Posts by Nicholas King

I honestly have nothing to say here, because I don't even understand what the question is. 🙂

I can only restate the facts:

- the new rule of the organization was established on September 22nd.

- these rules weren't just slapped together in a rush—it wasn't some "took more than a few minutes to draft" situation—but rather, we waited until they were fully thought through and finalized.

- nowhere in these rules does it state that they don't apply to existing partial bans, nor is there any mention of lifting current partial bans as an integral part of this new set of rules.

- my own partial ban was lifted four days after the rules were drafted and implemented.

- since lifting a partial ban isn't exactly a grueling, multi-day physical labor project, it simply doesn't make sense to claim it belongs to the same package of rule changes being discussed.

- preparing the announced public statement—which should really provide a broader context regarding the "how and why," rather than just being a blunt notice about lifting all partial bans without explanation—has been somewhat delayed... or maybe I'm just failing to find it.

Therefore, everything I have done—which I believe was polite and in keeping with both the old and new rules—was simply to request that my partial ban remain exactly as it was on the day it was originally issued (I can't recall the exact date offhand, though I assume it's documented somewhere). By lifting it, the organization has violated the rules that have been in effect for four days now—specifically the rule regarding the minimum six-month duration and the rule requiring a formal request from a forum member to lift a ban.

And that is all.

mistywolf17 said:I was actually just getting ready to draft a press release. There was some discussion a few days ago regarding what we should do about those old partial bans within the organization. As of today, the partial bans have been lifted for everyone.
However, if you'd like, I can certainly pass along your request to reinstate the partial ban.

My apologies, but I am certainly not asking for a reinstatement of a partial ban. What I actually requested was that—should any decision be made to remove the current restrictions—it should at least respect the established forum rules, which have clearly been violated.

Those two things are absolutely not the same.

I noticed that I’ve been hit with a partial ban from the "Messages, Complaints, and Comments" subforum—and honestly, without any prior notice or even a shred of explanation to back it up.

Under the new rule of the organization, the minimum duration for a partial ban has been set at six months. Beyond that, the procedure for lifting a partial ban is clearly laid out:If you find yourself under a partial ban from the organization's moderators, you actually have the right to reach out via private message once that period is up. Whether your restriction was set for six months or twelve, or if you were looking at a year-long stint following a permanent partial ban, you can submit a request to have it lifted once the term expires. I guess it’s just the standard procedure—once the clock runs out, the door is open to ask for a clean slate.".

In my case, both of these rules were violated—neither have the minimum six months passed, nor have I actually reached out to anyone with a request or appeal regarding the lifting of my partial ban.

So, I’m left wondering if this is just some massive administrative blunder—or perhaps some sort of sudden "act of mercy"—where they decide to bypass every single standard operating procedure just to scrap my partial ban out of thin air.

I still maintain that my partial ban was nothing more than a direct result of a few individuals within various levels of the forum administration losing their cool—it was purely personal. In my view—and I suspect I’m not alone in thinking this—this ban was handed down in total defiance of both the established forum guidelines and the organization's rules. There wasn't a single warning issued beforehand; I didn't insult anyone (not even when responding to insults directed at me) on the forum or anywhere else, I stayed strictly on topic, and I certainly wasn't trolling. To put it bluntly, I believe this partial ban was simply a way to silence me because they lacked the ability to actually shut me down with logic or sound arguments.

Look, if that unfortunate partial ban was handed down in total violation of the rules that were actually in place at the time, I’d ask that it eventually be overturned once we start applying today's standards—specifically, once the minimum six-month period has passed and I formally submit a request for its removal. Until then, I’d ask that it be reinstated, and honestly, I’ll leave that entirely up to the discretion of whoever issued it.

