Posts by placidmarlin3

Oh, come on, steelskipper5, give it a rest. Honestly, everyone, this whole thing is just nonsensical.
They hold all the cards, which makes everything we’re doing here feel like a shot in the dark.

They preach about making changes, but they’re really just swapping out one mask for another, using endless spins to reshape the same old reality.
Let them have their fun in the digital void. They probably find their outlet here because they're dealing with their own versions of injustice in the real world.
But the point is, acting this way doesn't actually make them better people than the ones bullying them... somewhere... at some point in time; instead,
they’re just playing the role of the "bully."

This entire PDF is nothing more than a theater of the absurd, and frankly, it should be shut down. If they had any actual backbone or integrity, they would just step up and say it plainly:
"Screw you, this is our forum, we hold the power, and you'll dance to whatever tune we play." Instead, they file these pseudo-complaints that ultimately
only serve to make them look ridiculous—to us, to their own rules, and ultimately to the very foundation of this community.

Any well-intentioned attempt to improve things around here is essentially a lost cause.
I truly believed progress was possible. I started by looking inward, addressing my own mistakes and trying to fix them, but it's all incredibly futile when there's
absolutely no feedback loop from the other side.
But they should keep in mind how they behave here every single time they feel wronged or sense that the government is mocking and robbing them.

Give a man power, and you'll see exactly who he 👎

I’ve argued that every single banned member should still retain access to the KZB.
To be more precise, I was specifically addressing the practice of barring certain users from the KZB entirely.
In my view, every new ban is its own unique situation, and it is the fundamental right of any participant—especially those who have been banned—to present their
side of the story and have the opportunity to file an appeal if they believe the ban was unjustified.

Kate Jackson68 said:It isn't about being reckless; it's about being realistic. The individual instances that happened prior to this—though I did catch up on that chat in the meantime—are essentially irrelevant to my point. It turns out that relying on unwritten rules just doesn't cut it for certain matters, so official, written, and binding regulations were introduced. This was done specifically to prevent those bolded issues from recurring, especially when more significant matters are at stake. While a moderator's personal judgment will always play a role—which is perfectly normal—anything leading to heavier sanctions needs a concrete regulatory framework to follow.
It’s clear they are moving toward improvement, so bringing up past procedural errors now feels entirely pointless. Yes, mistakes were made, which is exactly why the changes were implemented to minimize them. If you see things still going sideways despite the new rules, speak up; if you feel one of those unwritten rules you mentioned is important enough to warrant formalizing to reduce error, then say so. But dwelling on old grievances serves no purpose.

Oh, absolutely.
Everything is just wonderful and perfect now. Sure, we aren't holding grudges; we're turning a new leaf—at least, that's how I see it, though I can't speak for everyone else, even if I suspect they feel the same. However, I’m also hoping that from this experience, we might extract at least a shred more tolerance toward users and their specific issues or bans. I hope that the next person facing a ban receives at least a modicum of the attention some people have been getting lately. I realize finding a middle ground is difficult, but a little kindness goes a long way; perhaps if we moved away from this mutual arrogance, things might actually improve.🤷

To be honest, I actually appreciate the level of communication shown by the new admins over the last few days, as well as the super-moderators who effectively shut down the chat on Reddit. In a way, they've signaled that despite certain convictions, there is an actual attempt to make things better. I hope other moderators follow suit in their approach, and that we won't see these kinds of situations repeated. Ideally, this corner of the forum could transition from feeling like a war zone into something resembling a civilized space for discussion and getting answers.👍

👋

John Hill As if we haven't heard this one before.
I have a certain fondness for people who are perpetually dissatisfied with everything. Honestly, the unwritten rules regarding PMs should have been formalized into official policy ages ago, and failing to do so was a massive oversight. It’s quite telling that it took the absolute chaos unfolding between Stanley and Katie to finally force a correction. While it is undeniably depressing that we had to wait for a situation like that to actually get things moving, it isn't exactly a novel phenomenon; in life, much like in business, systemic changes rarely happen until someone hits a wall. This shift is undoubtedly an improvement, and anyone complaining about it is really just making noise for the sake of hearing themselves speak.

And how exactly do you envision that playing out? It’s high time we actually implement an official rule regarding this matter. I’ve been sitting here wondering how the moderators could ever actually work toward an amnesty—if you can even call it that. It feels like we’re looking for a way to reset the board entirely, much like how a tech giant might try to scrub its reputation after a massive PR disaster. If they wanted to clear the slate, they wouldn't just issue a formal apology; they’d need to overhaul the entire system of governance, perhaps by introducing some kind of independent oversight committee, similar to how a major corporation might bring in a third-party firm to audit their internal policies. They’d have to address the grievances one by one, moving past the superficial fixes and actually tackling the structural issues that caused the friction in the first place, almost like a legal settlement in a high-stakes class action lawsuit where everyone walks away with a slightly different version of justice. It’s a complex maneuver, requiring a level of transparency that usually feels out of reach when people are more focused on maintaining control than building trust. 😕If they actually implement an official rule based on this, we’re looking at a situation where everyone gets penalized, including the moderators themselves. As long as these unwritten rules are hanging around, there’s always going to be room for someone to abuse the system by claiming, "Oh, that's just an unwritten rule," using it as a convenient excuse to either enforce or ignore whatever they feel like. I haven't seen that Google chat, but if there had been a formal, written policy explicitly banning chats via PDF, then anyone caught doing it would have faced consequences, regardless of who they were.
I honestly have no clue whether a rule like that will actually ever be implemented, and I’m not entirely certain if the chat on the forum is truly such a massive issue—I was really just using your example to make a point. That being said, when it comes to any recurring headache, having clear regulations in place to manage it is almost always the better way to go.

