Posts by Jason Morgan

I usually show up to moderate while I'm a little tipsy, which explains why I’m frequently found on a bender. People tend to assume I’m just some bitter, high-strung old hag, when in reality, I simply spent my college years studying philosophy. 😕

There are moments when the entire moderator-supermod-admin crew decides to throw a little party; they all huddle over their computers in their respective dark, secluded corners, playing some sort of digital game of Rock-Paper-Scissors via Skype to see which forum member responds first to a specific thread—and if you're the unlucky soul who replies first, you get banned.

And then there are the times when users complain about being issued warnings, prompting the admins to wipe them out, or even instances where we moderators step in ourselves to request that those assigned penalties be rescinded. Honestly, it’s quite the spectacle.

Timothy Robinson2 said:I don't know, this sounds like a perfectly polite question to me. Are we really at the point where asking something like that is a punishable offense? If so, I’m doing just fine.

The thing is, while the question might be polite, it's still off-topic and has nothing to do with the specific subject being discussed. If you want to have a debate about that, just start a new thread. Why derail an existing one?

William Cooper11 said:I've never had any desire to become a moderator, but I've always believed that someone in that role needs to be independent when interpreting the rules. Since accusing someone of trolling is such a slippery slope, moderators really ought to think twice before handing out a ban.

Moderators should indeed think twice precisely because trolling is such a gray area, but sometimes it's incredibly obvious. As dustyranger64 pointed out, users often wrap up a massive amount of condescending vitriol toward anyone who disagrees with them inside the label of "just my opinion," all without offering a single shred of actual argument. That isn't inherently a crime, but in this context, it is. If you want to act like that, go find another forum without moderators and run wild. Why does everyone feel the need to leave their mark on this forum, no matter how messy it is?
Not every opinion is welcome, nor is an opinion wrapped in an inappropriate tone. It's not that I've been a mod for long or that I moderate anything particularly high-stakes, but I've personally handed out bans to people I actually agree with—and even posts I liked—simply because they were inappropriate or written with a mocking tone. That's what mods do; they exist to maintain the integrity of the forum. 😁

William Cooper11 said:The thread starter got banned by the moderator Herp, which isn't surprising if you consider her views on having children—views she laid out quite clearly in a post on a thread found in the USA archives, which I happened to stumble upon since I joined through that very same discussion.

It’s funny how, whenever they get banned, users immediately look for someone else to blame instead of looking in the mirror. 😁 Honestly, I would have issued that ban for trolling too; Herp has been moderating for a long time and is an excellent moderator. You jump into a conversation with "that's against God and unnatural," and by doing so without any real reasoning, you are indirectly insulting people and their life choices just because they don't align with yours. A civilized tone of discussion is essential.

Timothy Robinson2 said:I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head there, and frankly, that is precisely where the crux of the issue lies. It is far better to let a guilty party walk free than to accidentally convict an innocent one.

Even if an innocent person were wrongly judged, there are several higher authorities above the moderators that could ultimately overturn such a decision.

William Cooper11 said:In my estimation, issuing a warning for trolling is actually the most useful tool moderators have when they find themselves unable to restrain a user who—despite sticking to the topic and avoiding insults—insistently defends a viewpoint that runs contrary to the majority consensus through reasoned arguments.

Quite often, users get rather stubborn about defending their precious little opinions. However, for the moderators, maintaining order and a civil tone within a thread seems more vital than allowing someone to ruin the quality of a relatively productive discussion just to defend their stance. This isn't some private playground, after all.🤔

Frank Moore4 said:That simply isn't true! So, what you're suggesting is that I should remain silent and lie—effectively burying my own integrity—instead of speaking my mind and expressing my actual position?

Once again—not every opinion, no matter how it's packaged, is welcome in every single conversation or on every subject. How exactly did you substantiate your position, other than simply claiming "it is against God"? Where is the logic in that? That is merely a statement, devoid of any actual argument. In my view, there is no statement more insidious at inciting chaos, flame wars, and trolling than that.

Frank Moore4 said:By the way, your definition of trolling is fundamentally incorrect. What you described is more akin to flame war tactics than actual trolling. Trolling is the calculated, deceptive participation in a debate with the sole aim of sowing disorder, while outwardly pretending to be genuinely interested in the discussion.