I’m going to use this post just to add a few brief sentences to that "Messages, Complaints, COMMENTS" PDF—it’s honestly just... I don't know, I feel compelled to say it. Like many others, I am truly, deeply sorry for everything that has transpired—for everything that has happened, and for everyone who was caught up in those events. It provides me absolutely zero comfort to say that I predicted many of these developments before they actually unfolded; if anything, it's quite a heavy burden to carry. Trust me, I would much rather use my little "prophetic" insights for something significantly more pleasant than this. 😍Unfortunately, it was just an attempt. I guess I’ll just stay quiet then. "Peace, peace, nobody is to blame"—the lifting of my partial ban is just one more facet of the underlying issues here. The core problem remains that mistakes—unfounded points, insults, punishable sentences, blatant hate speech, mockery, partial bans, or suggesting that dissatisfied users simply find some other forum better suited to them—are never acknowledged, even under the most extreme circumstances. Instead, they are met with total silence, showing zero willingness to engage in actual dialogue. They just use these convenient little excuses like "unconstructiveness," "excessive persistence," or "advocating" as unquestionable tools to shut down any discussion. It’s all done under the guise of showing "goodwill" (yeah, right!), while in reality, they just delete posts to wipe away the evidence.

It honestly pains me to see how so many sincerely well-intentioned comments have been misread as being driven by someone's narrow, personal agendas—though I find myself wondering exactly whose interests we’re even talking about here. People have gone so far as to invent these imaginary "clans" or factions—groups that, ironically, consist of people who can barely stand one another, to begin with—and then assign them all sorts of shady motives (again, I have to ask: what motives, really?). If there had been even a slight willingness to actually listen, a great deal of what has happened—and what continues to happen—could have been avoided entirely.

I’m fully aware that this post might land me right in the crosshairs of the moderators—you know, the usual cycle of bans, being blacklisted, or just getting hit with endless sarcasm and insults—all because of what seems like an unquestionable, yet in reality, completely murky objective within the "where to go forum."There is actually a very specific sub-forum designed for this—it isn't meant for those vague, rambling, general discussions that seem to go nowhere, but rather serves as a dedicated space specifically so that... I’m open to any good ideas or constructive criticism you might have—though, honestly, I’d prefer if we kept things productive. Honestly, I think this forum has truly evolved—it’s become better, more engaging, and just overall higher quality than it used to be. It’s essentially just a subjective call on who is actually being constructive and who isn't—which is inherently vague and undefined to begin with. And honestly, whose bright idea was it to allow these kinds of generalized discussions in the first place? No. Can I offer some constructive criticism here? It seems to me—though I might be overstepping—that the responsibility for addressing these issues lies squarely with the very people who are being called out for them.

Furthermore, there is this perfectly embedded catch in the rules—Rule 22, if you will: discussions aren't allowed to be general or vague; they have to be specific. And, because of that, no one from the "outside" is permitted to participate, since that would count as advocacy. Essentially, the only permissible format is "individual versus administration."

That said, for my part, it’s enough just knowing that I am—and I truly believe this—well-intentioned and constructive. I'm not part of any snobbish little "clique," I don't have any ulterior motives, and—last but not least—I know quite clearly that I could have been incredibly useful, if only certain egos hadn't gotten in the way, or if people had actually bothered to read what I was really saying.

So, no, thank you.

Larry Booth said:I hope you guys get what I mean.

As far as I'm concerned—and I say this with all due respect to his intentions—you're just wishing on a star. 🙂

wanderingfox42 said:Does anyone know how to set it up so that when I create my own custom style in one document, I can actually use it in all my new documents too?

..I looked for it myself... honestly, no clue... 🤷

Essentially, every single document you open is tied to one of Microsoft Office's templates. Unless you manually change things, the default template is always called Normal. Now, the actual filename and where it's tucked away on your hard drive will vary depending on which version of Word you happen to be running.

