ones.👍

As I have previously maintained, politicians will always attempt to frame their own actions in the most flattering light possible. Yet, let us be perfectly clear: this nation has been looted right down to its very foundation, leaving our seniors with no choice but to scavenge through trash cans just to make ends meet.

Those are nothing more than empty platitudes, quite frankly, lacking any real substance whatsoever.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
What people call "preferential treatment" is actually just a misunderstanding of what it means to act in the interest of the public good; true authority is exercised when law enforcement uses its power to shield the general populace from antisocial elements—both common agitators and those who believe they are above the law—rather than indulging in petty, personal vendettas. In essence, this isn't about enjoying some elevated status or special privilege, but rather about the heavy burden of service to the community at large.👍

And once again, we hear it from the politicians... that tired old line about "serving the people." Honestly, those empty platitudes carry absolutely zero weight.

It’s basically the same thing as saying "..."Everyone. "The cops are corrupt, incompetent, whatever—they're just all the same." That's what she keeps telling you, or maybe she's saying it to someone else entirely. I suppose I should probably address this—though I’m not entirely sure if anyone is actually listening anymore—regarding the general state of things. It feels like we are constantly circling the drain, much like that old myth of Sisyphus, only without the poetic dignity of the struggle. Everything seems to be spiraling, and frankly, I find the lack of accountability in our current systems to be nothing short of exhausting. I mean, maybe I'm being too cynical, but when you look at how certain institutions operate under the current law, it's hard not to feel a sense of mounting frustration. It’s all just... messy. Extremely messy. 🙄, I suppose I should probably address this situation directly—though, frankly, I’m not even sure where to begin with the sheer absurdity of it all. It feels like we're constantly circling the same drain, doesn't it? Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, but there's a certain pattern emerging here that I find increasingly difficult to ignore. It's almost as if—well, let's just say it's a recurring theme—that no matter how much we attempt to navigate the existing framework, we hit the exact same wall every single time. It’s exhausting, really. One might think that after all this time, some semblance of progress would have been made, but instead, we're left staring at the same old mess, wondering if anyone is actually paying attention. I guess it’s just my way of looking at things, but it feels less like moving forward and more like running in place. ...or whatever else you want to call it—it certainly doesn't make it any less of a cliché.

Jose Edwards16 said:...that this thread isn't going to make the cut.

If you actually bothered to read the opening post, it was painfully obvious that the whole topic was a total non-starter. It had no direction, no substance—honestly, it just lacked any kind of coherent point whatsoever...

The subsequent discussion only served to drive home that very obvious fact, I suppose.

So, I guess my question is: what’s stopping a moderator—or really anyone else here—from just acknowledging this blatant reality and stating it plainly?

Brian Edwards6 said:The crux of the matter is that any discussion, regardless of the subject, inevitably drifts into completely unrelated territory. Yet, I somehow find myself being accused of preventing that drift on the forums I moderate—as if my attempts to maintain order are some sort of negative or unwelcome behavior.👍

No one is being prevented from doing that.👍

It is out of line if it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.👍

"Privileged conduct" is manifested in the fact that such force and police actions are utilized to protect the general public (civilians) from antisocial individuals (both civilians and the "privileged"), rather than to satisfy personal, low impulses. In other words, it is about service, not about holding a privileged position.👍

That’s precisely my point—and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that it took this much back-and-forth to get there.

It really comes down to this—the way those so-called "privileges" effectively flip the script from "to serve and to protect" straight into "to screw over everyone we can, anytime and anywhere we feel like it." That’s pretty much the gist of it, I guess.

Brian Edwards6 said:

hollowmason64 As specified by:
... And honestly, sorry John, but you’re overstepping with all this deleting. You're acting like you know exactly what stays and what goes, even though Nick has already made it clear several times that we try to avoid doing that whenever possible.

I have no intention of letting rule violations slide without consequences. As for the mass deletions, I’ll make a concerted effort to do better; honestly, I believe my performance has already shown some slight improvement.👍

The simple reality is this: when you're looking at hundreds of thousands of individual actions, it’s statistically inevitable that a handful of them won't follow the rules.👍

I suspect the average here is likely equal to—or at least very close to—the average found among honest, professional individuals within the broader American population.👍

Michelle Alvarez8, electricharbor30, or me?😕

I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

I won't multi-quote every single individual post—just a few collective observations here.

