Posts by Nicholas King

velvettiger10 said:Look, I’ll make you a promise right now: from here on out, my corner of this site is going to be strictly black and white, and there will be absolutely no off-topic nonsense allowed. I'm done looking the other way or playing nice. If you break the rules, you get banned. Period. 🙂

Will that finally satisfy you?

The issue isn't actually the off-topic posts on LJES. Of course, they’re fine—provided they stay interesting, funny, or engaging, and—more importantly—kept within reasonable limits.

I fully intend to allow myself some off-topic banter in threads where I’ve put in the work with serious posts—you know, like digging through the weeds and then taking a breather with a drink. It’s just a way to unwind after the heavy lifting. Similarly, I’d be more than happy to read someone else's witty, entertaining, or casual off-topic remarks; honestly, I think any attempt to suppress that kind of content just ends up stripping the forum of its soul.

The real issue, however, lies in the failure to restrain insults, hatred, and pure ugliness.

Take two threads as polar opposites: "Literacy" and "Gay/Bi." On the "Literacy" thread, everything that needed to be said was covered—thoroughly, relatively calmly, and with actual arguments—and now it’s moved on to "Sports and Music." I dare say it would be a real shame for the entire PDF community if we just cut all those discussions short. On the other hand, in the "Gay/Bi" thread, once the main points were settled, things devolved into vile comments (using that "both sides" logic, if you catch my drift)—comments that are repulsive in their own right and completely off-topic—yet, absolutely nothing is done about it.

With that kind of "moderation," you might as well be playing angelic music for a guy who claimed "the thread won't be shut down because it would be politically incorrect to kill a discussion about homosexuals. What kind of intolerance would that be?".

There is a fundamental lack of "tactical intuition"—that’s what I keep saying. 🙂

reddriver35 said:Uncle Byron, where did your avatar go? 🙂

My identity is defined by my words, nothing more.

Right now, there are 31 different usernames floating around that include the word "scarlet." A few of those are variations of Scarlett O'Hara—some with the apostrophe, some without. Well, one of those Scarlets just popped up, started a new thread, and now you’re left sitting there, scratching your head, trying to figure out that it isn't actually "the" Scarlett you were looking for.

Honestly, I think it's just plain ridiculous.

Megan White4 said:...that Steven Ruiz, in an attempt to spin the narrative and stop the users from the photography sub-forum from lobbying to have my permanent ban lifted, leaked a private message intended solely for her. Granted, the tone of the message was somewhat sharp, but then again, it seems many people these days mistake plain truth and sarcasm for insults. ☕

Since I’ve already written quite a bit regarding my disapproval of her publishing things about the President, it feels only right to add this: your text isn't "biting" or "sarcastic"—it's just loaded with disgusting insults that have absolutely nothing to do with how someone chooses to interpret them. I don't see any wit or sarcasm in throwing around references to morons and mental institutions.

cosmictinker21 said:Look, sorry, but if someone starts messing with you in the DMs—harassing you privately, being a total nuisance, weaponizing your personal info just to take verbal cheap shots whenever they feel like it, and worse, spreading blatant lies behind your back to other members who then join in on the stalking and bullying until you can't even pretend to be "cool" or indifferent anymore... what's actually left for you to do?

1. ping the mods

2. contact the admins

3. escalate to the site owners

4. if none of that works:

4.1. just keep taking whatever garbage gets sent to your inbox, while having zero clue who is actually sending it

4.2. go ahead and blast it out to everyone so they know there’s one idiot, or maybe a whole group of them, treating this kind of behavior like a hobby, and let everyone know exactly who they are...

I'd much rather be labeled rude, hysterical, or immoral than sit here and let myself be bullied indefinitely, sorry not sorry. People who get why I'm doing this will understand. As for those who don't... well, either they truly don't care, or they're actually enjoying the chaos themselves. 🤷

I am not playing games here.😍

You don't exactly need a formal announcement from the President just to point out that an idiot exists.

And honestly, I have my doubts that Steven Ruiz actually handled all those steps—1, 2, 3, and so on... 🙂

Sam Green73 said:Exactly. The smart people just back down, and then we wonder why idiots are running the country.