Look, I’m going to ask you nicely: let’s stop pretending you're being this incredibly considerate toward everyone here. You’re clearly capable of showing some actual decency if you actually put in the effort.🙄

Katie was banned, but that’s almost secondary to the fact that Stanley decided to leak her private messages right after she left, which got him booted instantly, along with some political guy who also caught a ban. It wasn't until various higher-ups and well-connected individuals started pulling strings through channels I won't even dignify with a mention that, suddenly, everyone developed a sudden interest in following what they call an "unwritten rule." Apparently, because the moderator in question was banned—and let's be clear, she wasn't just anyone—those bans were miraculously overturned, and this supposed rule was suddenly declared official policy. If Stanley hadn't been foolish enough to get himself banned, Katie would have likely walked away scot-free while the thread was simply locked.
In almost any other scenario—and I mean absolutely every single other scenario—that user would have been banned on sight, and if they had actually followed the moderators' lead, their suspension would have been extended even further. I’m talking about chatting on the CIA’s platform, which is strictly off-limits; I know this because I’ve personally witnessed similar threads being shut down and the participants being disciplined, though I can't say with absolute certainty, and that goes for Google too.
Look, if you’re going to insist on being this pedantic about debating every little point, you might as well put in the actual effort and head over to the CIA to get some real training; I assume you're capable of that much work if you're truly committed to being such an insufferable stickler for argumentation.
There are about a million unwritten rules floating around here, and frankly, I was never once briefed by upper management that every single moderator operates under their own personal set of principles when it comes to handing out warnings. So, please, let’s not insult my intelligence with this kind of nonsense.
Look, honey, just because I’ve been through the wringer doesn't mean I was out there sinking the Titanic.

So, you might want to show them a little grace, or better yet, do your own homework by digging through some CIA archives to see how they’ve handled similar situations in the past.

reddriver35 said:Look, 🤦 it’s really not that simple.

If anyone actually gives a damn about Slafk on this forum, then that person is me. Except, I'm just a little kitten.

Slafk got a three-day ban, went on a rant, and ended up getting his ban extended to a month. At least, that's how I saw it. There’s a lot to catch up on. He’s mostly right, but he has one major flaw: he doesn't know when to quit. Instead of pointing out injustice gracefully, he just cranks up the pressure.

Why does he act like that? Maybe because nobody listens to him? Ever wonder about that?

I'll be the first to admit it. Every time I get a warning—even if it's totally unfair—it doesn't matter. I can do whatever I want because I'm a moderator. And who am I going to complain to? The city water board? 😢

So, I resorted to spamming tactics. I even had a bet going on how long I could last before getting banned. I even have a tracker for my spamming on the trash threads. It was my defense mechanism.

Secondly, regarding Persephone. Where is she? Nowhere to be found? She wasn't fair to me this past summer. She knows it, too. I didn't complain. I thought about messaging Belwether, the former admin, but I backed off. I was afraid things would escalate and cause more damage. But I did call Persephone out on LJES. I admit it. But I don't do that anymore. I won't ever do it again. I think enough has been said. My point in writing this is that she just doesn't cooperate. You never see her in the women's corner. She'll flag my spam, but sometimes she won't. You never know when or how much off-topic behavior is allowed. 😕

My off-topic posts were never hate speech. Sure, there was some trolling involved. And that got deleted. I didn't get flagged for it then. When I spam, I'm being funny and entertaining. Especially when 4fun joins in—it's a winning combo. An NBC sitcom couldn't touch us. 😁

But I agree, you shouldn't overdo it. And I'll admit, for the millionth time, that I did overdo it.

Why am I mad at Persephone? Because of three warnings she gave me that she didn't have to. 😢 It was on my own thread and wasn't even off-topic. It wasn't even close to the stuff I was quoting on this thread, where the loose cannons of the forum were chasing Nicholas.😢 That's just not fair, folks. 👎

She flagged me because:

1. I wrote that I'm a Libra.
2. I asked a user how she did her makeup.
3. I wrote that I don't like fighting.

That's three warnings, 10 points each. Since I already had 590 points, adding those 30 brought me to 620, which triggered a seven-day cooling-off period in the forum's VIP lounge with a message saying: "Stop chatting"!!