Does the specific label of a ban actually matter? I’d argue it does—because if it didn't, we wouldn't have distinct categories for off-topic posts, harassment, trolling, and so on; we’d just hand out an arbitrary number of penalty points and say goodbye. So, it seems someone, somewhere, decided that my thread actually had enough merit to warrant introducing a "ban taxonomy"—otherwise, the only rule this Forum would ever need to implement (copyright Jack) would be a simple "don't be a jerk."

But there's more to it—and here comes the part that’s easiest to mock: much like how every janitor nowadays gets rebranded as a "facilities manager," it isn't quite right to lump vastly different types of disruptive behavior under the single umbrella of "trolling," or to dress up completely different users in the same "troll" uniform. It might be funny, sure, but it’s just as counterproductive to the health of the community to label a harmless goofball and some absolute chaos-agent like Miles... oops, I mean 😁 Sarah.

Therefore, I still maintain that providing clearer definitions makes sense; this isn't merely about rebranding a "trolling ban" as a "discussion disruption ban."

One more thing: I made it very clear that formalizing the rules won't somehow prevent a moderator from acting like an idiot or a nuisance—after all, even "real" laws are subject to various legal interpretations, let alone the rules of an online community. I also explicitly stated that there will always be a "gray area" where arbitrary moderator judgment takes over—but the whole point is to ensure that this gray area is limited strictly to those instances where no specific rule exists to cover them.

On a neighboring thread, the question of what actually constitutes "trolling" has resurfaced—for some reason or another—so I am starting this topic (which, naturally, could be summarily deleted based on someone’s subjective whim) because it remains a perennial stumbling block on this American forum.

I suspect we are dealing with two distinct issues that are being stubbornly "kept alive" for no apparent reason, despite being entirely unnecessary. First, there is the issue from the user's perspective: no matter how perfect a definition you craft for a specific punishable category, you cannot prevent a bad moderator from being a bad moderator. It is impossible to turn an argument into an algorithm, and by extension, it is just as impossible to fully automate the sanctioning of rule-breaking within those arguments; there will always be that "gray area" where everything ultimately hinges on that infamous "discretionary moderator judgment."

On the other hand, there actually is a way to significantly shrink that gray area—and thereby reduce the amount of friction between users and administration: namely, it is completely unclear why, on this site, absolutely everything gets lumped under the label of "trolling" (resulting in vastly different users being uniformly branded as trolls), or why trolling is treated like some wild card a moderator can play whenever and however they feel like it.

I don't presume to think I can provide some flawless, universal definition of trolling when no one else has managed it—but, I do believe there is a solution that would simplify things; specifically, there are two obvious forms of trolling that are beyond dispute: the first is the total fabrication of stories about Milen... oops 😁, Soraya-topica, where people post entirely made-up narratives for reasons I cannot fathom, just to trigger a wave of outrage and pathetic responses. The second is "jumping into a thread just to stir the pot": you walk into a discussion on Veganism and start typing about how meat-eaters are idiots and so on. These types of examples are easy to spot, and penalizing them would never lead to any misunderstanding.

That leaves us with that problematic segment that is constantly shoved under the "trolling" umbrella, when it could much more simply be called "disrupting the discussion." This is the part that cannot be captured by a clear definition that would eliminate a moderator's discretionary right to decide what is what based on their own (in)competence. While I realize I am essentially inviting a massive amount of ridicule here—since it is always easier to mock someone on the first volley and lean on the "that's just how it's always been" inertia rather than pausing to actually think—I seriously believe that renaming the "offtopic/spam" penalty to "offtopic/spam/disruption," and separating those instances from unambiguous trolling, would clear up many of the ongoing misunderstandings. There is plenty of room for debate regarding the how and the why without needing further clarification 🙂.

Just when you think you’ve finally seen everything this place has to offer, you get hit with some "Code of Conduct for Federal Employees" being tossed around as an "argument" regarding the moderation of "Law."

What’s next, I suppose? Are we going to start citing the Ten Commandments whenever someone wants to debate how we moderate "Religion"?