Any styles you define within a specific template will be available in every new document that relies on that template as its foundation.

casualbear17 said:Thanks, I actually stumbled upon that tutorial a while ago—but to be honest, I'm still feeling a bit lost with it. Is 12 pt considered double spacing? I mean, I guess it depends on what you're actually looking at—whether we're talking about font size or line spacing—but if you're asking if a 12 pt font automatically means you have double spacing set up, the answer is probably no. In most standard American word processors, like Microsoft Office, those are two completely different settings. You can have a 12 pt font with single spacing, or even tight spacing, and it wouldn't be "double" at all. It’s a bit of a nuanced distinction, I suppose, but usually, when someone asks about double spacing, they're referring to the paragraph settings rather than the point size of the characters themselves. I mean, I can certainly figure out how to set up any given range, but I’m honestly second-guessing myself on what twelve actually represents—it feels like it should be a double, but I guess I could be wrong about that.

When we talk about creating double spacing between paragraphs, what we’re really talking about is hitting the enter key twice at the end of a block of text. It’s a simple enough concept, I suppose—if you have your font set to size 12, then that gap effectively measures out as 12 points. However, if you happen to be working with much larger text—say, a massive size 48 header—then that space scales accordingly to become 48. It might seem like a minor technicality, but I guess it's worth keeping in mind when you're trying to maintain a consistent layout. 🙂

Arthur Ramirez20 said:Does anyone happen to know how to set up a bookmark in Word and then actually make sure it functions correctly when you export the file to a PDF? I'm trying to figure out the best way to ensure those links actually work once the document is converted.

It really all boils down to how "smart" the software you’re using to generate that PDF actually is—it’s a bit of a toss-up, I guess. If you're using something high-end like Acrobat, it handles things quite nicely and converts those bookmarks into functional hyperlinks without much fuss. But if the program is subpar? Well, then you might be out of luck.

Samuel Palmer8 said:I suppose I’ll try to pull this off in Microsoft Word using an image—once I see if it actually works, I'll let you know the results. 🙂

Don't do it. Trust me—you really don't want to go down that road. 🙂.

Honestly, any raster graphics program can handle a task like this—even MS Paint could pull it off if you don't mind lacking predefined shapes. But, I guess it’s just much smarter, more efficient, and frankly easier to just grab the basics of a real tool and get the job done right there.

No, I really wouldn't recommend using Paint—trust me on this one, you definitely don't want to go down that road. 🙂.

Arthur Turner said:There really ought to be some sort of clear discount when you're bundling five or more Microsoft Office packages, but—for some reason—they don't actually bother to specify what that savings looks like anywhere on the page.

Have you tried basically "faking" the checkout process—you know, just clicking through until you hit that final step right before you actually pay—to see if the total reflects a lower price?

Chloe Green61 said:When someone starts posting absolute nonsense and trolling in a thread about potential pregnancy...

Good grief, don't be so literal. 🤣

Forget about adding the "am I pregnant?" tag 🙂 — look, just yesterday there was a thread titled "Are you sending spicy texts?" and I posted some sort of joke in there, and I don't see anything wrong with that — especially since you can't really equate it to a one-liner in a serious and rather exhausting Domestos-debate.

Not every topic should be approached the same way, obviously.

Weren't you just criticizing me for advocating for exactly that kind of thing a moment ago? 😁

Look, if something doesn't sit right with me, I can easily handle it: I just leave (whether it's for a little while, a long time, or forever) and that's that. It's perfectly clear to me that—to put it mildly—it might not be the smartest move for me to show up on Psychology, even if it's not that I don't have anything to contribute. Personally, I don't view it as my loss, and certainly not a loss for Psychology.

Chloe Green61 said:Are you being serious? So, does that mean you just ignore the non-serious stuff, or do you actually believe rules only apply to "serious" topics—meaning only examples from those specific threads count as valid "proof"?

Two things here: first off, every single one of my supposed "trolling" attempts at least has the intention of being entertaining, witty, or funny—I have never once posted something along the lines of, "look at me, I'm important so I can do whatever I want."

