Are you referring to those recent threads where a small clique completely derails the discussion, pivoting toward some sort of private inside joke that only they find amusing?
Since you’ve made it a habit to constantly call out the moderation team within philosophical discussions, why not be specific and provide a concrete example? 😁
Lest we somehow fall into the trap of believing this is actually a pressing contemporary issue regarding fundamental human liberties—liberties that ought to extend to all segments of society, including the rights and agency of women.
Since I have already gone over this with you four times via direct message and once right here in the thread, I simply have no intention of repeating myself regarding why this topic lacks any coherent purpose.
I fail to see how my response constitutes an insult; frankly, I have never understood the mindset of individuals who utilize an online community as a platform for personal attacks—it is one of those unsolvable mysteries of human behavior. In hindsight, I regret not reporting your private messages sooner, as it seems you are quite determined to make things difficult for me.
To put it plainly: if I cannot convince you, perhaps you should let the site administrators explain to you why your thread was rejected.
Just as posts and threads filled with extreme insults toward users or general hate speech are wiped away, those same types of attacks directed at rustydrifter10, myself, or any other member of this community are scrubbed as well.
I fail to see what the controversy is here.
Now, while rustydrifter10 doesn't typically resort to such an arrogant tone—unlike you, rowdyranger20—since you’re so insistent on an answer, let me be clear: the kind of vitriol you just aimed at us simply isn't permitted. I’ll say it again: if someone were to direct that behavior toward any other user, they’d be looking at an immediate ban; there is no reason why we should be treated any differently.
That individual was removed because they truly crossed the line into much darker territory (and yes, this applies to you too, among others who seem to think this site is a playground for acting out 🙂 ), engaging in egregious insults on the platform. They were banned specifically for the systematic humiliation of others—primarily women—on the site. There really isn't anything left to debate regarding that matter.
Courtesy is met with courtesy, whereas aggression and insults are handled by applying straightforward rules. It works that way in any functional system. Furthermore, if you are attacking me from every possible angle, I have no intention of adopting some overly sweet, sugary tone, nor am I obligated to carefully curate my inflection just to ensure that someone spitting in my face doesn't feel their lack of decorum violates some high standard of integrity.
It has become incredibly bold of someone to drag up a post from before Chris's time just because a moderator gave them a hard time. If you have a legitimate grievance, file a complaint that is reasoned, civil, and timely, and you will receive an answer. We make a genuine effort to provide responses here. However, there is absolutely no obligation to respond on behalf of the tenth user who has brutally violated the rules. Additionally, since we are discussing instigating conflict, nobody should have to endure anyone's verbal abuse. Yes, wow, I used the word "abuse." Three times. Apparently, I have an arrogant tone. 🙂
Having spent some time reading through the posts by Green Mountain Man, as well as observing the intensely hostile and derogatory reactions following his ban, I am firmly of the opinion that his removal from the community was entirely warranted.
Bans, partial deletions, and thread removals occur periodically, and both moderators and administrators act based on very legitimate justifications. We remove content that is overtly abusive or insulting—a standard that shouldn't require any justification or lengthy explanation to our community members, particularly those who aren't directly involved in the conflict, which in this specific instance, describes you perfectly.
I find myself somewhat perplexed by your motivation for questioning this particular ban, but quite frankly, it was justified. The user in question understands exactly why they were banned and why the topic was pulled; however, there is no obligation to provide you with a granular breakdown of the situation, nor do I see any necessity in opening a new discussion thread over it. Since you have already been receiving answers for days now, there really is no need to continue playing detective.
John Newman34, homosexuality hasn't been officially classified as a disorder since 1975.
It is much like how people of color have long had the right to sit wherever they choose on a bus; if we are going to discuss the nature of discrimination, let us look at the broader context.
Furthermore, you are complaining about a post that was clearly flagged and removed quite some time ago. I am not entirely sure if you filed a complaint back when it happened. If you didn't, then I'm puzzled as to what you expect the administration to do now. Conversely, if you did report it and the appeal was denied, it simply means the administration determined the moderator's original decision was sound.
Because of this, I fail to see the logic in comparing an old, archived post to these other posts you claim are offensive toward women—posts for which you haven't even provided any links. Which specific posts are you referring to? Please, provide the links so we can actually examine them.
Additionally, I have searched through my inbox and cannot find a single report from you regarding any controversial content.
I recall starting a thread a while back where I inquired whether the platform could implement a Facebook-style Like button.
As much as I felt a bit embarrassed about even bringing it up, there was a small part of me that truly hoped for it. 😁
My reasoning stemmed from the sheer volume of massive threads that end up being nothing more than a sea of "I agree" comments—which, let’s be honest, happens all too often here. It becomes particularly exhausting when you're a moderator and you have to clean up all that clutter.
In my mind, the logic was simple: if you could just like a post, you would effectively eliminate those endless strings of one-word affirmations or random emojis. You’d be left with a clean, readable thread instead of a million quotes from people who don't actually have anything meaningful to contribute, but simply want to signal they enjoy someone's opinion or a photo.
