Posts by Tyler Vaughn7

So, the decision has been made to pull your partial access from The New York Times, along with a pretty clear warning: if you keep running ads for that specific site, we’re revoking your partial status without any further heads-ups.

It’s currently under review. We’re just waiting on all the moderators to weigh in before we can give you an official update.

Matthew Young35 said:Good grief. If the law dictates that a six or seven-year-old has to be sent to school, then damn it, I expect someone to actually watch them. I don't want a janitor darting around just to make sure a kid hasn't stuck their fingers in an outlet. We aren't talking about fourteen or fifteen-year-olds here; we are talking about children who barely know how to write their own names. Of course, the school needs to provide supervision, but that should be handled by qualified professionals, not the cleaning crew or the lunch ladies.div>

Honestly, this whole issue would be solved if religious studies had the same status as any other elective—like being offered in a different block. Whoever has the class stays in class, and whoever doesn't goes home.

Angela Campbell84 said:I pressed the little triangle icon. 🙂

Deleted. (Though I still haven't seen your report hit my inbox)

Angela Campbell84 said:Maria Fowler39, on the other hand, I reported this post but it’s just sitting there, completely untouched.

Am I going to get that classic response about how moderators aren't online 24/7 now?

No, you won't, though I didn't realize this was directed at me. If it was, maybe you should have flagged me via a notification or a DM, and I would've stepped in.

Angela Campbell84 said:Up until now, we've always assumed the Socializing and Coffee thread would be a bit more laid back than the rest, since its whole purpose—as you put it—is just hanging out and joking around.

Sometimes editing a post is just that—socializing and banter. This rigid moderation kind of kills the whole vibe. But hey, it's your call how you want to run this thread; I assume you have your reasons 🙂
.
Something similar happened in the chat the other night, when you both were deleting things like crazy and tossing out posts over totally unnecessary stuff. For instance, when someone wrote something to me in the style of 'Angela Campbell84, you jerk,' it wasn't even an insult, and there was zero need to delete it or hand out sanctions. You saw for yourself that I responded in a joking tone and the conversation could have easily kept going... but still... deletion. I find this insistence on keeping the social thread so hyper-sterile a bit strange. Personally, I don't see the point or any benefit to the users here 🤷
.

Look, you'll eventually realize that it’s actually pretty tough for a moderator to tell who is joking with whom and who is actually poking at someone. Rules exist to ensure everyone is treated equally; otherwise, they aren't really rules. When you frame it the way you did, it sounds like a total utopia, but it isn't quite like that, which is evidenced by the complaints moderators constantly deal with. And sure, the rules might be a bit softer here, but these still aren't the casual off-topic threads where everything is on a completely different level of chill.
Editing posts isn't allowed anywhere on the forum, except maybe in the off-topic sections. Though, I'm not entirely sure it would go any smoother there if the original author decided to file a complaint about their post being changed.

Jeffrey Allen92 said:I suspect Maria Fowler39 is behind this, deleting my posts... she actually gave me a warning today just because I adjusted some odds...

I haven't insulted anyone or said anything particularly nasty, yet my posts get wiped and I get sanctioned anyway. I don't think that really qualifies as solid moderation...

The warning message actually included an explanation. You aren't allowed to edit someone else's posts, and since that's exactly what you did, you broke the forum rules.

Angela Campbell84 said:I’d appreciate a formal statement regarding that last deleted post on the thread "What do you think of this user?"

I have no idea which moderator handled the cleanup, though I'm assuming one of them did.

I’ve noticed that quite a few of my posts have been disappearing lately, and honestly, there hasn't been any explanation provided for it. So, if anyone's willing to weigh in, I'd appreciate some clarity on what's actually going on here.

What does "too many posts" actually mean here? This whole forum was designed for hanging out and grabbing a virtual coffee—it’s meant to be about socializing and having a laugh, not constant sniping and provocation. Those posts that veer into that territory have been deleted.

I already went over this with you in our private messages, but let me reiterate. This thread started heading down a completely wrong path, so once Aries13 posted, I stepped in with a warning to get things back on track. Your posts—which, frankly, still have nothing to do with the actual topic—kept coming in after that warning, totally ignoring it. Instead of sticking to the subject, you were just targeting a forum member. That’s why I had to delete them. Then, you went ahead and restored your deleted post. So, yeah, that's why you got a strike.

amberhound89 said:It’s not an attack on anyone personally. If some people on Reddit feel offended, I guess that's on them. I wasn't targeting individuals; I was just being critical of the show itself—its concept, the contestants, and the audience watching it. What’s wrong with that? It’s all just art and expressing an opinion. You guys seem to think you have the right to unilaterally censor things just because they don't suit your tastes. Well, cheers to censorship, I suppose.