Goodness, I am a woman. Furthermore, warnings are issued based on what appears problematic at first glance. Generally speaking, moderators don't possess the psychic ability to read minds.

William Cooper11 said:You might have a point there, but honestly, looking at things through that lens just makes any discussion feel sterile. It practically forces people to walk on eggshells just so nobody accidentally takes offense.

If you ask me, I’d reserve punishments strictly for blatant off-topic nonsense or direct personal attacks. As for my stance on trolling? Well, I'm not about to change my mind on that one.😉

And let's be honest—you know better than anyone that people pivot to trolling and off-topic chatter even when they aren't being overtly insulting or aggressive.😁

Whether it’s something you would moderate or something I would—well, that’s not really up for debate. It is what it is.

Timothy Robinson2 said:It’s really just an attempt by someone to make the conversation more engaging. They want to nudge those initial commenters to actually reflect on their own beliefs—to show them how that sense of faith in God can manifest as comfort, or perhaps even something much darker...

At the very worst, it's just off-topic.

It would only qualify as off-topic if the question had been phrased something like, "I have a question: since there isn't concrete evidence for the existence of God, doesn't that occasionally shake your faith?" In that case, it probably would have been deleted or sanctioned as off-topic. But saying, "You absolute narrow-minded idiots, who in their right mind still believes in God? 🤦" is certainly not a "positive provocation" designed to spark a productive debate—which, let's not forget, is the entire purpose of this forum. 😁 Mainly 😁

William Cooper11 said:The description of Person D is certainly provocative, but since there isn't an explicit personal insult involved, I don't think any sanctions should be applied.

Under our forum rules, provocation is strictly prohibited and subject to disciplinary action 🤷

And honestly, why on earth shouldn't it be sanctioned? The entire point of those kinds of comments is to steer the discussion down a completely wrong path—and usually, it’s a pretty heated one at that. You’d end up with five hardcore believers and five hardcore atheists clashing, hurling insults, poking at each other, and essentially derailing the whole thread into a massive off-topic mess.
It’s one thing to have a provocative take that actually moves the conversation forward in a constructive, on-topic way; it’s quite another to deal with this kind of malicious interjection designed solely to wreck a thread that was previously having a perfectly calm and productive flow.

In my view, the argument that "it wasn't an insult, so it's fine" just doesn't hold much water. >

Timothy Robinson2 said:P.S. - the crux of this grievance is simply to explain to the author why one shouldn't pair "nature" and "God" within the same sentence when merely expressing a personal opinion. It seems that point hasn't quite sunk in yet.

In truth, you have unilaterally decided—and honestly, I am at a loss as to why—that this specific instance hinges on that exact issue, which it absolutely does not.

Since people are perpetually complaining about being trolled and constantly begging for a definition, allow me to offer a rather splendid little litmus test:

Let us assume the topic concerns Christians and their relationship with God, featuring the following debaters:

A: God gives me strength.
B: I agree; prayer fortifies me for my daily life.
C: I feel God's hand guiding me through life, even without prayer.
B: Fair enough, though personally, I find prayer easier because... [various reasons]...
C: Understood, but I suspect prayer might lose its potency if it becomes too repetitive and constant.
D: How can anyone actually believe in God when there is absolutely zero evidence for His existence? 🙄

How would you characterize the input from Person D?

And what exactly is your definition of democracy, son? Just mindless babbling and insults thrown around without any rules or consequences whenever someone feels like it?

Claiming that "refusing to have children goes against divine law and isn't normal" isn't an opinion—it's textbook trolling. It’s nothing more than throwing fuel on a fire to provoke arguments that are completely off-topic and likely to spiral into personal attacks. Honestly, that is the most classic definition of trolling you'll ever find.

She’s heading straight to her GP to ask for a prescription for Ketonal or Knavon. 🤷 Personally, I wouldn't dream of messing around with unverified substances like that. 😳

Emily Kim67 said:Honestly, I mean, we really shouldn't even be debating this—it’s not as if any of us are completely lacking in common sense.

If you listen to what dustyranger64 says about how much people love to complain and nitpick over everything, you wouldn't believe it. 😁
Personally, I think it's better to be informed; one should always be prepared for the worst.

