CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › steelskipper5 › Posts

Posts by steelskipper5

312 posts shown.

velvettrucker52 said:I know. And you know mine, too.
Look, for the love of everything holy, we simply cannot have unmoderated PDFs floating around here. We just can't. I honestly don't know how many more times I’m going to have to repeat myself in this thread.
The forum is a private space, and the owner is adamant about keeping it moderated. If you decide to take a stand against that, don't hold your breath—it’s going to be an uphill battle trying to talk him into changing his mind.

If I had my way, I’d sign off on getting rid of those cardboard penalties entirely. Instead, we should expand the suspension system to include one, two, or even three-hour breaks. You just lie down, cool your head, and move on with your day. If you’re still feeling heated after that, you stay down for another hour. But unfortunately, we don't exactly have that luxury here.
We’ve got deletions, bans, and warnings.
We’ve decided to scrap the plan to delete everything from the ZK, since that was what you all were asking for.
The warnings and penalties are staying. You ignored every heads-up and every plea to get back on track, so don't act surprised now.
God, they’re just leaving behind nothing but cardboard.
Honestly, I’ve already said this once in this thread, but it truly sucks to have the women's corner sitting empty for three days without its usual regulars.
The final option is to implement a period of forced cooling off—essentially locking things down to let passions simmer down. But even then, you're likely just trading one type of misery for another.

To put it bluntly: we can't please everyone. We’re working with the hand we've been dealt, doing the best we can with the resources at our disposal, and that’s really all there is to it. We’ve tried to play nice and soften our stance as much as possible, but we've hit a wall. At least, not without better tools to work with.

This thread has spiraled into a complete three-way standoff. People are out here venting about every little grievance under the sun—one person even suggested that if we didn't put out the fire ourselves, it would just end up on the nightly news and then some corporate admins would have to step in and handle it. Personally, I’d much rather leave it to us folks who actually understand how this PDF works than hand it over to someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what they're doing.

Look, cartoons are what they are. I can certainly write custom ones—in fact, that’s usually my go-to—but when a topic gets this massive and heated, and everyone starts throwing verbal grenades left and right, I stick to the standard forum fare. That covers the trolling and the insults; if anyone actually needs clarification, I'll step in and explain. They’d earn just as many points as if I had drafted a custom response to handle the exhausting bickering, the constant sarcasm, or any other brand of mindless disruption intended to derail the conversation.

Look, there’s a massive difference between a space that’s just completely unmoderated and one where the moderation style is simply... different. I mean, they aren't even in the same ballpark.
We've got deletions, bans, and warnings hitting the board—it's getting messy.
We decided to stop banning people from the women's corner since you guys were all making such a huge deal out of it.
The warnings and bans are staying put. I mean, we gave you warnings—we practically begged you to just get back on track and focus—but you clearly decided to tune us out.
Dammit, they’re just leaving behind a bunch of cardboard.
Honestly, I’ve already said this on this thread—it sucks. It really sucks having the women's corner empty like this for three days without any of its regulars around.
The last resort is just locking them up—you know, to cool their passions down—but honestly? I guess even then, people are still going to end up miserable.

Well, here we go again—yet another debate that’s been totally sterilized.
Look, when people actually start stepping up and taking initiative—when they stop sitting on their hands—it’s usually a dead giveaway that they’ve finally found something worth fighting for.
Look, I don't care how messed up things get—no matter what kind of situation we find ourselves in here in America—this topic is huge. It really is.

I honestly don't give a damn about the owner. I'm not part of the admin team—which means I couldn't care less about him, the mods, the admins, or the big boss upstairs. What can I even tell you? It’s this incredible, liberating feeling—you really should try it sometime.
Honestly, I don't even care about the argument itself.

This thread has completely spiraled out of control—honestly, people are just dumping every single thing they've ever experienced into here now.

