Posts by Taylor Gonzalez79

Personally, I think having moderators represent specific interest groups is a terrible idea—it just feels wrong from the jump. (My mind immediately goes to those messy political structures we see in places like Canada... where everything is split up by ethnic quotas instead of just being fair.)

Matthew Castillo5 said:The women's corner was, at least during my brief stints there, easily the most toxic subforum on this entire site.

No way! 🤣

Alex Carter said:You’d probably be great in that role too, honestly. Same goes for casualcanyon3 and English Oak, if you ask me.

Joshua Adams3 said:True, but I'd be banned the second someone brings up Eurovision 🤣

I could take a completely different approach to moderating you guys. It’s pretty obvious from where I’m sitting that this place needs a much firmer hand... 😁

feralmoose32 said:In that case, we don't even need moderators at all 👋 👋 👋

☕

Look, here is why mods actually exist:
- keeping the spam and off-topic nonsense under control
- stepping in when drama drags on too long and turns toxic or just plain boring
- giving you someone to report if some creep starts stalking you
- handing out bans for straight-up insults and nasty trolling

They aren't here to act like babysitters or moral police—that's what the people in the discussions are for.

The drama is honestly the best part of this whole thing—don't you dare delete anything. We need all these screenshots to clearly show what's actually crossing the line. ☕

I find myself thinking back to this one moment quite often—that absolute disaster of an own goal by Materazzi:

So, what’s the latest?

Everything was running smoothly for me. I was just chilling, keeping things low-key, and honestly, life was good. ☕

We shut things down because it just wasn't safe...

Hold on just a second. Are you actually suggesting that pro athletes over there sit around debating macroeconomics, history, geography, politics, and all those other subjects that naturally intertwine with sports? Because if we follow your line of reasoning, only historians—preferably those with fancy Ivy League degrees—should be allowed anywhere near the History forums.

Michael Doyle5 said:Yeah, brilliant idea—let's just scrap the entire rulebook and all the guidelines. Why bother? Let's just take all those science subforums and force them to follow the exact same criteria as the ones dedicated to half-educated guys who spend ninety minutes chasing a ball around a field. Just a thought. 🤦

You're totally right—the History sub-forum isn't exactly some high-level academic journal. It’s not like you're expected to cite peer-reviewed journals or bring heavy scientific arguments to the table here. Honestly? It feels more on the same level as the Soccer, Astrology, Magic and Mysticism, Pets, or Jokes sections. To me, it’s all pretty much the same vibe.

You honestly have no clue what you're talking about. The Sports subforum is actually one of our highest-quality sections, known for having real, lively discussions—which is a massive step up from the absolute nothingness you're suggesting.

Look, this is a Forum, not some Ivy League university.
People come here to talk about their interests and hobbies. If someone gets something wrong, you either correct them or just ignore it and move on...

Matthew Ruiz8 is doing just fine, so why the hell are you guys acting like this?

The crew is out there on the ground working. Just hang tight for another year or two...

It would be an absolute game-changer if every user could just customize their own layout width in the settings. Right now, no matter how you set it up, there’s always someone for whom the UI looks totally broken—it's frustrating. I actually managed to hack together some custom scripts to fix it for myself, but honestly... the devs should really consider making this an official feature. Maybe they could implement a maximum width limit, though, just so it doesn't mess with the site's ad revenue or marketing layouts too much.

Kenneth Chase3 said:It looks like the width used to be 1024px, but they bumped it up to 1100px—so when you
multiply it by .93, you end up back at the old value.

This works fine for me, though I'm running at 100% scaling. It's probably just some weird synergy happening with that other script... anyway, this fixed my issues.

Taylor Gonzalez79 said:I just bought it—any chance you guys can remove it from my account now?

It took about 20 minutes for mine to get cleared...

Anderson mentioned that if anyone else picked one up, they should shoot him a DM...

I just bought it—any chance you guys can remove it from my account now?

Gregory Turner71 said:The script runs perfectly fine in FF—no drama at all. You just need to get GreaseMonkey installed first.

I've already got GreaseMonkey set up, but I don't actually have the script itself. If you've got the link, drop it here... 🙂

I really hope I don't have to switch back to Chrome now. I already made the jump over to FF just to deal with this forum, and I’ve gone through the hassle of installing a bunch of add-ons just to make the damn thing functional. Seriously, what a complete wreck of a website... And here we are, acting like total masochists by crawling back for another dose of this nonsense. 🤣