To old set of rules was actually written with a rather illogical structure, if I’m being honest. It stated what wasn't allowed, but then it just spiraled into an endless list of dos and don'ts. Their intention clearly wasn't to say that thinking twice was forbidden; it just ended up reading that way because you had to mentally attach "not permitted" to every single bullet point, yes yes. I can't even be certain if it was a deliberate little quirk meant to be charming or just a mistake 😬 But they've gone ahead and fixed it so there wouldn't be any more 😁

Ash, I decided to type "reloaded" using tildes because even I found it a bit much to write out in all caps—you know, like, HEY LOOK AT THESE NEW RULES OR WHATEVER. I figured this way they might actually be visible, or at least catch someone's eye. But honestly, if they don't, it doesn't really matter, since those extra rules are already being enforced anyway 🙂

Emily Kim67 said:It’s honestly hilarious how much we just don't get each other.😬
The new rules aren't "mean" or "bad" or whatever else you're implying. They're fine. Just because I preferred the old way doesn't mean the new way is inherently terrible—and I certainly haven't said anything so extreme that we need to start throwing punches.

I am genuinely sitting here trying to decipher what you’re actually complaining about or where exactly the logic is failing, but goodness knows I can't manage it. 🤣 It’s all a bit much for someone with a philosophy degree 😁

I don't know, I give up. 😁 Honestly, 😁

Thank you all, colleagues; I spent a good half hour polishing up the accessibility and formatting of 😍 and barely managed to squeeze in a viewing of the series before becoming 😳
Please, feel free to take the rules for yourselves.

Emily Kim67 said:Oh, please, don't try telling me otherwise when I know it's true.😠 Perhaps I was slightly shaken by what I thought I remembered regarding the forum culture and all the trolling, but I am one hundred percent certain—I would bet my life on it—that there was definitely something written about being "unwelcome" unless you think twice before becoming a member.

I feel you might be taking this a bit too seriously, 😕

The rules were simply rephrased because we needed to incorporate those few new ones that have actually been in effect for quite some time now but weren't officially documented; we’ve already listed them. As for your distress over the fact that the post looks different and the rules seem less approachable or "heartwarming"—honestly, I’m at a loss as to how I could possibly assist you with that, and I find it quite baffling that this is coming from you. Rules are rules, and their core essence remains identical.
If they bother you that much, then perhaps just don't read them.
If you aren't willing to join the forum simply because the rules—which you likely already know by heart anyway, as does most of the community—are written in a somewhat blunt tone and are currently sitting in a thread that very few people actually visit, then don't join; I truly don't know what else to say to you. 🤷 I hope you can see the absurdity of complaining about the unfriendly wording of subforum rules when, in their fundamental nature, nothing has changed.

I believe we have exhausted this particular topic. 🤷

Emily Kim67, everything that was part of the old rules remained untouched 😁. Literally. Every single sentence stayed exactly as it was. We simply added the necessary updates on top of them. Honestly, I'm not even sure when you last bothered to read the rules 😬
.
The word "reloaded" was included in the title specifically to grab everyone's attention and remind them about the guidelines—it's meant to make life easier for both us moderators and all of you, helping create a community filled with flowers and unicorns rather than one fueled by angry rants 😁.

Yeah, thanks for at least attempting to reply, but goodness, I don't know what to say to you people regarding this. It's a shame; you're actually decent folks otherwise.

I am still struggling to grasp your point: are you complaining because the rules aren't written in a "cute" way, or because trolling and chatty banter are no longer officially encouraged?
I shall say this one more time 🧐: the original rules, prior to last night's edit, have not been touched. We merely formalized the standards that were already being enforced on this subforum anyway, but weren't technically written down . There are no new rules.
As for whether the tone is "friendly" enough—no subforum really has "cute" rules, because, in my estimation, the objective is to explain things as clearly and concisely as possible. I suspect that dustyranger64 and I aren't exactly the types of people suited for drafting whimsical regulations 😳, and frankly, I think people would take them far less seriously if they were written as some sort of joke; besides, people barely follow them as it stands
.