And yeah, no one ever comes to the banned users' corner for me. 😢 Except feraltrucker5 and scripte elegans fe. 😍

As for Steven Ruiz, Steven Ruiz had a blast down there. Which isn't fair. It seems like the former mod gets special treatment from us little guys.

Anyway, I saw that the top-tier mods stepped in. I think that's it. In the end, it turns out we're all equal.

But what I really want is for you to respond to inquiries in the banned corner for other users, too. Because from what I can see, you people in the women's corner don't care at all. And that's the problem.

This whole discussion is pointless if the users and moderators don't talk about the things that bother both sides.

What bothers me is the arrogance, the laziness, and the recklessness of certain moderators.

I’m just trying to point out these irregularities in a decent way. I’d love to see other members join in and contribute to this thread. Let's keep it civilized.

I know there are issues over in Recreation and Religion. But wouldn't it be better if someone actually spoke up with specifics? It feels like the problem is spreading across the entire forum.

If you ask me, the real issue here is that the general culture among users is just lacking. 👎

That was actually quite beautifully written.👍
Regarding the whole situation with Slafk and the inevitable fallout from all sides, it’s been quite the spectacle to watch. It seems like every single person has decided they have a profound insight into the matter, resulting in a chorus of reactions that range from performative outrage to complete, unearned indifference. If you look at how people are pivoting their stances, it’s less about the actual facts of what happened and more about finding a convenient corner to stand in so they can feel morally superior by lunchtime. It reminds me of those endless debates you see during a heavy political season in D.C., where nobody is actually listening to the substance of the argument; they're just waiting for their turn to signal which team they belong to. Everyone is reacting to the reaction, creating this feedback loop of noise that makes it nearly impossible to find any actual clarity amidst the clutter.

What I truly believe the moderators and higher-level admins should never lose sight of is the fact that they are dealing with actual human beings—people who aren't all just stone-cold phlegmatic types devoid of any emotion or triggers. More often than not, it’s a perceived injustice, or perhaps just a subjective feeling of being wronged, coupled with an inadequate response to a user that sets things off. When someone posts a detailed inquiry or, heaven forbid, a full-blown "dissertation" providing evidence for their innocence, only to be met with a condescending retort or a blunt dismissal, it creates a domino effect. It inevitably triggers further friction, whether that manifests as intensified trolling or the activation of clone accounts. You can see the exact same pattern playing out right here in this thread. reddriver35 Lay out your arguments and join the conversation. feraltrucker5 Then they just slap on a Facebook reaction and a smiley face that looks like it’s laughing uncontrollably. Apparently, this thread just doesn't warrant a real response. But if it truly isn't worth responding to, then why go through the trouble of flagging it at all? It makes zero sense. Honestly, some of these moderators really need to take a look at how they handle things. nexov They’ve gone ahead and labeled that behavior as "trolling," for instance.
In my opinion, when things start going sideways like this, the absolute height of stupidity would be to go after the community and start banning users at the root level.
So, here’s the deal: a user posts a question regarding a ban or account status, and about 75% of the time, they get met with nothing but pure, unadulterated condescension—just a blunt, rude shut-down that leaves them nowhere to go. Naturally, the user starts feeling more agitated than usual because they haven't actually received an answer, and they end up reacting like a regular, functioning human being—meaning, they react with actual emotion.
Whether they're staging some sort of rebellion through relentless trolling, creating clones of themselves, or just finding some other way to be disruptive, their ultimate goal is always the same: they are desperate for a reaction. Even when it becomes painfully obvious that they're dead wrong, they can't help but lash out in a fit of pure emotion.
That is exactly what every moderator needs to keep in mind before they start handing out bans like candy or ruthlessly cutting users off without even glancing at an appeal—especially when it’s blindingly obvious that a mistake was made or that someone is being treated unfairly. We’re all human, after all. We trip up. If certain moderators could just step down from whatever ivory tower they’ve ascended to because of a sudden rush of perceived power, and remember that they are just ordinary people like the rest of us, things might change. If they actually remembered how infuriating it feels to deal with injustice in real life, perhaps the relationship between the mod team and the community wouldn't be so strained. Then again, there are subforums where this kind of toxic atmosphere is the standard, so I suppose one could argue why it hasn't become the norm here yet.
I’m not suggesting that this community is devoid of its fair share of eccentric characters, but most of us were raised with the idea that a little bit of civility goes a long way. If a polite word can open almost any door, it stands to reason that we should probably be extending that same courtesy to one another.
It’s funny how the moderation team only seems to develop a sudden, heartfelt empathy for the "common man" once one of their own golden children finds themselves stuck in the same mud as the rest of us. It’s almost as if they need to experience a little bit of the struggle firsthand before they can pretend to care about the rules they enforce on everyone else.
Honestly, looking at this whole mess regarding the unwritten rules versus the actual written ones, if anyone else on this forum had dared to post their grievances or call out the hypocrisy, there wouldn't be this much drama. It’s funny how the standard applies to everyone except the people currently in charge.
If he were slapped with a month-long ban, nobody would give a damn whether the rule was explicitly written down or not. Honestly, it’s highly probable that if he kept throwing his tantrum over being banned, he might have ended up taking out the entire site administration too.
It seems like we keep circling back to this recurring theme of moderator arrogance, and honestly, we all saw the absolute peak of that behavior recently over in the banned users' corner. It was almost comical watching a whole crowd of moderators descend upon the thread just to treat the banned folks like a captive audience for their own amusement. I truly believe it’s high time we see some actual change here, because once the attitude shifts, the sheer number of people involved in this kind of nonsense will inevitably drop as well.
We really need to find a way to dial back the sheer volume of trolls and clones cluttering up the digital space. I actually have a personal example that illustrates exactly why this is such a persistent issue. I'm just staring at the mirrorball, waiting for the light to hit it right. I remember one particular year on the BB board, back when the moderators were busy censoring everything in sight on the chat thread.🤣Honestly, he ended up being exactly what I needed, and it’s actually the first time I’ve experienced something like this on any online forum. I got into this intense back-and-forth with a handful of other users, but once he finally stepped up, owned his mistake, and admitted he was wrong, my respect for him skyrocketed instantly. It wasn't just that I started seeing him in a better light; it felt like the entire sub-forum actually came alive, and all that mindless clone-posting and constant banning just seemed to evaporate. It’s just another perfect example of how things should work.🤣 Remember how everyone reacted when they saw the Prime Minister sipping wine at a stadium just a few months after the administration passed that rule banning alcohol within 500 meters of any sports arena? Well, that’s exactly how I felt as a forum member seeing the moderators running wild in the Banned Corner—a space regular users can't even touch, yet the very people supposed to be our moral compasses are using it as their own private playground for chaos.
Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm being dramatic—only time will tell—but I have to give credit to hollowtrucker77, and also Tyndalla, because lately, I've noticed they are actually making an effort to communicate and build a decent rapport with the community, which is a refreshing change of pace!