By constantly encouraging people to report everything—and especially by handing out troll cards like candy—this place has basically taught everyone that you can just silence anyone you disagree with through reports. It’s created this mindset where people expect some kindergarten teacher, aka a moderator, to swoop in and punish the "naughty" forum users who are being rude. Instead of actually learning how to handle insults or stand your ground, people just run to the authorities. Even I find myself hitting that report button when someone's being insulting—mostly because if I were to actually shut down these losers myself, I'd probably end up getting hit with one of those three troll cards. And honestly? That's just not worth the hassle. As much as I'd much rather just tear apart someone trying to belittle me, it's easier than waiting for some arbitrator to step in and tell them they're being out of line.

The admins and mods are the ones to blame here—honestly, they've had years to get this right and they just haven't.
Look, if you’re going to try and cultivate the population of this forum, you really ought to think about how your methods are going to shape the culture of conversation in the long run—I mean, seriously. You can't just go in there throwing whatever rules or vibes you want without considering the fallout later. It's about the long game, I guess. If you mess up the foundation now, don't act surprised when the whole discussion style turns toxic down the road.
You asked for it, and now you've got it.
Jamie Davis17 said:The whole point of a forum should be actual discussion.
If I wasn't being clear enough before, let me try to be more precise. I mean real discussions. Real debates, with arguments and actual back-and-forth. I get that mods have to hand out warnings and bans—and yeah, I felt bad when Xena's status changed, but then I read later that she had just accumulated too many points, so okay, fine.
Maybe for you, finding a topic and just venting about your kids or your pets counts as a "discussion," but please, let me suggest that it isn't everyone's idea of high-level debate.

Regarding the moderation itself, I don't really have anything to say. Things are just really heated right now, people are getting emotionally invested and arguing quite fiercely, and at the end of the day, there are less than 10 days left until those petitions wrap up, so this won't stay relevant forever (at least the part about the referendum request). So, I guess I'd just hate to see the whole thing boil over.

They're missing.

And it isn't just happening in the women's corner—which, let's be honest, usually hosts much better discussions than the other subforums where people actually stay on topic.

The whole forum feels sterilized now.
Everything and anything gets banned—usually under the guise of "trolling."

velvettrucker52, you know exactly how I feel about bans, especially when they're slapped on just for trolling.
People label just about everything as trolling, and over the years, that's slowly killed off most decent discussions. Now, if you satirize someone's opinion, it's "trolling." If you caricature an idea, it's "trolling." And gradually, the conversation just dies.

Then, whenever something actually interesting comes up—when things get a bit intense—the loudest voices get silenced first. And suddenly, a heated, engaging debate becomes dull and uninteresting.

For three days straight, I was reading how one side was lying in one of these threads. But since most people on the other side don't realize it's a lie, it goes totally unchecked. Because lying isn't against the rules; only "trolling" is—whatever that even means.

I don't have much left to say. Not after everything that's happened since I got banned. For what?
The way this forum uses bans has gone way too far. But at this point, it's not even a problem anyone here can, knows how to, or wants to fix.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sophia Thomas7 said:Honestly, what’s the point in even mentioning it? It doesn't change a thing about who I think would be an excellent candidate.

Look, I've only been hanging out on LjES for a few days—and honestly, just two and a half threads—but I’m pretty sure I know exactly who you're talking about. I mean, anyone could figure that out just by scrolling through the forum for a minute.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
dustyranger64 said:You’ve never been exempt from those kinds of calls on "my" PDFs. Look, if your faith is keeping you away from the DZ for now, I’m more than happy to take any suggestions or critiques via PM—which I’m pretty sure you already know how to do.

I've already said my piece plenty of times in different places. I don't see much point in repeating myself, but hey—if you actually have specific questions, shoot.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
dustyranger64 said:Makes sense, sure, but it’s definitely not a requirement. Honestly, just having genuine enthusiasm for a topic and a solid dose of common sense when it comes to moderating and running discussions can take you just as far—if not further!