I’m not entirely sure if that would decrease the total number of posts, but if we are being realistic, it would be far better for some users to hit a button rather than cluttering the feed with unnecessary replies. 😁
Matthew Anderson said:It would be quite reasonable if an occasional 'I agree' didn't arrive accompanied by a massive wall of quoted text. Or, better yet, if one wouldn't quote the entire page just to include 🙂.
The regulations here on this forum are remarkably straightforward; when someone chooses to disregard them, it suggests to me that the individual either lacks respect for the community standards or simply hasn't taken the time to actually read them. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't issue a warning—honestly, people often end up sending private messages asking why they were flagged, which only proves they hadn't bothered to read the rules in the first place. However, in most instances, we simply delete the offending content.
I find myself in complete agreement. 🤣
As far as my own conduct is concerned, I tend to issue warnings most frequently because that is precisely what the rulebook dictates. It isn't out of some sort of pedantic desire to be a stickler for detail, but rather due to three very practical considerations:
a) Users ought to make the effort to read the guidelines. It takes perhaps two minutes to digest a text that is exceptionally clear and simple, having been summarized by our colleagues into a high-quality format that even a child could easily grasp.
b) Once you issue a warning to someone for posting nothing but a single smiley face—especially after they have quoted an entire page of text and cluttered the entire thread—they usually experience that moment of realization where they understand that such behavior is prohibited, and they simply cease doing it moving forward.
This makes the moderators' lives significantly easier because, frankly, if you can prevent situations where you have to spend your entire day acting like Mr. Muscle constantly scrubbing away messes, it is much better to minimize those occurrences from the start. 😁
c) One should put in a modicum of effort. It is entirely possible to write more than just a smiley or a "signed" to express one's unique perspective on a topic.
That being said, if someone writes something truly epic and ten different people chime in to agree and hit the like button, then fine. Let it slide. Those are special moments in time.
Which is why that idea regarding a "likes" system actually sounds quite pleasant.
To make a long story short, losing 10 points isn't going to kill anyone, and if you aren't reading the rules, at least that serves as a signal that you need to change your approach.
I just came across one of your reports from a few hours back. It concerns a post that was so incredibly subtle—bordering on non-existent—that it was just a single comment from one of our veteran users. It doesn't even qualify as "off-topic" per se; they were simply pointing out the absurdity of another user's post in their usual, characteristic way.
If we were to scrub every single comment of that nature, this entire forum would end up being as sterile as an operating room floor in a high-end Mayo Clinic surgical suite.
I fail to see why a specific post by a particular user (and I think I’ve figured out who you mean) should bother you personally if it wasn't directed at you; after all, they didn't even mention your thread.
Moving forward, please feel free to file reports just like everyone else does, but do keep in mind that we issue penalties for actual rule violations, not simply because someone's writing style or opinion rubs you the wrong way.
That said, if there is a genuine violation that we have overlooked, please feel free to provide the link.
We gave this topic a fair shake; it was vital to determine our next steps and clarify whether there’s actually any distinction between your individual data and the aggregate totals. I pointed out exactly that in my previous message before you even launched this thread.
Please, let’s refrain from labeling everyone as puritans. This was strictly a technical oversight, not some sort of moral failing.
There is absolutely no need for anyone to offer apologies here, particularly since you admitted in your opening post that you were starting this pointless poll simply because you were bored. We aren't under any obligation to indulge triviality or boredom; our priority is to maintain the continuity and substance of the PDF archives.
For now, the thread remains open, and provided the rest of the group is in agreement, feel free to continue the discussion.
I’m just as territorial as anyone else; I can’t stand the idea of strangers encroaching on my private space—it's just not how I operate.
Honestly, I find your level of patience quite remarkable.
If it were me, I’d be asking him point-blank what his game plan is and how long he intends to live off someone else's dime. I mean, surely you don't just sit down at the dinner table and have a casual little family chat about it, right?
It’s much like how someone could start being incredibly loud, constantly passing gas, or leaving the bathroom door wide open while they're using it—those kinds of passive-aggressive behaviors are just as grating.😁
By the way, your parents are acting truly bizarre. Like, genuinely strange behavior.
Daniel Ward87 said:I’m not really a fan of auto-deleting posts just because they hint at people wanting sex, but again, that wasn't the original point of this thread. I find it hard to believe, but some people don't have sex on their minds 24/7. Obviously, if people hit it off and things progress, sex is going to happen, right? But, sticking to that logic, the whole vibe of an Advertisement on the US Forum is more about finding a soul connection.
I am quite certain I don't know why you're implying that I believe everyone is solely motivated by sex; let's not resort to such accusations, Daniel Ward87, as I find that to be a rather distasteful argument. 😁
I certainly never suggested such a thing.
My point was simply that individuals seek different things in various ways, and since everyone experiences loneliness, what they pursue in a romantic sense is dictated by their own unique desires.
I am struggling to understand what remains unclear here, or why there is such resistance if people choose to frame their needs in a way that isn't strictly "crude" within an Advertisement.
But, fine, we have all uncovered this massive revelation today, which is that the core purpose of the US Forum is somehow spiritual in nature.