P.S.
I truly believe that no forum member should ever be barred from posting in the Banned Corner. It feels beneath us, and frankly, it's nothing more than blatant censorship. People aren't black or white.
Some are a bit darker, others a bit lighter, but everyone exists in the gray. We all slip up sometimes, and we all get things right sometimes; therefore, I maintain that regardless of past drama or previous bans, everyone should have access to the KZB so they can actually file an appeal when they feel a ban was handed down unfairly.

This is absolutely unbelievable.
Just when you start thinking things might actually be improving, they swoop in with this ridiculous annual plot twist.🙏
I really need to stop being such an optimist.

There was this unwritten rule that everyone on these forums had been following religiously for ages, but suddenly it’s been declared "official," all because a moderator
decided to ignore it themselves. 👏
Of course, if it had been any other user, this wouldn't have suddenly become an "official" policy used to justify manipulation, and that user would have been stuck on a forced month-long hiatus long ago.
😍

Now I'm just curious: how do the super-mods and admins plan to handle the inevitable chatter on Reddit triggered by the moderator's own actions?
I mean, there’s also that unspoken rule that chatting on the FBI boards is strictly
forbidden, so I wonder if that rule will also become "official"
just so the moderators can grant themselves an "amnesty" for all those warnings they racked up
for breaking their own rules?

My regards,🙏

p.s. You guys went a little too heavy on the April Fools' bit this year.☕

edit
This post poses a very clear question, so there’s absolutely no reason to censor it.

Kate Jackson68 said:Simply stating an opinion isn't breaking any laws; if someone chooses to walk their dog off-leash, the legal consequences only land on them if they get caught, and we’re talking about a minor citation here, not some felony. Besides, when someone frames their point as a debate over whether a specific law is actually sensible, it turns into a perfectly legitimate forum discussion regarding the merits of legislation.

.

The statement itself isn't the violation; rather, it’s the encouragement of illegal behavior, which is something a moderator shouldn't be facilitating.
Moderators ought to serve as a sort of moral compass
for the community, possessing the ability to judge things objectively and manage threads with a foundational understanding of the subject matter they are overseeing.
Furthermore, moderators shouldn't be championing actions that run counter to the laws of
Rhode Island, and taking such an overt side with the "off-leash crowd" looks a lot like an open invitation to disregard the rules. Consequently,
it doesn't just impact the individual; it misleads and encourages other forum members to ignore clearly established statutes, so your argument
doesn't really hold water.
Not to mention the apparent lack of empathy toward other members of society who might not care much for animals
in that context, or perhaps even fear them.

I’m genuinely curious about this supposed power trip happening over in the ban corner.
Yeah, I’m talking specifically about kikin’s thread...