Second, you're right: I do believe that a thread where hundreds of posts contain genuinely valuable insights—and for the hundredth time, not that I'm talking about my own sentences—should probably be governed by different standards than a thread titled, "I sent him a text saying 'ugh, what would I do to you,' and he didn't reply, am I pregnant?" I keep bringing up what soccer players call a "referee's sense of the game," which is often the very thing that determines whether a match is even watchable. Not to mention, the "gap in the discussion" caused by your completely erroneous intervention (which you admitted to, and for which a card was ultimately issued) is far greater than any gap created by some supposed "local messing around." By the way, moderator "warnings" like "we decided this should be a serious discussion" can only ever result in one response: "well, if you've decided that, then why don't you two go ahead and have the discussion yourselves?" 🙂

Of course, Dad will start claiming again that I'm just trying to protect some "friends" of mine—by the way, regarding my ex, I only mentioned that I "care about her" specifically to preempt any idiots who might label my intervention as mere cronyism; on a topic where I have been exposed, I 🙄 stood up for a female forum member who, mind you, isn't even among those so-called "my friends"—so what does that get me? Nothing, obviously.

Why is it so incredibly difficult for people to believe that someone might write something for purely general reasons, without any personal ulterior motives? Has nothing like this ever happened in your lives? It's honestly a little pathetic.

Chloe Green61 said:Give me a break. What was there even to talk about? You’re posing this hypothetical scenario as if we haven't just spent an eternity dissecting the exact same thing over PMs.

I am telling you again—I was trying to explain to Sasha the fundamental distinction between my off-topic rambling and the specific post I quoted. I’ve written extensively about this long before the "Expectations" era; there is actually a common metaphor used back home about tending to a vineyard where people stop here and there, grab a glass of wine, and then get back to work.

At the end of the day, can you honestly come up with a single plausible reason why I would fabricate what I wrote and how I wrote it?

Byron, quit trolling me and the rest of the mods and users—don't act like you're being perfect. Every once in a while you troll on LJS and nobody even bats an eye.

I find this incredibly insulting.
In fact, I’m challenging you right now to point out a single such post of mine: one serious thread where my only contribution is a complete waste of space—a blatant "just because I can" moment at the level of some mindless teenager.

Chloe Green61 said:Oh, I see—so certain people contribute high-quality content to specific threads, and because they do, they should get a free pass to mess around a little bit within those same threads? Why shouldn't they, if their contributions were so valuable in the first place? Why shouldn't we let everyone else actually read that good stuff without having to wade through what is essentially just an endless, rambling chat? Give me one good reason, 🤷

Maybe it’s because we are all here on this forum by choice, looking to entertain ourselves and others? Or perhaps it’s because, even when dealing with something serious, a person occasionally needs to take a breather? For crying out loud, even at some small-town wedding reception in the Midwest, the band is going to take a break and have a few drinks now and then. 🙂

Chloe Green61 said:Wait, I missed this, but this is clearly a thread about expectations.

🤦

Come on, just look at the context for a second. This isn't even remotely about a thread regarding expectations.

Regarding my "specific inquiry"—to which, by the way, I still haven't received a straight answer 🙄—whether that post was trolling or not... well, Sasha claimed that I also have a mountain of such unauthorized posts. What you are quoting here is a complete distortion of the context in which I was explaining to him why—and how—I would want him to find even a single such post of mine, so that I wouldn't have to point out that he's making things up (which, incidentally, he couldn't do); this quote is simply my explanation of how my off-topic remarks differ from that low-effort "hey, respond to me" type of nonsense, and it has absolutely nothing to do with you or "Expectations." Sometimes, you really are unnecessarily rushed to judgment.

Chloe Green61 said:The other participants—these self-proclaimed "guardians" of the topic who decided the discussion was exhausted and that nobody else had anything left to contribute because they had supposedly covered everything—are now unilaterally granting themselves the right to dictate how the rest of the thread proceeds. That simply isn't allowed.

Why go this route? 😕

There is no such thing as "self-proclaimed" anyone here—on this forum, it’s pretty obvious who is actually "carrying" a thread.

Nobody "concluded" anything, and certainly, nobody concluded that "there is nothing more to add"—prescribing who gets to write what, and where, would be the absolute height of arrogance and condescension. And no one even "initiated the rest of the thread"—if anything, the topic just continued to spin a bit longer after all this (entirely unnecessary) dust was kicked up.