🤦
I’m still struggling to see what exactly Steven Ruiz did wrong here.

And in America, they beat up Black people.

Honestly, I’m sorry, but this just sounds like adolescent rhetoric to me—I really can't engage with that. It's all very "viva la revolution!!!" which, frankly, is exhausting. Not to mention—if we're being honest—that comparison has absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually discussing here. The country is run by whoever happens to be in charge, and that isn't because some "smart" person decided to cave; it's simply because they won the election...

I still don't quite grasp what exactly Steven Ruiz did wrong.

The President posted it. She could have—or arguably should have—reported him to a higher authority, gotten him fired, and moved on with her life. That would have been it.

Sam Green73 said:Same level?
I think we're missing each other here.

Look, let's set the nuances aside for a second—that whole logic of "he sent insults, so I have a right to be rude too" just isn't my cup of tea.

We could sit here counting angels on the head of a pin until tomorrow, but the reality remains: Steven Ruiz missed a colossal opportunity to effectively bury "the other side"—sometimes, I suppose, a simple, plain admission of a mistake is actually the deadliest weapon you can wield. If you do that, the opponent is left standing alone on the "battlefield," looking pretty damn pathetic.

Sam Green73 said:That is such a perfect example.
But what if Marina didn't agree to that wild night in the first place?
What do we call that then?
Oh, right... rape.
And is Marina allowed to tell anyone about that night?

Honestly, I get a good laugh out of people who hide behind these arbitrary rules of "internet etiquette."
If someone goes out of their way to send insults via email or a DM, they've already tossed any claim to politeness out the window.
In my book, it's actually the responsibility of whoever receives those messages to make them public.
It's just like with rape; you have to help prevent it from happening again.
Still, I totally get why some people might feel too uncomfortable to go that route.

No. I disagree. The responsibility of the recipient is to sanction those messages—that is, to ensure they are actually penalized.

Someone sending insults via email or direct message has essentially forfeited any claim to being polite in advance.

The problem is, when you react at that same level, "in the end, you can't tell who's the pig and who's the human." 🙂

BTW, your attempt at paraphrasing the example was a complete disaster—from the role reversal onwards, it just didn't work.

Douglas Cook9 said:Honestly, you all really stepped in it together this time.
Look, we all know people say some pretty wild stuff during a heated argument just to get a reaction, but once the momentum starts, there’s no stopping it.
If high-ranking politicians can smirk and say, "Maybe it isn't fair, but it's legal," then we shouldn't be shocked when moderators cling to the letter of the law—even when those rules are ridiculous or things they basically made up themselves. This whole mess started over one single image (the fifth one in a row), and let's be real, it feels incredibly unfair to play stickler for the rules when that rule wouldn't even have been broken if things were handled differently on another sub-forum.
Speaking of photography, it’s pretty pathetic that in a place where visuals are everything—and honestly should be hosted in its own dedicated photo section—this specific shot was completely nuked.
It also felt totally shady how they aggressively enforced the rule against a fifth image, especially since the same moderator defending it would go write on a different part of the site that multiple images are perfectly fine. It's the same story with the resolution limits; they used to claim nothing could be larger than 640x480, only for us to find out certain sections allow 800x600, and even then, getting that rule updated in the photo guidelines was an uphill battle.
And honestly, leaking private messages is just tacky. It's bad taste, plain and simple, especially when that content was meant for one person only.
Since everyone involved has gone overboard here, the best move would be to bury the hatchet, make up after the PM drama 😁 and just lift the ban.
Why? Because Megan White4 actually wrote quality stuff that added real value to the site.

@Steven Ruiz, you’d really show what you're made of if you just stepped up in this thread, said "lift the ban," and settled this once and for all.

Well, I suppose that President would—quite frankly—be absolutely obligated to make a public announcement about it. 🤣

Michelle Wilson8 said:I just wanted to take a second to say how much I appreciate everyone who stepped up to support this fight🙂
And honestly, my thanks go out to those who didn't show up for me too👎
A huge shoutout to the moderators for everything they do👍
And hey, thanks to all the agitators and troublemakers as well🤣
(seriously, lord, I told you "watch and learn"😍)

Look, I already told you—you’re being immature.