I still remember back in the day when either I or some other banned user tried to start a little chat for the exiled crowd; we were shut down after barely two posts, with threats
looming about extended suspensions and permanent bans. To make matters worse, you have one moderator essentially breaking the rules right alongside a banned user, while the rest of the "super cool" moderator crew acts like they’re above the very regulations they enforce on everyone else.
It's fascinating. Truly fascinating.👍

mellowraven22 said:A little piece of advice—online discussions actually have a massive advantage over face-to-face debates because you actually have the luxury of pausing to process things. You can take a beat to weigh your options and polish your argument instead of being forced into a split-second rebuttal like you would be if you were sitting across the table from someone at a Starbucks. So, before you hit "quote" or "post reply," just take a second to consider your angle. If something online really gets under your skin, don't rush into the fray immediately; you have the distinct benefit of knowing that an internet forum is a written medium where response time isn't nearly as critical as it is in person. In short: think twice before you click quote.

Fair point.👍
I'll certainly try to keep that in mind!😉

I don't see anything remotely offensive in that post! It was written with quite a bit of flair,
which happens to be my style, though I’ll admit I wrote it a bit scattered since I was being accused of intolerance; however,
I am a human being, not some programmed machine, and I have emotions—that's just how people with actual blood pumping through their veins react. We
would probably be having this exact same argument in person, too, but I truly see zero insults in there. Everything I said is based on my own
personal experience dealing with those "off-leash" walkers whose dogs "could never..." One such guy has been walking around
my neighborhood for the last few months with a muzzle and a bad attitude; I don't need to point out how just a year ago he used to happily
sprint through the local parks while his owners were all like, "Oh, he'd never...", right up until one morning he decided to wake up
on the wrong side of the bed.☕

So, what exactly is offensive about any of this??
Find me ONE SINGLE POST in the pet section where I am actually being INSULTING!
JUST ONE!
This is my first time starting a thread in the pet section in a long, long time, and honestly, I even
tried to "moderate" my own topic to prevent it from veering off course into stupid arguments about kids versus animals, but I learned long ago
that you shouldn't pick fights with moderators because they are "always right." Since I'm naturally quite an empathetic person, go ahead—
feel free to let me have it!👍

Now, I am actually curious about the criteria for moderators and supermoderators, and what the actual selection process looks like!
This isn't directed at you specifically, but I'm asking generally because I've noticed how many romantic or friendly
relationships seem to result in someone landing a spot as a supermoderator or moderator, so I'm just wondering if there are any extra requirements
beyond that?

mellowraven22 said:You’re lying again; don't make me pull that post out of my back pocket too. 😉

And where exactly am I lying?
I’m with you on that one.
Go ahead, pull that one out too!
My post, which you saw get wiped away, was actually just a response to my previous missing entry regarding intolerance—I was simply calling for people to act with a bit more decency and order.
It’s always the same story, isn't it? You see people out for a stroll, walking dogs of every imaginable size and breed, but there’s always that one specific type of person—the ones who think they’ve mastered nature—who decides to let their "tough" breeds roam free without a leash. It’s like watching someone try to steer a runaway freight train with nothing but a polite suggestion; you just know that if things go sideways, nobody is prepared. There’s a certain level of recklessness in letting a powerful breed wander off-leash, acting as if the local park is some kind of unregulated wilderness rather than a shared space where everyone else is actually following the rules.

Honestly, I’m done with you. Once you actually learn how to hold a civil conversation, feel free to reach out, but until then, the moderators are more than welcome to dig through your archived and deleted posts to get a clear picture of how you behave in a subforum that’s actually trying to be productive and helpful. If you can't participate in a discussion without resorting to personal attacks, hysterical outbursts, and just plain verbal trash, then we don't have any use for you here. Pets.

In case you haven't quite caught on, the Pets subforum is my territory, specifically regarding this discussion about dogs and their ego-driven, often frankly nauseating owners. These people seem to believe the entire universe revolves around them and their mutts wandering through public parks and between apartment buildings, disrupting the lives of everyone else who might have allergies, phobias, or simply doesn't share this uninvited obsession. They’re out there flouting rules—and if they aren't breaking the specific guidelines here on the forum, they are certainly violating the local ordinances of the United States. A moderator should be aware of that, particularly the supermod overseeing the Pets section; if nothing else, for the sake of the animals and their owners, they ought to uphold those standards rather than accusing me of "intolerance" just because I’m calling for some basic decency from people who let their animals roam off-leash or fail to pick up after them. The conversation was actually heading in a perfectly reasonable direction until you decided to jump in, so it makes me wonder: who exactly is the redundant presence in the Pets subforum here?
I have a dog, and honestly, I find it perfectly normal when he decides to leave a little something behind while we're strolling past the local dog parks; that’s why I always make sure to carry extra bags and stock up on plenty of waste bags.

mellowraven22 said:You're lying.

This is the exact post you were flagged for trolling:

You got hit with a warning for trolling here, though honestly, it could have easily been for being insulting.

Insulting???
Where exactly is the insult or the trolling in this?

My post was deleted because I was responding to a moderator who’s accusing me of INTOLERANCE just because I pointed out that walking a pet without a leash is actually ILLEGAL!