I’ve lost my way here for a second—are we talking more expert in terms of linguistics, or more expert when it comes to moderation?
Look, this first thing isn't even a rule for moderation, so it can't possibly count. And what about this second one?

So, who did Daniel pick as his heir?
Look, if the DZ mods are just totally clueless or simply don't care anymore, then go ahead and pitch some replacements to the administration or hit up Anderlon directly. Honestly? I highly doubt the administration actually has some shady master plan to turn Social Science into a total battlefield.

Now, look, I'm not trying to question yours or steelskipper5's expertise here. Just because someone makes their living in a field doesn't automatically mean they're the absolute authority or better than everyone else, right? That goes without saying.

Besides, I highly doubt that suggestions about what's lacking or how to improve will be met with hostility. In fact, let's just move over here and get to work. 🤷

Totally agree. That is, assuming those few users are applying that pressure for the good of the PDF. But using that method definitely carries the risk of it being used the wrong way.

I’m not sure if this callout was meant for me, but since cosanostra is still a moderator, you won't be hearing from me over there anytime soon. And regarding the part that was clearly aimed at my head:
I agree. Assuming those few forum users are applying that kind of pressure out of pure altruism toward the PDF. But using that method, the risk of the opposite happening is definitely there.

If you have three high-quality users applying that kind of pressure for non-altruistic reasons toward a subforum, you've got a way bigger problem than that specific tactic. I don't know how that isn't obvious to you; to me, it's basically an axiom.

Me, for instance? I’m not going to engage in a discussion with you and Zekoslaw—which I’m pretty sure would actually be constructive and useful—because the moderator is still in charge over there, and his official stance is basically that you don't need to back up your opinions with arguments. Honestly, someone should have been replaced for saying something that stupid (personally, I’d pull funding for those kinds of nonsense ideas on the social science subforums, but hey, it's a good thing I'm not a moderator).
And frankly, I think this is better for the subforum in the long run, even if it drags out the whole process of finding a solution. Because, at the end of the day, it's not my job to fix this. I don't have the authority, I don't have the power, and I certainly don't have the responsibility. That's an issue for the monument to stupidity administration.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
dustyranger64 said:I mean, I don't know... would anyone even dare draw a comparison to Walmart?
Look, at the end of the day, Walmart just wants people dropping cash. It doesn't matter who's doing the spending. They aren't exactly worried about customers influencing one another, either. Simple as that!

Look, if this Reddit thread is currently getting trashed by spam, trolls, and just plain obnoxious jerks... then the mods seriously need to step up. They should just wipe the slate clean, tighten the rules, and actually bring some structure back. Honestly, the people here who actually want to have meaningful conversations are feeling totally demotivated because the vibe on this subreddit has become such a mess. If they actually took action, all those spammers and trolls would clear out immediately. Sure, the traffic on the subreddit might take a hit, but at least it wouldn't be toxic!
I honestly doubt we’re even gonna call that bad. Right?

Totally agree—we've gotta keep the community happy!
But that still doesn't answer my question!
So, here’s the deal: if a user—let's say User X—manages to recruit two other solid regulars from some random PDF group over a couple of months, would that be enough? Could they pull off enough passive pressure on the admins to force them to boot certain moderators just because they don't fit the vibe anymore for reason Y?
That’s exactly why I’m asking about this method. How many people on the Reddit boards would it take—and over what kind of timeframe—to make using those admin powers actually legitimate? Especially when you look at how much the Yahoo! user base has been shrinking lately.
The idea itself doesn't sound too bad to me! Honestly, I'm down with it, but I can't help wondering—how do we actually stop people from abusing the system?

Anderlon spent years refusing to fix the issues in Alternative because it was still getting hits, even though the quality had hit rock bottom.
Look, I'm just going by what I see. The fact that the boss can't decide whether he wants to pee or poop—well, that's a whole other issue.