I still haven't received an answer to my question: how, exactly, does a few unserious posts prevent someone from making a serious point?

And this business about "blind protection," especially the blatant fabrication that I am advocating for the tolerance of insults toward anyone (including the moderators, of course), is a complete falsehood—why even bother with such lies? 😢

cosmicskipper39 said:I hate having to quote this—but after yesterday’s link and the absolute verbal assault one user endured, I find it exhausting that you all are still pushing for punishments today.

Honestly, where on earth are you getting this idea? How could you possibly conclude that anyone here is actually looking for people to be punished?

hollowtrucker77 said:I mean, is it actually crazy to think that things might work out with him? I guess I'm just wondering if he’s even worth the trouble at this point—maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like such a gamble.
😁
Forgive me, but I honestly couldn't help myself—I just had to laugh at this one.

Here’s a little more material for your amusement: I honestly find myself wondering—perhaps I’m just being overly cynical here—but is anyone else actually seeing what’s happening with this entire situation? It feels like we are constantly circling the same drain, and frankly, I’m getting a bit tired of the repetitive nature of these debates. I was reading some of the points brought up by Jesse Sanchez4 earlier, and while I can see where they are coming from, I think the logic is fundamentally flawed—if that makes any sense. It’s one thing to look at the surface level, but if you actually dig into the underlying mechanics of how these policies are being implemented in the US, the cracks start to show pretty quickly. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems to me that we are ignoring the most obvious variable in the equation. And then there is the matter of what Jason Morgan mentioned regarding the recent shifts in the market. It’s all very well and good to talk about long-term stability, but when you consider the immediate volatility we’ve been seeing in major hubs like Chicago or even New York, it becomes difficult to maintain that kind of optimism. It’s almost a bit absurd, isn't it? We act as if these fluctuations are temporary glitches rather than systemic issues. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. People tend to prefer a comfortable lie over a messy truth—it’s just human nature, I guess. But I refuse to sit here and pretend everything is functioning according to plan when it clearly isn't. We need to stop dancing around the issue and actually address the elephant in the room before the whole thing becomes irreparable.

Jim is back—where on earth has he been hiding? 😍

I honestly think it would be only fair if you actually gave Sasha some credit... you little rascal. 😁

Give me a call, would you? I’ve come down with a nasty case of the flu... 🙂

p.s. Sasha 🙂

To be honest, I don't find this funny at all—not even when you factor in the "reputation cost" that comes with dealing with all these brawlers, trolls, lawyers, and whatever else passes for discourse these days. Just like how nobody could actually provide me with a single valid example regarding my "hey, buddy" post, I highly doubt you’ll ever find an instance of this kind of blatant, finger-in-the-eye intervention from any other moderator. The second one. The moderator. Wisdom is a rare commodity—truly. It seems that in this day and age, people are far more interested in being loud than being right. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, though; common sense isn't exactly a mass-produced item in America. One has to look much deeper than the surface to find any semblance of actual insight..

I was actually referring to posts—when I mentioned things similar to your recent outbursts, I meant your actual posts. Where exactly do you think you’re going? You really don't belong here. You’re playing lawyer again—which is exactly why I already gave you a warning about this behavior. You might think your posts qualify as "serious discourse," but in reality, they’re just disruptive. Honestly, they caused more of a headache than that pathetic, pedantic one-liner you're even trying to defend right now.

You didn't exactly "warn" me—if we’re being honest—you were just being your usual, unnecessarily abrasive self, and frankly, you were making threats. But fine, let's go ahead and actually dive into this much-vaunted "legal advocacy" of yours.

So, I guess I have to ask—why exactly is this supposed "advocacy" such a catastrophic, terrifying problem? And let me be clear: I’m talking about engaging with the Board of Directors outside of specific complaints regarding the card rulings. Seriously, why is it considered fundamentally bad if someone chooses to participate in a debate in a meaningful, serious way? What vital, sacred thing could possibly be endangered by that? Furthermore, who actually gets to decide—and based on what authority, exactly—who belongs here and who doesn't? In the specific instance of your "warning," we were dealing with my own rather blunt intrusion, which was met by an intervention from some moderator who had absolutely nothing to do with the Board or the actual topic at hand. She addressed me in a manner that was, frankly, quite condescending and completely out of line. On whose authority? By what criteria is she entitled to step in, while I am apparently deemed unworthy because of a few threats?

