Posts by Tyler Vaughn7

I mean, I guess I’m on board with that too—you should probably just go ahead and get the partials taken out.

Joseph Stewart38 said:So you guys don't actually moderate posts like this, do you?

Oh, we do moderate. It’s just that the actual work doesn't exactly complete itself in the real world...🕺

It would be great if we could keep a constant eye on every single thread, but let's be real—perfection doesn't exist, and none of us are glued to this forum 24/7. I guess it happens quite often where we stumble upon a situation only after the controversial posts have already been quoted, which means posts like yours end up getting caught in the crossfire too.

Your post was fine on its own, but since you quoted (among other things) a comment that was completely out of line, that one had to go too. That’s why yours got wiped—it was tied to that cited post. Just so we're clear, moderators don't really do partial edits on someone else's content; in cases like this, they just pull the whole thing.

It’s just as much of an improper entry, really. What’s the point of dissecting every single case if we're just going to give weight to a mix of actual events and total fabrications that nobody can actually verify? And where does that even lead the whole discussion?

The idea of someone trying to strike up a conversation with the unborn might just be a personal whim of theirs. Personally, I have no clue which specific journal or publication such entries would actually belong in, but they certainly don't fit the vibe of the New York Times.

Well, you got a DM warning because someone’s health isn't some joke or a topic for debate on this thread.

silentridge3 said:This is unclear.

So, how exactly am I supposed to have "no connection" to the show? It’s a talk show where five people sit around discussing a specific topic. I’m just commenting on the ideas someone brought up during that discussion. It seems kind of nonsensical to claim I'm attacking them personally or focusing on their physical appearance; the show isn't about that, it's about the opinions being aired. If I disagree with an opinion expressed on the program, it follows—logically, I suppose—that my comment will reflect my own perspective on the matter. Is there actually a way to critique the ideas presented in a broadcast without, by definition, offering a counter-opinion?

Look, if you think something is completely nonsensical, there's really no need to comment... nobody is forcing you to. But honestly, the latest posts have turned this thread into something entirely different from what it actually is. I guess if someone were trying to figure out what was actually discussed on the show based on these comments, they'd be left totally lost. From what I can see, your posts don't give any clue about the actual topic at all.

Douglas Johnson41 said:Correction:
It’s funny how the debate always kicks off among the armchair experts—the ones who don't even watch the show, let alone follow the actual discussion.
That’s the actual issue here, and honestly, it’s got nothing to do with those of us who have been around since the beginning.

Look, the threads are open to everyone now. We aren't making any distinction between the newbies and the old-timers around here... and I guess there won't be any issues as long as everybody plays by the rules.

Douglas Johnson41 said:A problem isn't going away just because they ban us—the people actually watching the show—from posting about the topics discussed. In fact,
we might just see a bunch of amateurs jump in who don't really know how to carry a conversation on the subject, starting to lecture everyone with their own specific takes, and then the thread gets locked for the exact same reasons it was closed before.

I guess the issue isn't really about you saying, "Hey, they think this on the show, but I think that." It’s more when the discussion among the forum users drifts so far away that it loses any actual connection to what was aired on the program.

No, I don't see what the big deal is.
The people who refuse to feed those kinds of ideas to children aren't the ones following orders; they're the ones actually doing the thinking...

Hannah Johnson44 said:All we need now is for Tyler Vaughn7 to jump on board.

Well, looks like even Tyler Vaughn7 has flipped. I'm officially stepping down from moderating DK.
Good luck out there!

Harold Long21 said:Come on, just tell us—how long does it actually take you to spot the specific post that triggered this whole thread? I mean, there’s no doubt you saw it, considering you jumped in here with a reply only an hour after reporting it. Were you just waiting for me to start this discussion here before you finally nuked the offending post?

No, I actually banned it before I even realized there was a thread going over here. Look, it’s not like we’re glued to our computers 24/7, and obviously, we aren't all hovering over the exact same thread at the exact same second.

Hannah Johnson44 said:Why not?

You reported him, you registered the report, you deleted him... but you didn't issue a strike. Why?

It’s actually kind of ironic that the current controversy is centered on a chat discussion where everyone is busy condemning an unfair American legal system—where some people walk free for things others get locked up for.

Isn't that just peak hypocrisy? Come on, let's be honest here 🙂

Reports are actually pretty helpful for us because they flag issues when we don't have time to read everything. But, just because a post is reported doesn't necessarily mean it gets a strike.