I agree that user satisfaction should be a priority.
But that still doesn't answer my question.
So, is it enough if, say, User X gathers a few other high-quality users and they all collectively decide to ditch a subreddit for a couple of months to put passive pressure on the admins? And then the admins, seeing the dip in numbers, decide to fire the mods who those users weren't happy with for Reason Y.
That's why I'm asking about this specific method; how many users does it take, and for how long, before using that kind of administrative power becomes legitimate based purely on the drop in subreddit traffic?
The idea itself isn't necessarily repulsive to me, but I'm curious about how to prevent it from being abused.

And just so we're clear, to prevent abuse, I'm not going to give you specific numbers.

Though, if a handful of quality users—and I mean quality—actually have to resort to that kind of pressure just to get a moderator removed, then I'm afraid the problem within that sub is way bigger than any potential abuse of the system.

But my main concern is a different kind of abuse: "No, no, you haven't left enough for us to give a damn." That's something that has to remain a matter of subjective judgment. But it's also something that needs to be handled much faster.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
dustyranger64 said:Look, we both know that's true. It's common knowledge for both of us.

But that's exactly why I asked you those two specific questions based on what you just said.
Okay, so I got an answer to one part—you were talking about the quality of the users leaving, not just a general drop in numbers. (At least, I'm assuming that's what you meant.)

But what about the second part? How many people have to walk away, and for how long?

With the good ones, it’s way more obvious because when they leave, everyone else follows suit. But generally speaking, I’m talking about the overall drop in traffic.
I mean, seriously—when sales tank at a Walmart, they actually look into why. Then they either try to fix things or they just close the store down.

What about the second part? How many people have to walk out, and for how long?

Enough for there to be a noticeable slump in activity on a subforum.

This whole site doesn't give a damn about user satisfaction, honestly.
Some moderators might try to help out on their own initiative, but there is zero systematic way this place tracks whether the service is actually meeting user needs. And there really should be.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
dustyranger64 said:How many people actually have to walk out on Reddit and for how long before that decision finally counts? Seriously.

Does it even matter which users are leaving the PDF? Honestly, I just care about the numbers.

When the high-quality users bail, the whole forum basically goes dark.
Ever since a few of us left the social science section, the discussion volume hasn't just dropped for our group—it's tanked for the questions people used to ask us too.
I even saw a question over in linguistics that sat unanswered in its thread for days. I ended up sending the author a DM with the answer myself; it’s a shame I didn't catch the thread until after they were already asking if anyone was even left here to help.

Bradley Sanders4 said:I was actually just about to try and talk some sense into you. 🤣

It’s not really true that all the forums looking for mods have "failed." It's just that on some of them, there simply aren't people willing to take on the responsibility. Most folks would much rather just post and stay blue.

You've got a point, veto might be a bit of a heavy word. It might work on some boards and fail miserably on others. I can already picture the crowd over at a site like Reddit failing to reach any kind of consensus. But whether you call it a veto or just consultations, the core idea is the same: ask the community if they want user XY to be a mod, and if not, find out why.

Me?
Me—the guy who constantly brings them up and suggests we rename the subforum description to "monument to stupidity administration"? 😁

It's not true that all the forums looking for mods have "failed." It's just that there aren't enough people willing to take on the responsibility; most would rather just post and be blue.

If a subforum is quiet and civil, then it doesn't need a dedicated moderator. 🤷
Timothy Davis59 said:And here we see the true face of these so-called liberals. Democracy is just a convenient tool for them, used whenever it suits their interests.

A forum isn't a democracy. It never has been, and it never will be.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Hayes16 said:And of course, making a minimum post count a requirement is exactly what turned Yahoo! into nothing more than a glorified chat room. Honestly, any comparison to that ridiculous forum is officially over.

Five is just an arbitrary number; it could be seven or maybe two, depending on which sub-forum you're looking at or how many candidates actually show up.