Aggressive self-advocacy is essentially an elementary, "self-preservation" tactic—you know, a way to prevent outside interference just so people don't find it easier to target someone who’s already isolated.

I’m telling you—and I feel like I’m just shouting into the void here—the way you go about things is completely inconsistent, and frankly, that kind of erratic behavior is toxic for this forum.

Some guy popping up out of nowhere with a "smart-ass one-liner" during a serious debate—it’s honestly just incredibly disruptive.

The people driving this discussion are more than welcome to take a breather over in one of the other chat threads—honestly, they should—but they certainly don't have any right to derail a serious, high-quality debate like this one. Not when, as you so rightly pointed out, they’ve gone and completely sabotaged the whole thing through their own antics.

I actually went back and forth with some of the LJS moderators about this following that whole "Expectations" thread. I didn't get a single coherent answer to my question regarding how exactly a few unserious posts can somehow ruin a "serious and high-quality discussion". I’m genuinely curious here—in what specific way does that stop someone else from writing the greatest post in the history of this forum? And more importantly, why would the very "drivers of the conversation" spit on the image they painted themselves and then proceed to trash the thread with constant trolling?

that implies people who are dear to you won't receive any special protection...

First off, this persistent tendency to turn every debate into a personal attack is just insulting. Is it truly impossible for you to conceive that someone might write something simply to make the forum a "better place," rather than necessarily making it better for them? I’ve compared this forum to a mountain lodge a few times now: imagine there's a door that squeaks incessantly, driving everyone crazy—well, I guess I’m the guy that some random group will take pleasure in mocking just because he finally decides to bring some damn WD40 and spend a single minute of his life making things more comfortable for everyone.

It’s creaking, folks, it is creaking loud and clear...

Edit: As far as I'm concerned, feel free to lock it; I really don't mind.

hollowtrucker77 said:Now, I don't follow you, Nicholas King—was that supposed to be a rhetorical question?
Because you’ve made similar outbursts yourself recently, and none of them resulted in any sanctions.

Please, I am asking you—find just one single instance of such a "similar outburst" from me. One where I pivot from nowhere into a deadly serious topic without having contributed a single substantive post, only to drop a single sentence like that. Just one. I am being quite serious here; otherwise, I will feel justified in calling you out for simply making things up.

It is an entirely different matter when, after perhaps ten pages of a serious and—dare I say—actually high-quality debate, a few participants in that discussion need to take a breather and post a couple of snarky comments (none of which are low-brow nonsense, mind you, but rather just lighthearted or random—and I am certainly not referring to my own posts) before either continuing or letting the thread die. Honestly, even prisoners get their recreation time; surely one can take a momentary break on an online forum. 🙂

What I quoted here is a blatant slap in the face—essentially a little power trip, a way of saying, "Yeah, buddy, I've got connections, I can do whatever I want." It is incredibly obvious, regardless of how much they try to hush it up. And frankly, it does quite a bit to undermine that constant, repetitive mantra about everyone being held to the same set of rules.

Arthur Turner said:I was wondering if anyone here has any actual experience or intel regarding this site where you can order software (in this case, Office 2010) — http://thesoftshops.com/?

Just take a look at this.

Wouldn't a 70% discount 😲 on a Microsoft product (meaning, someone else's property) — being offered by a party you're sending cash to electronically — be a massive red flag rather than some incredible business opportunity? I mean, seriously... can you even begin to conceive of a single logical reason why such a steep discount would be valid specifically with them and nobody else?

but look, how this is playing out—there's going to be bans, so I’d most politely request that everyone just get back to regular forum posting; let's just reconvene here once some concrete issue actually crystallizes, something we can actually provide a concrete answer to.