So, we have someone who encourages people to let their pets roam free—blaming it on unruly kids or whatever excuse they want to use—acting like some kind of moral authority on an American pet forum. Instead of promoting respect for the laws that require owners to carry bags and keep their pets on a leash, she turns around and calls me intolerant. She also targets those of us in this community who might be wary of unleashed dogs, whether they belong to aggressive breeds or not. Personally, I think every single dog is potentially dangerous because you can never truly know what’s going through its head, regardless of how well-trained it seems, especially when dealing with certain breeds. Interestingly enough, you didn't delete or flag her comments, yet you went ahead and wiped my posts where I explained that owners of unleashed pets are the ones being intolerant toward small children, parents, and anyone else who might be frightened by animals running wild and lunging at leashed dogs or pedestrians!

Truly objective work on your part; bravo!

Anyway, so we don't derail this whole thread just to focus on your disastrously arrogant moderation style, I’m actually interested in the question from the very first line. So, be a gentleman and let us actually discuss it.

I’m genuinely curious about the specific criteria the leadership here uses to handpick
supermoderators and moderators.

Is this role handed out based on nepotism, romantic entanglements, or just being part of the right social circle, or does it actually require things like an ability to judge situations objectively, emotional stability, and a decent grasp of technical skills?

It’s quite fascinating, really—for instance, when a moderator responded to my own thread in the Pets section with total rudeness, essentially encouraging people to ignore American pet ownership laws, my response was wiped. Then, when I questioned the deletion and posted again to reiterate the actual legal standards regarding pets in the US, the highly sophisticated supermoderator mellowraven22 slapped me with a warning for "trolling."

What kind of power trip is that?
And it doesn't stop there!
Look at this: a moderator posts a thread, locks it, but then because of that very action,
I get flagged for trolling—just like that poor soul who got penalized for venting about their ISP or whatever else.

Honestly, what are you all playing at?
Come on, you’re dealing with actual human beings, not some avatars from Second Life.
Out of a community of 100,000 people, is there truly not a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who is mentally balanced and free from deep-seated frustrations, capable of leading this forum with objectivity instead of leaning into that whole "some are more equal than others" mentality?

Who are these rules actually meant for?
If this is how it works, just scrap the rulebook entirely and let tyranny reign supreme. Why bother pretending we have any semblance of democracy
when the reality is clearly nothing like it?

Exactly, you’re speaking purely from your own perspective, which means you have no idea how the cards were actually being played in this specific situation; ultimately, you can't truly tell who the "victim" is here
versus who the "terrorist" is.

cosmictinker21 said:Look, sorry, but if someone starts messing with you in the DMs—harassing you privately, being a total nuisance, weaponizing your personal info just to take verbal cheap shots whenever they feel like it, and worse, spreading blatant lies behind your back to other members who then join in on the stalking and bullying until you can't even pretend to be "cool" or indifferent anymore... what's actually left for you to do?

1. ping the mods

2. contact the admins

3. escalate to the site owners

4. if none of that works:

4.1. just keep taking whatever garbage gets sent to your inbox, while having zero clue who is actually sending it

4.2. go ahead and blast it out to everyone so they know there’s one idiot, or maybe a whole group of them, treating this kind of behavior like a hobby, and let everyone know exactly who they are...

I'd much rather be labeled rude, hysterical, or immoral than sit here and let myself be bullied indefinitely, sorry not sorry. People who get why I'm doing this will understand. As for those who don't... well, either they truly don't care, or they're actually enjoying the chaos themselves. 🤷

I am not playing games here.😍

And besides, who's to say that certain moderator hasn't had her own mental breakdown because she was being played for a fool?☕
We've heard from several people that Toco's contributions to that specific sub-forum were quite decent, if not excellent, and it's certainly not a case of him being just some low-level spammer or a typical troll.
Furthermore, don't worry, Steven Ruiz could have handled this without making a public scene very, very easily—just like she's done every single time before—though I highly doubt the admins would have taken her word for it blindly either.😍

I think you're fully aware of that yourself; it just seems like for some reason, it's more fun to defend a pathetic moderator than to admit she screwed up and suggest she offer at least a basic apology.
At the same time, it's fascinating to watch how strictly everyone enforces the rules when an image is just a few millimeters over the limit, yet when there's an obvious violation of the actual guidelines, everyone suddenly becomes an expert philosopher and pretends nothing happened.

You guys are pathetic. Just scrap this whole circus of so-called "rules" and let everyone act however they want.

hollowtrucker77 said:Chris Lopez59 and placidmarlin3, seriously, go get a room
this thread isn't actually about the two of you

I honestly can't wrap my head around why they decided to bring Smart Bitch back onto the moderation team, especially considering...
It looks like you’re doubling down on the exact same approach that drove you away in the first place, but I honestly have my doubts about whether it'll work this time around.
If this serves as the final word on the matter, then I suppose we can finally consider the forum's policies officially addressed.