All those little clichés about "us versus them," winning, losing, all that self-congratulatory posturing, the ego trips and stuff... honestly, it all feels incredibly middle school. I don't even grasp what I'm supposed to be learning from that—or why, for that matter. I came here to discuss a fundamental principle, not to engage in some petty competition over who has the bigger ego.

At the end of the day, mocking someone who actually went out of their way to support you on a matter they have zero personal stake in—well, that actually says quite a lot about your character.

Don't mention it. And try to do better next time. ☕

Jose White18 said:Per editorial instructions, it’s either one or none. Besides, chat is strictly prohibited by the rules, though we might occasionally tolerate a single chat thread.

2) On what basis are all three moved? They are labeled strictly as "chat" topics, yet anyone reading them can clearly see they aren't just small talk; people are discussing very specific issues like being a mistress, infidelity, or an adulteress.

How are those considered chats? 🤦

3) How many regulars can be on a chat topic, and how many new people need to join within what timeframe before it's declared a "closed group"?

Do you honestly think there's an exact definition for that? Do you really think we have to reach a consensus on such a judgment?

4) IF they actually meet objective criteria for being chats, why were all three removed at once, despite having totally different lengths, subjects, and communication styles?

There is no reason to remove them in the order they were created, nor is any one thread more significant than the others to warrant staying while others go. It wouldn't be right to show favoritism to one side over the rest.

5) Where did this need for a violent, aggressive, and baseless intervention come from? These threads worked perfectly fine for years, drew people in, and ultimately helped them.

A violent and aggressive intervention would have been closing those chats entirely.

Because.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. It feels somewhat futile to debate whether this constitutes aggression without any prior warning or official notice (my apologies if there actually was a warning and I simply missed it, though I doubt it), making such a drastic, sudden cut. To my mind, it feels forceful, though I wouldn't necessarily label it aggressive—but then again, that’s largely beside the point.

The reality remains, however, that this is an completely unnecessary reaction. One has to wonder: what exactly is going to be better, smoother, or more intelligent on ZUD because of this? What is the actual, tangible benefit of such a move?

And then there's the lingering question of how one is supposed to start any Topic involving one of those three subjects without it being interpreted as "aha, here they go again, trolling," only to face sanctions?

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Steven Ruiz said:Actually, sending private messages isn't against the rules here (except on a few specific sub-forums), though sharing someone's private info like their full name or anything like that is definitely a no-go...
The DM mentioned above didn't actually contain any private details at all, unless you count the sender being a bit rude...

@observer, the sender hasn't been penalized, and the administrator hasn't been asked to take any action against them either...
That said, we have definitely handed out punishments before for people sending weird or offensive DMs on the forum...

Beyond the official bans and the rulebook, there are these other... unwritten norms that we all generally follow.

I mean, if George spends a wild night with Marina, there isn't some legal statute preventing him from giving the guys at the bar a play-by-play of everything they did—but somehow, it just feels wrong, doesn't it? 🙂

Generally speaking, sharing something private—something said or done "off the record"—just isn't right (regardless of whether there was a formal rule against it or not). In this specific case, the post was pretty much unnecessary, and the real mess is that because of your position, you're sending a message to everyone else here that says, "Watch out, we can leak any message we feel like."

It’s honestly a shame that you reduce your own responsibility to some bureaucratic "ban card" checkbox instead of just looking at the situation from a human perspective. As far as I know, it’s still free, and it shouldn't hurt too much to say, "Damn, I messed up, I got provoked, I'm sorry." I don't quite understand why you aren't able to write that simple sentence. Here, you can just copy and paste mine; you don't even have to type it. 🙂

Alex Barnes8 said:It's right there in the rules. I read them recently. 😛
Even if it isn't in the latest update, you haven't just joined the forum yesterday.
There was even a case here recently where someone got banned for posting a private message.😉
I find it hard to believe most users know it's against the rules while you, the administrator, somehow don't.🙄
I suppose you know it's forbidden, but maybe you're just playing dumb to protect your colleague Steven Ruiz.🙂

In my book, that kind of thing—whether it's leaking emails or any other private correspondence—is just wrong. Regardless of whether the rules technically forbid it or not, it's plain rude and completely uncultured (no matter what the actual message says).