At the end of the day, the regular users should have some say in checking moderator tyranny, rather than it being a one-way street.
Balance is everything.

So, why the hold-up?
Seriously, I don't see a problem here, other than the fact that it keeps the moderators from acting like they own the place.

Go tell Anderlon to let the admins swap out moderators whenever they see people ditching a subforum. There—that's your version of "controlling moderator tyranny."
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Bradley Sanders4 said:I agree that picking mods solely through popularity contests is a desperate move. That said, I think it would be fair if the users on a specific subforum had the right to veto a proposed moderator candidate. Of course, it should work both ways—mods should also have the power to veto a user's candidacy.

Edit: Brenda Hayes16, having just five people is basically impossible. Sometimes we wait months for a mod because there's literally nobody willing to step up and deal with the headache of a particular subforum.

Which, again, looks like an even bigger failure on the part of the monument to stupidity administration for letting a subforum rot to the point where nobody even wants to touch it.
I mean, new subforums should only pop up when there’s actually enough interest for people to stop crowding other sections. Except for the formal debate area, obviously. ☕ And if it eventually gets to the point where nobody cares about it anymore, then either the administration messed up by opening it in the first place, or they just totally dropped the ball on keeping things running.
How moderators should be chosen in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Hayes16 said:Signature.

To me, the most logical move would be for the users who actually hang out in a specific section to vote on or pick from a pool of candidates. And if a mod is currently being replaced, they should probably share their thoughts on potential candidates publicly.

I honestly don't get why the selection process is almost exclusively admins and mods picking from among themselves. Moderation isn't a job done for the staff; it's done for the people using that specific part of the site.

The whole "mods need to be similar and aligned" excuse doesn't hold water. Not even a little bit. Why? Because it’s blindingly obvious that moderation styles and criteria vary wildly from one sub-forum to the next, and from one mod to another. It always has been, and it always will be.
It feels like mods are picked based on friendship, familiarity, or just being from the same city—basically, building a little clique so they can back each other up no matter what, making them harder to unseat.

No matter how much any individual mod messes up, the blame also lies with the people who decided to put them in that position. The way new mods are selected needs to change.
I just hope you guys are getting some sort of private benefit from this system, because the community definitely isn't seeing anything but losses.

I want to hear some actual, worthy arguments for why new mods are chosen this way. There aren't any. There are zero arguments that actually make sense.

btw. I'm not complaining about Nica; it's just the sheer lack of logic here that bugs me.

Honestly, you don't need a better argument than the boss said so. We're in his bar—if we don't like how things are run, we can go drink somewhere else.

The real kicker is that the boss couldn't care less about us.
What's the worst ban a forum member can get? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
The absolute worst punishment for a Reddit user—even though nobody actually does this on purpose just to be cruel—is being forced to watch the sub you spent countless hours building and nurturing slowly go to hell.
How big is a Jew's kit?" according to the moderator in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Elizabeth Davis said:Black people call each other "nigga" all the time—what do they actually think about white people using that word?!

Some parts of the Romani community reject the label "Romani" because they've just been known as Gypsies in this area for forever. I guess that’s one way to take the sting out of an insult.

But look, Jew is strictly a slur in modern American English.
How big is a Jew's kit?" according to the moderator in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Justin Patel8 said:Calling something archaic is true—it might be offensive today, but back then? Not so much.

That doesn't exactly justify using it today, though.

I mean, seriously—you couldn't go around calling Black people nigger here in the USA just because the word used to be considered acceptable (I guess it shows up quite often in Twain's Huckleberry Finn) — which, by the way, was way less offensive than the slur coon. (And hey, now you've got the Maine Coon cat breed.)
I'll bet you any amount of money you're going to end up with zero teeth left in your head. ☕

Robert Green93 said:It's like how Romani people don't get upset when you call them Gypsies. I know a few, and they all call each other that. 😁

Well, Jews over here don't take offense at being called Jews. In places like Canada or Mexico, for instance, that term hasn't really carried the same weight.
How big is a Jew's kit?" according to the moderator in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Sam Green73 said:So, I went on Google to try and figure out why the word "Jew" can be considered problematic.
I couldn't find a straight answer anywhere.
Can you give me some insight?