If you’re looking at everything I’ve written—every single response and every debate I’ve had with Chris Lopez59—and deciding that you can somehow extract some sort of private, petty squabble, then you’ve completely missed the mark. We haven't even touched upon this specific topic in our entire history of discussions, let alone engaged in any kind of personal back-and-forth over it.
In that case, I’d suggest you sign up for a crash course in reading comprehension.👍

Greetings to the wise.

Greetings!

Chris Lopez59 said:Unbelievable... honestly, I can't even wrap my head around it.

Look, if we’re going to call something a "fact," there actually needs to be some proof behind it. How on earth am I supposed to prove that the only arguments being thrown around are coming from the direction of those opposing the Alternative, like driftinggull13?
And honestly, it’s even more obvious to me because I see things through a completely different lens—it feels like the "rational" crowd doesn't actually have any real arguments to back up their stance anyway.

Look, I’ve actually got the X-rays to prove what bioenergy can do—I'm talking about documented cases where physical esophageal diverticula just... vanished. We're talking about structural deformations smoothing out within a few months, totally receding without a single surgical procedure or physical intervention. And here's the kicker: this was all achieved through bioenergy that cost absolutely nothing, performed remotely by a small group of people. So now, when someone tries to stand there and tell me that bioenergy doesn't work, what exactly am I supposed to argue against? What's the rebuttal? Honestly, the only way anyone could possibly counter my evidence is if they were willing to look me dead in the eye and claim I'm lying. 🙂

There's one other thing I really ought to warn you about: an argument and a cold, hard fact are two completely different animals.

Honestly, from everything I’ve read, driftinggull13 seems like a total provocateur. I just don't get any enjoyment out of these kinds of debates, regardless of whether the guy is pushing back against me or actually siding with my point of view. It's just exhausting.

I honestly don't have a clue what the Alternative used to be, or even what that term implied back then, so I can't really offer anything remotely intelligent

The vast majority of the warnings they issue and the points they raise as arguments fall squarely within the realm of basic elementary or high school education.
As far as I can tell, they attempt to dismantle the opposing side using logic that feels about as sophisticated as saying 2+3=5.
Every one of their arguments is built upon verifiable facts, which stands in stark contrast to the other side, who mostly offer up fixed ideas that are in total contradiction to those very same established facts.😉

driftinggull13 is actually one of the few users on this forum I’ve read who backs up every single claim he makes with something that can be independently checked and proven.
If you see provocation in his posts, perhaps it is worth asking yourself why exactly you feel provoked and who it is that is actually pulling the strings.😉

So, I sincerely hope that someone finally decides to address this Alternative movement and appoints people to moderator positions who won't be easily manipulated by their own ignorance—people who won't mistake logical arguments for insults, or view absolute nonsense as some kind of New Age law or "out of the box" thinking.
Knowledge is power!

for instance, I have X-rays documenting the effects of bioenergy—the disappearance of a physical esophageal diverticulum deformity within just a few months, healing without any surgical intervention whatsoever. And this was achieved via bioenergy that was obtained for free, and furthermore, administered remotely by several people. Now, if someone tries to tell me that bioenergy has no effect? Well, try arguing against that... with what? Perhaps the only way would be to suggest that I am lying.

Regarding that specific part... Bravo!
I truly congratulate you, though I can't help but wonder why you haven't been nominated for a Nobel Prize yet, instead of wasting your time on some random virtual forum?🤔

Chris Lopez59 said:Maybe it’s just because the whole thing is built on nothing but trolling and straight-up insults. Seriously, just take a look at the introduction.

Look, if you're going to call someone out, you actually need to bring some real arguments to the table to show why their facts don't hold water; otherwise, you're just trolling, and honestly, nobody has the patience for that.

Look, nobody on this forum ever claimed they cured their cancer just by staring at the sun. What you’re actually bringing up comes from Hira Ratan Manek, an Indian practitioner who was scientifically observed over extended periods while he wasn't consuming any food at all. That alone gives the guy enough credibility to float his philosophy about sun-gazing. People have been discussing this on Alternative for ages, and honestly, citing Manek is an argument in itself. Your whole line of reasoning—that it's "scientifically impossible" to live off sunlight—is completely nonsensical. I mean, strictly speaking, it’s also scientifically "impossible" for a human to survive that long without eating, yet it’s been empirically demonstrated. So, what’s the actual takeaway here? It's pretty simple: science is currently just lacking sufficient knowledge. To lean on the argument that "if it isn't scientifically proven, it can't happen" is just pure nonsense because science isn't some finished, static collection of truths; it's a work in progress. Just because we haven't uncovered the scientific mechanism behind a possibility doesn't mean that possibility doesn't exist—science isn't a closed book. We don't even fully grasp the complex functions of our own organs yet, which says a lot about how much we still have to learn. Honestly, there are plenty of people out there who just wrap their own deep-seated biases in a lab coat and pretend they're presenting a purely scientific viewpoint. Yeah, right. 🙂 Honestly, those kinds of takes are fundamentally unserious when you look at them through any kind of scientific lens

But when people start attacking others by saying stuff like, "You belong in jail, you're telling people to stare at the sun and they might go blind," without even bothering to mention what was actually advised—let alone providing any actual context—that’s nothing more than pure trolling. It’s also pretty obvious when someone is just being insulting. If I were running the show as a mod, believe me, I’d be sanctioning intros like yours; I’d insist on nothing but civil communication rather than this passive-aggressive disrespect

Look, mods are human and they screw up sometimes, but the real problem with this forum is the sense of untouchability surrounding certain mods. When a mod makes a mistake, they almost never get corrected; instead, their decisions are protected and justified, no matter how biased or completely flawed they actually are.