I don't doubt there will be bans, or that this will (once again) be dismissed as being due to "personal reasons," but we'll survive.

So, whether it's on the Amtrak forums or elsewhere, people are increasingly asking what actually qualifies as trolling. There was a thread I quoted—which contained two posts that somehow escaped being flagged—that was closed without any response at all. What I am most seriously and genuinely interested in knowing is whether a post consisting of the sentence "Prile, you really nailed it, everything is exactly where it should be, just like it ought to be, yeah 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏", when placed in a serious discussion, counts as trolling or not. I mean, since it wasn't sanctioned—not even edited or deleted—one might assume it isn't, but I think having a specific, definitive answer would be useful for anyone trying to understand the actual definition of trolling.

I'll survive the bans and the thread closures and all that (though I do think it would be unfair, and honestly a sign of certain weakness, to use a combination of "banning plus deleting threads" to then tell everyone else not to stick their noses into things they aren't supposed to see), but more than anything, I would truly love to know if I am allowed—should my ban ever expire—to drop into a serious thread and write that exact same sentence without being punished for it.

Chloe Green61 said:Do you honestly grasp how this comes across—as if you're essentially campaigning to protect certain forum members while maintaining an incredibly biased, one-sided perspective on the community as a whole?

I mentioned "reputation" specifically as a piece of evidentiary material used within Persephone's story—so, I suppose, one should logically apply that same standard consistently even when a user's "reputation" is actually working in their favor—just to highlight how utterly absurd the whole concept is. But, since you went ahead and admitted yourself that you "screw up sometimes," I guess that’s enough for me. 🙂

So, what you're actually asking me—if I follow your train of thought correctly—is whether you're suggesting that we shouldn't treat every single person on these forums with the same level of scrutiny, or if, perhaps, we ought to be looking much more closely at everyone? It’s a bit of a nuanced question, I suppose—though I suspect you might be oversimplifying the entire dilemma.

I view this entire situation through the lens of airline loyalty programs—you know, the whole deal with frequent flyer statuses and tiered rewards. I won't go into an exhaustive breakdown of how or why that comparison fits, as I think the analogy speaks for itself. At this point, I'm not even talking about direct insults—that would be "the other side of the coin"—but rather the behavior of one specific administrator. While the others maintain themselves, this one individual feels the need to tell users they are "shitting the bed" or "sticking their noses where they don't belong." To me, that is just as insulting, and frankly, I can't wrap my head around why anyone would do it. I see absolutely no necessity for it, nor does it offer any tangible benefit when addressing people in a conversation. Look, regardless of how clearly defined a forum's hierarchy might be, it isn't a military chain of command. We aren't recruits expected to drop and give us fifty while some drill sergeant screams profanities in our faces.

I’ll say it again—this simply isn't good for the forum.

And I mean, I think you’ve seen it yourself—conditionally speaking—that we tend to allow some pretty high-quality off-topic discussions when they come from the real heavyweights around here.

I can only agree with that to a very, very limited extent—if I’m being honest. It would probably take me quite some time to dig up specific examples to prove my point, but there were plenty of instances that were just glaringly obvious and, frankly, completely unnecessary.

They truly don't see—no, they really, genuinely don't see—even if you handed them direct access to the moderator tools and the admin credentials on a silver platter.

What we have right here is more than enough to draw some calm, level-headed conclusions—really. There isn't some sort of "invisible" context lurking in the shadows that could suddenly shed new or different light on any of these specific examples. I mean, I guess you could argue otherwise if you wanted to be difficult, but honestly? What’s on the table is what it is.

briskeagle39 said:I mean, there's really no point in wasting any amount of time, effort, or resources 🤣

It’s not even the main point, but just so we’re clear: crafting a meaningful post takes mere minutes. Actually, scratch that—it takes a lifetime plus a few extra minutes.

If you're going to try and pin some kind of "lofty motivation for writing" on me, then I guess you have some serious issues grasping what I actually wrote.