Daniel Ward87 said:I wouldn't go that far. Ashley Bishop4 made a solid point—you have to look at the whole purpose of the US and these ads. I think the goal was really about finding someone to hang out with. Sure, hooking up is part of the equation 😁, but wouldn't those kinds of posts be more at home over on LJES? US stands for Lonely Heart, which is mostly people looking for a soulmate or a connection. These ads are there so people can actually bond in ways that go beyond just physical stuff.
Could you please elaborate on that thought? What kind of "other" connection are you referring to? Are we talking about a spiritual bond, or something else entirely? 😁
Jacob Wood9 said:Personally, I suspect the traffic has actually spiked because everyone stumbling upon this thread is heading over to the US site just to see what kind of Advertisements they’re running over there.😁😁😁
As for personal preferences, I suppose she survived the shock, but I wouldn't call this a violation of the right to diversity; rather, it feels more like an attempt to question whether certain sub-forums even have a right to their own distinct identity. Since they have Advertisements on the US site, I guess they're trying to light everything up over there... the other day, there was even an Ad where a user was looking for a roommate to share an apartment, mentioning she had a washing machine and that the utilities weren't too expensive, and so on and so forth.
Well, that sounds wonderful; let the readership increase. 😉
On a separate note (and this goes to Phibsu as well), my primary contention is that individuals should surely have the right to express their specific romantic or emotional preferences through Advertisements. If one person's ideal partner involves a very specific dynamic, another requires a third party, and a third seeks nothing more than casual flirting—provided they articulate these desires without being indecent—it remains entirely unclear why or for what purpose such freedom of pursuit would be restricted in the Advertisements section when that same freedom is, of course, perfectly permissible within the discussion topics.
I don't need to hold an official moderator title to spot irregularities, Sophia Thomas7. 😉
Furthermore, what leads you to believe that most of the users on this US Forum are merely clones of the authors behind various Advertisements? Are you attempting to cross-reference IP addresses across every single Advertisement, or something along those lines?
Sophia Thomas7 As stated by: That wasn't quite what I was asking.
With all due respect, your question lacks any clear structure or coherent logic, which is precisely why my response turned out the way it did. You simply cannot claim to know for certain that readership won't decline, but you really ought to consider the sheer volume of grievances being aired by entire factions of the community regarding advertisements over these last few months. It serves as a glaring indicator that there is widespread dissatisfaction within the collective, suggesting that a shift in strategy is absolutely necessary. This should be viewed as a clear signal for the US moderators—and keep in mind, you aren't one of them. It is also worth noting that the individuals behind these Advertisements aren't limited to just a small circle of clones from the States; they represent a diverse spectrum of people. We aren't merely a tiny group of regulars who post every day; there is actually a much larger community observing and participating here on the US Forum.
The crux of the matter is this: there is absolutely no need for the moderator to offer any kind of personal justification or claim that they hold a negative bias against open relationships when making these types of decisions.
You serve as an excellent case in point here. You frequently emphasize on the Forum just how much importance you place on the "trio" dynamic, and how you believe one can certainly maintain such a connection within a relationship. Whether we are talking about discussions on LJES, the US Forum, or anywhere else, I fail to see the issue. Why should we withhold the ability to express such desires to others, provided that they adhere to the rules regarding polite advertising by keeping their intentions discreet?
If there were some higher reasoning behind this—say, "we're panicking because Google might flag us as a porn site," or "we're worried about advertisers revolting," or something along those lines—there would be a way to let the average forum user know, in one form or another.
But the actual issue here is that the moderators insist on acting like their arbitrary decisions regarding what is "allowed" or "not allowed" constitute some sort of coherent policy for managing PDFs and threads. From where I’m sitting, this entire situation has perfectly demonstrated that when it comes to the "can/cannot" criteria, they are guided exclusively by their own personal values—which, frankly, isn't exactly a solid foundation for moderation. I mean, who actually cares about subjective sentences like "Personally, I am against this or that"? Not to mention that incredibly muddled attempt at formulating the rule: "if this were truly a serious Advertisement from someone living in a polygamous relationship/marriage, then we would decide how to handle it based on the written text and the implicit message it sends."...
Even when people are being foolish, they generally don't appreciate being treated like they're stupid. And this level of arbitrariness in moderating an Advertisement—without providing a single meaningful explanation as to why something can or cannot stay (or rather, what catastrophe would occur if a problematic 🙄 Advertisement wasn't deleted)—is precisely that: "we did it because we felt like it, so, what, a breakup? Is this a game of cat and mouse?"
This is precisely the point I am making.
If certain topics are strictly prohibited in an Advertisement, yet people continue to seek them out regardless, then we have a responsibility to provide a response that actually carries weight—one that doesn't simply rely on:
"My colleague and I both hold a rather skeptical view regarding the concept of open relationships," noted the moderator. It seems to me that people in committed relationships simply lack anything substantial to offer those of us currently navigating the single life, so they resort to these little displays just to satisfy their own whims.
Furthermore, any decision of this magnitude ought to be accompanied by a coherent, well-reasoned justification—ideally one issued directly by the forum administrator or the owner themselves.