That is precisely the point.
However, what you are persistently—perhaps even intentionally—ignoring is the reality that the primary arguments found on Alternative come from the very people who end up getting banned from the platform for their "offensive" way of speaking.🤣
driftinggull13 is a prime example, and it's hardly necessary to dwell on Endymion’s past dedication to Alternative or his old posts. If you still can't grasp my point, try digging through any thread from 2008; you might finally get a sense of the kind of discourse I'm referring to, which used to be quite an intellectual pleasure to read.

but when people start attacking others by saying things like, 'you belong in jail' or 'you're telling people to stare at the sun and they'll go blind,' without even mentioning what was actually advised...

refer to the quote above.😉

(with as much leeway in advice as one desires), that is pure trolling. It's also clearly insulting. If I were a moderator, I would sanction intros like yours; believe me, I would insist on strictly civilized communication rather than this passive-aggressive hostility.

I am not insulting anyone here; I am simply stating my perspective as someone who once thoroughly enjoyed reading Alternative, but now avoids it by a wide margin because certain topics are completely divorced from common sense. Not to mention how proponents of certain ideas often lack even the most basic understanding of the natural sciences required to discuss their own subject matter—knowledge that isn't some unverified theory, but provable fact. So, regarding your last comment, I'm definitely ready for the Götterdämmerung.
The issue arises when someone systematically dismantles another's ideas using actual logic, only for the moderators—likely due to their own lack of expertise—to misinterpret it as intolerance toward opposing views, simply because they don't truly comprehend the conversation. That is my impression, anyway.

Chris Lopez59 said:Well, mainly because of the quote I included. You're generalizing and shoving your subjective opinion down my throat as if it were some kind of universal fact.

On Alternative, you get to pick your own topics, so if you want specific themes, just start your own thread. If you aren't a fan of 'conspiracy theories'? Fine, then don't participate in those threads, or participate but actually bring some logic to the table. For instance, if you respond to a 'conspiracy theory' by just saying, 'That's insane, that's just a conspiracy theory,' that isn't an argumentative post. If you actually know better, you need to dig into the specifics why it's insane. If you don't have concrete arguments, then you can't really be certain it's insane, and if you lack arguments but still hold a firm stance, your position is no less ridiculous than the ones you're attacking.

It's simple: you need to ditch the biases and actually ground your points in real argumentation.

I’m not quite sure what kind of struggle you're having with understanding my posts, so feel free to read them several times if they don't click the first time. At no point have I blamed the people starting these topics or fueling conspiracy theories. My issue is with the fact that the moderators, under this thin veil of "tolerance," are effectively stripping the subforum of any capacity for reasonable analysis. They package diverse perspectives and various theories as mere trolling or insults to justify pushing them out. Now, if someone feels insulted simply because their theory doesn't hold water, that's ultimately a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, not a fault of the people pointing out the flaws—people who, as we see right here, end up being the ones targeted.
You could claim that staring at the sun cured your prostate cancer, for example, but if it turns out you don't understand the basic science required to support such a claim, or if more educated people debunk you at every turn, you can't complain about being insulted or belittled. In that scenario, the only person who should face consequences is you, because your incompetence and ignorance could genuinely endanger people's health. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the moderators tasked with maintaining order on the subforum. It’s entirely up to them whether you receive a warning or a ban for spreading unverified and potentially dangerous theories. Interestingly enough, the people losing access to Alternative seem to be exactly those who provide the necessary opposition to your worldview.
(I'm not talking about you specifically; this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the point).
As it stands, it looks like the moderators themselves are caught in some sort of internal conflict, so I honestly have no idea where this is all heading.
Good luck.

Chris Lopez59 said:When people throw around lines like that, all they're doing is labeling themselves as someone who’s totally incapable of forming a balanced, objective opinion.

What exactly makes you think I’m unable to reach a sound, objective conclusion?😕
Look, I'm not out here playing sides or chasing any personal agenda; rather, I view myself
as representing that third party—the kind of observer who used to actually enjoy reading discussions on Alternative, back before
this entire subforum morphed into a version of Maštaralica where everyone competes to see who can drop the most intense
conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence, all while simultaneously launching a crusade against anyone attempting
to engage in actual reasoned debate or correct blatant falsehoods, a behavior conveniently
justified under the guise of "tolerance"
for opposing ideas and viewpoints.