Look, it's just an old, pretty offensive slur for Jews.
Anyone still running Windows 7? in Software ·
So, I tried installing Windows 7 alongside Mac OS X—which is what I’m running by default right now.

Turns out, I'm gonna have to pull the whole drive apart because Windows basically—well, let's just say—a) hates BIOS and b) absolutely loses its mind if there are disks from other operating systems hanging around. It gets totally confused. Like, seriously confused.

What a complete joke.

(Once I finally wrestle Windows into submission, I'll toss Linux on top. But honestly? This whole thing is just a total tragicomedy.)
Banning users who threaten police reports or similar legal action in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Susan Price30 said:But the question remains: why would you—or anyone else—warn a user about something like that unless you were trolling or, at the very least, going off-topic? By doing so, you're essentially breaking the rules of discussion by default.

Unless someone isn't just some troll, right? In that case, it’s actually a godsend... basically just a heads-up or a warning, which you see used all the time on certain subreddits anyway.Well, I guess I'll be reporting you to the moderator for that entry.If things had been even a little bit more pathetic—I am going to report you to the police for that post.

So, what happens next? Theoretically, someone could be charged with "wasting police resources," though I honestly wonder if the police would even take a baseless report seriously—especially when it's coming from the same person over and over again. In that case, I don't think they'd pay much attention at all.

Of course, we’re still seeing those "non-right-wing" opinions and links being circulated. He can go right ahead and call them communists or whatever else he wants. It clearly doesn't bother our little guy one bit. He hasn't made it onto the unheralded censor's blacklist on Reddit yet, but who knows when that might happen?

Do you have any examples where that actually works without getting completely rejected? Let me think... yeah, absolutely nowhere. 😁

It's so I can stop others from reacting the exact same way. I don't want people blowing up over nothing. Or, you know, having them lose their minds and head out to some Small town in the Midwest because of one crazy person.
Banning users who threaten police reports or similar legal action in Feedback & Suggestions ·
loneraven25 said:
steelskipper5 Asks:
Honestly, I couldn't care less about these rules that some of these users on Reddit are using just to act like little snitches.

Look, let's be real here—it's not like anyone was actually forcing anyone to do anything. Terms of Use Honestly, I have to wonder—what exactly do you think you’re agreeing to when you click that registration button? Does anyone actually bother to read those endless walls of legalese, or are we all just blindly signing our lives away to the digital void? What kind of terms and conditions are we really consenting to here?
Are you seriously suggesting that you’re also expected to play by all these regulations? Rules....
You can actually step up and help out too by reporting any posts you think the moderators really need to jump on through the usual channels. Direct messages....or you can just use that automatic post submission feature—you know, the one where you just click on the thumbnail? Which one is on every single post?

Look, it’s not like anyone forced anyone to live in America and follow American laws, either. That’s my point. 😉
Banning users who threaten police reports or similar legal action in Feedback & Suggestions ·
briskpuma23 said:Well, try paraphrasing then.

Nah, how about trying some sarcasm?
Banning users who threaten police reports or similar legal action in Feedback & Suggestions ·
slybison8 said:There you have it. And it looks like, perhaps, you haven't learned anything from that experience after all. 🙂

Oh, I learned plenty. For instance, I learned that all your stories about how this leaves people devastated are just total nonsense—basically, you have no clue what you're talking about. ☕

Just because one part of the system isn't doing its job doesn't mean crimes shouldn't be reported to the Department of Justice. Otherwise, we might as well say that because some subreddits have terrible moderators, nobody should bother reporting rule violations there either.