I find myself once again contemplating the enigma that is Nina Williams. It is quite a curious thing, isn't it? One moment she is a figure of such calculated precision, and the next, she seems caught in a whirlwind of her own making. I suppose I tend to overanalyze these things—an occupational hazard, I suppose—but there is something undeniably striking about her presence. She carries herself with a certain gravity that demands attention, even if that attention is somewhat unearned by virtue of her rather... intense temperament. I often wonder if she realizes how much space she occupies in the collective consciousness of those who follow these matters. It’s a bit much, really, though I can certainly see the appeal for some. Chloe Green61 says:
Well, I must say, these new regulations caught me completely off guard—it felt like a direct hit to the chest. Honestly, Chloe Green61, where on earth were you when this was happening? You really should have been there to help me navigate this mess.😢

I have no soul left in me. I am nothing more than a wicked, crazed, utterly livid bitch, sent straight from the deepest pits of hell for the sole purpose of cleansing this forum. 🙂

I mean, let’s be perfectly serious for a moment—I simply updated the existing regulations. I didn't go rogue and invent them out of thin air, nor did I unilaterally implement them myself. 😁

The updated rules have officially been expanded to include a few much-needed restrictions. We’re now explicitly banning any commentary regarding moderation decisions made by the FBI, and there's a newfound emphasis on maintaining actual coherence and clarity in posts. Furthermore, we are strictly prohibiting the reposting of deleted content, and we will no longer be entertaining follow-up requests to delete specific threads or individual posts once they are live. Most importantly, we're putting an end to those lazy "I didn't bother reading the thread, but here's my half-baked opinion anyway" interruptions. Honestly, I find myself wondering—how many times a day do you people actually consult the rulebook before deciding you simply dislike the way something is written? It’s quite baffling, really. 🤔 I don’t mean to come across as arrogant, but let’s be honest: the whole point of a set of regulations isn't to be "charming." It’s not some breezy piece of beach read or lighthearted chick lit designed to win over an audience or make them swoon. Rules exist to be rules, not to be pleasant. 😁
All of this extra stuff—all the bits they’ve added lately—was already being handled informally, you know? It was basically just common practice, tucked away in some unofficial folder or handled under the table. Now, they’ve finally gone ahead and formalized it, putting it right there in the official rulebook. It isn't that the rules were suddenly invented out of thin air; it's just that for years, those guidelines were practically nonexistent or constantly shifting under our feet. They've been tweaking them incessantly for ages, but now, finally, everything is officially documented.
Furthermore, let's be clear: trolling and excessive "chatting" have never been welcome here, nor were they ever part of the original rules. 😕

Look, let me be clear: the rules haven't actually changed. We simply updated the post to include the details you’re already well aware of and that are already being enforced. To be perfectly honest, I am struggling to grasp the underlying logic or even the motivation behind this appeal of yours. 😁

Eurybia, Ketonal, or Knavon—honestly, they’re all essentially the same thing regardless of which manufacturer puts their label on it. I actually just received my shipment today, and let me tell you, 🤣 I popped two of them at once, and within fifteen minutes, that absolutely soul-crushing pain that had me slumped over, convinced I was about to pass out, finally subsided. 😁

Nevermore 😢

I mean, have you actually seen that post about Americans floating around somewhere in this thread?

I should also point out—for those who might be missing the nuance—there is a massive distinction between saying "Americans are scum" and just telling someone to "get lost and go to hell."

rustywalker17 said:I filed a report because they were clearly breaking the rules, but apparently, the moderator's take is that it’s a "productive" violation that actually helps keep the conversation going.

No, the official verdict is that no rules were broken at all.

I give up 🙂

rustywalker17 said:What is wrong with you people? Honestly, I’m not accusing anyone... I’ve said this several times already, I was merely asking a question.

It was simply my own assessment—one which I hadn't even officially presented yet. I was just asking, half-jokingly, if the rules applied equally to everyone, and suddenly everyone turns dead serious on me. It's quite a reaction.

So, cheers to the mods, I suppose. 🙏🙏

You’ve gone ahead and reported every single post in that thread. Typically, when someone hits the report button, it implies they believe a rule has been broken or some kind of disciplinary action is warranted. You're also the one who filed the formal grievance regarding the site's policy relaxations, which brings us back to the core issue: who among us is actually being serious here? It's worth a moment of reflection.