Come on, Tyler Vaughn7. It's not like you don't get it. I can't link to posts, as the rules require, if you go ahead and delete them.

Could you please respect the request to stop deleting entries? It would make it much clearer for everyone to see what has actually been penalized and what hasn't.

If you want to change the rules, you'll have to contact the forum administration. I don't have the authority for that.
And you already got answers to your questions without those links, or was that somehow not enough?

And what was the point of pulling my post, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or with you? In any case, if I am ever going to be judged, it will be when I can't hide it well enough, and I'm sure I'll receive a perfectly appropriate strike from you all. Just like I've consistently received so far.

But there is an issue with how you frequently interact with other forum members and moderators.

Then why is a trolling post like: 'I'm against all forms of violence, except for sadomasochism'? 🤷

You were already given an answer to that question.

Hannah Johnson44 said:So, can I get an answer to these questions now:

Is Wacky's post getting him banned?

How are we supposed to appeal unfair moderation if our posts aren't even showing up?

Do we have to stick strictly to whatever topic a mod imposes, or can we just chat casually without being called out for trolling and getting sent to the ban corner?

No.
I mean, look at this thread right here; it’s proof enough.
Though, I guess you probably shouldn't judge us solely based on this one example...

It doesn't have to be that way. The mods don't set the topic; they just try to keep things from spiraling out of control...

So, regarding whether we delete unformatted posts or not... Basically, we strip out anything offensive, stuff that derails the conversation, or anything that might stir up trouble. If a post breaks a rule but is otherwise "benign" to the actual topic at hand, it usually stays. Just a heads-up though—deleting a post doesn't mean it vanishes into thin air; the admin team can still see everything that's been removed.

It’s been reopened and cleaned up, so please, try not to ruin it again by obsessing over the same old topics.

rustydrifter10 said:Not at all. That’s what you call a conscientious moderator. 🙂

Maria Fowler39, don't worry about it—we'll make sure this report gets passed along to the right people. We really appreciate you flagging this. 😁

Isse, we have Bandić over in the Politics section, so I honestly didn't even realize this was off-topic. I'm actually kind of surprised it wasn't reported sooner, or that I didn't catch it myself. Either way, the penalty seems fair and deserved. Thanks for understanding, Nica!

steelwalker26 said:http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=426664

Bernie Sanders - the man and his legacy

this thread has been sitting here for three days without any moderator intervention. I guess you guys think that's just how things work on this forum?

Actually, it isn't. You're totally right, but it just slipped through the cracks. There's a lot of ground to cover here, but it’s not exactly an excuse. Thanks for pointing it out!

placidorca16 said:I think the moderator is right here. That Trumpian argument is just plain wrong and sexist. To claim that after Trump said "I can only offend patriarchal women", women shouldn't really be offended by stuff like that anymore because "following the sexual revolution of the 60s, it just became part of the slang, and frankly, reality too"... well, that’s just straight-up making excuses for sexism and suggesting we should accept it as "normal." It’s even reinforced by the follow-up: "The most viewed content online is porn... so now we're out here talking about 'grab a pussy'." So, according to him (and clearly everyone else who doesn't see an issue here), the fact that porn dominates the internet somehow proves that women are totally fine with their bodies and personalities being objectified?! I guess I don't know where some people get the idea that reducing women to sexual objects is a widely accepted fact supported by women—the very same women who fought for emancipation during the 60s. But then again, maybe I can understand the men who aren't affected by this and either don't see a problem or are just playing dumb?

My thoughts are pretty much heading in that same direction, and I actually find it quite refreshing that a man was the one to point it out.👍
Maybe Jones was just clumsy with his wording, but he had to have known his post could be read this way. If someone is well-versed in language, they know what they're doing. So, in my opinion, the ban is justified.

Robert Cox46 said:There’s been this incredibly intense and heated debate going on over on the forums lately regarding "Jeopardy! being too niche—questions only catering to 'trivia nerds'" which was started by user Guggenheim.
The thread got locked today, even though the discussion seemed pretty civil and didn't really veer off-topic? Any idea why? Thanks.

The thread was locked because you guys couldn't just discuss things and share opinions without constantly attacking one another or flooding the mods' inboxes. We're going to clean it up, and in the meantime, maybe you could all take a moment to figure out how to have a conversation without trying to disqualify everyone else's input.