If she had apologized for posting it but stood her ground regarding the ban, she might have at least kept some dignity. But the way this played out? It was honestly just embarrassing for everyone involved.

velvettrucker52 said:It’s quite generous of you all to volunteer such an abundance of evidence for the moderators, documenting the very mindless chatter you’re being blamed for. :glances in disbelief:

If nothing else, out of pure gratitude, they really ought to reinstate you. 😬

Take a page out of the hyena's book; she certainly knows how to "fight her battles"... even when she's destined to lose them.

I second that.

This isn't particularly bright, if I'm being honest. Neither this behavior nor the constant trolling on the ZUD. I realize it probably gives you that little rush of satisfaction—much like when you were back in school acting out just to push a teacher's buttons—but all you're really doing is handing ammunition to the very people who removed you in the first place. If there is any way to (perhaps) see this through to a resolution, it would be by remaining calm and patient.

As I understand it, there seems to be some sort of forum hierarchy at play here which—I assume—is slow-moving, much like any other hierarchy, yet ultimately reachable. Otherwise, well, there are plenty of other forums out there.

restlessharbor5 said:🙏🙏🙏

Trojčica? 😁

Steven Clark2 said:Before we implement this prohibition—which, in my humble opinion, is a sound idea—perhaps we could consider something like this first:

Any form of sending unsolicited information, harassment, provocation, or insults to other members via private message is strictly prohibited.

Believe it or not, some American forums even enforce permanent bans if a member constantly harasses, insults, or provokes another user through PP messages. 😲

In addition to this rule, I believe the most constructive step would be to establish a robust reporting system for problematic private messages. This would allow more people (specifically, the editorial team) to review the problematic content, ensuring that decisions regarding such messages and the users who send them are handled fairly and thoroughly.

I honestly believe that less regulation is always better. It’s a massive gray area—I mean, what one person considers "unsolicited info or harassment" is entirely subjective... for instance, I personally get bombarded with data about phone numbers, bra sizes, and all sorts of nonsense. That's pretty disturbing to me, too. 😍

cosmictinker21 said:Wait, what on earth was that??? Go ask the author for permission right now! I need to know, I absolutely musssttt...🤣

I already asked. He says nom. 😁

cosmictinker21 said:That would actually be great! Though, I have a feeling it wouldn't do much good against the bad actors. They’d just reject the whole idea of posting anything, then claim they aren't guilty by making up some excuse about how it's a private matter and they won't allow any public oversight into their personal business. They’d kick up such a massive fuss, something along the lines of: "Who do they think they are, sticking their noses into my private correspondence? Everyone knows I'm an upright, blameless citizen. I won't allow it. I couldn't care less what people think, blah, blah..." And then, acting all nonchalant, they play the principled hero who refuses to let anyone peek at their "privacy." Meanwhile, they'll round up a mob of opportunists and sycophants to cover their tracks... those types would rather cause a scene than just admit: "Yeah, I'm a total jerk, sorry."🤷

The crux of the matter is that instances like this are incredibly rare—but then again, personally, I find the publication (or even just the retelling) of the President's private business to be utterly unacceptable.

Not everyone necessarily needs to be privy to that whole mess involving the pokemon-bokserieca and those teddy bears. 🤣

Brenda Cooper3 said:Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
why on earth did you guys ban me!???? 🙂
🙂

It’s actually incredibly easy—just head over to Reddit, find the LGBTQ+ threads, and you'll have everything sorted out in about ten minutes. 🙂

Carl Robinson6 said:Honestly, Ryan, I didn't expect such whining and defeatism from you!

This is nothing more than unargued tyranny and thinly veiled intolerance.
ZUD doesn't belong to the moderators.
The forum exists for the users, not the mods.

And forum rules aren't the Ten Commandments; they shouldn't be set in stone.

In reality—if we are being completely honest here—the forum exists because of the money.