It doesn't target anyone specific; it targets everything at once. It’s up to the moderator, as much as possible, to prevent users from feeling insulted. Like my colleague mentioned, that's what moderation actually is. If you had recorded all this and turned it into a clip so we could actually hear and see it to judge whether it works as a joke, maybe it would have been perceived differently.
As for making fun of the show's concept, you're barking up the wrong tree.

amberhound89 said:I posted a little poem in "The Voice" thread and it was deleted immediately. Then I tried posting my hip-hop track again with a comment about ending censorship, and that got nuked too—plus I actually got a warning. Huh? Since when is this censorship? Where does a moderator get the authority to just act on a whim like that? I didn't break any rules; my post was totally within the guidelines and was basically just a poetic take on the topic. This feels like a straight-up ban on expressing an opinion.

Well, your "poem" calls the contestants nothing but pathetic imitators and hacks, and describes the audience as a bunch of mindless sheep staring at their screens... so, look, since this television network subforum is meant to be for entertainment, and those kinds of insults aren't exactly funny, the post was pulled. The first time was just a deletion. You got the penalty because you doubled down on a post that violates Reddit's rules.
I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but the way you phrased it is just provocative and insulting to the other users here. If you actually want to change things instead of just being condescending toward everyone else's taste, maybe send that poem to PBS; they're the ones producing the show.

Brian Anderson8 said:If that’s the case, there are at least ten posts in just the last few pages that could be deleted for the exact same reason mine was. Why would those specific posts be wiped out?

The last couple of pages are just people commenting on news articles that were publicly released about former participants from previous seasons of Associated Press Reality TV. If you can't see the difference between that and what you wrote, I guess there isn't much I can do to help. I've said my piece on the matter.

Brian Anderson8 said:Every single kid—you, me, and the other 8 billion people currently roaming this planet—was conceived through intercourse, unless they were conceived via IVF. This sub is for Television Network and Reality TV specifically because the participants in the Associated Press threads actually care about uncovering the behind-the-scenes drama involving the Michael-Sarandrandra triangle!

That’s not really right. The Television Network sub exists to discuss the actual content of shows, not to make insinuations about the private lives of the people on them.

Brian Anderson8 said:After looking through the guidelines for the Reality TV section, I’m honestly confused about why my post from earlier this morning—somewhere between 8:00 and 9:00 AM—was scrubbed. The whole point of the post was reporting on info from sources close to Sarah, claiming the baby was conceived during some drunken mishap at a local street festival!

I’ve checked the rules, and I’m pretty sure I didn't break anything, so I’d appreciate an explanation for why it was deleted in the first place.

It was removed because that kind of gossip belongs on the Television Network subforum, not here on the news board. How the baby was conceived is completely irrelevant to the show being discussed. I mean, how far are you planning to dig into someone's private life? Since other users might find that style of writing objectionable, the post was taken down. If you want to lean into the wild speculation and hearsay, maybe try another subforum if they’ll even let you.

restlesscobra24 said:Back again...
So, thanks to everyone claiming that bans are just "open to interpretation." Yeah, exactly—that's the whole problem.
Here's a perfect example: one mod writes "Republican Young Republicans" in a post. A few posts later, some random user writes "Democratic hooligans." I can't remember if the second guy got banned or just a warning, but I reported that first mod for using the "Youth wing" label—but yeah, they just swept it under the rug.

That’s why I used to always hunt for the reason behind a ban—I wanted to see which mod was hitting people and what the actual excuse was. But lately, you can't even figure out why someone was kicked because it's impossible to check the "recent posts" of banned users anymore.

Seriously though, why'd they make it impossible to see? The official line is "we have rules and we have to follow them," which feels pretty thin to me. In a real courtroom, verdicts are public record. Since when did forum rulings—aka bans—become classified info?

They aren't secret because there's an oversight board where all the "controversial" bans get dissected. So, if you're interested, go read up and learn something. The rules seem perfectly clear to me.

restlesscobra24 said:Just trying to see what gets people busted—don't want to pull the same stunt myself...

Maybe try reading the rules? The moderators have to follow those exact same guidelines when they issue warnings.

The thread is locked because things got way out of hand. Give us some time to clear out all the spam and off-topic nonsense that piled up in there. I can't give you an exact timestamp, but I'd say expect it back up around 7 PM.

aaa