Posts by George Bishop19

Hello, am I permitted to assume the persona of George Bishop19?

rustydrifter10 said:The moderators will handle things until a replacement is found, unless they reach a different agreement with the administration. Personally, I hope her decision—and the Trumpian one—was just an emotional outburst and that they both return. Until then, please refrain from comments like this, especially with such a tone. Someone who claims they won't moderate still holds that authority as long as they remain on the roster and have access to the tools. That concludes this part of the discussion. I'll address the specific complaint once I find a moment.

And how am I supposed to know that asking whether a certain mod is still active is off-limits? They posted their resignation themselves—not just here, but on the official thread in the PDF. If it doesn't concern us, why even issue the notice? Given that we aren't privy to internal administrative processes, my question was perfectly logical following an announcement about someone stepping down.

Furthermore, I fail to see how my tone could be deemed inappropriate. I chose my emojis specifically to signal that I was genuinely seeking clarification. Is every inquiry directed at the administration viewed as an attack in your eyes?

It seems you’ve already decided those two mods must stay in their positions. If that's the case, the whole point of a grievance becomes moot.

EDIT: I realize now you've edited your post slightly, making the first half of my response look strange.

Maria Fowler39 said:So, even Johnson & Johnson has folded. I’m stepping down from moderating the forum.
Good luck to everyone!

Why spread falsehoods? 🤔

slypuma12 said:Is this not a personal vendetta against me? 🤔 What’s done is done. I’ve moved past it, and honestly, you could too. We can't go back and rewrite history. Besides, Eliza, isn't it funny how easily your own logic can be turned right back around on you?

This isn't some personal attack against you. It’s a formal complaint regarding your conduct and the way you handle moderation.

Not only did you manage to insult me twice with that relentless barrage of grievances, but you also had the nerve to slide into my DMs to "politely" request that I leave the forum. Is this how it works now? Do "objective" moderators actually behave this way? It seems highly questionable.

He just keeps on with the insults. You remember, don't you? Eliza is nothing but a small-minded person with massive complexes. And what does Tyler Vaughn7 do? He refuses to even sanction him. Is anyone actually surprised?

I haven't filed a single complaint about the strike I received for my insults. If I deserve it, I deserve it. I stand by what I said; I don't play games and I don't backtrack. However, I do expect you and Tyler Vaughn7 to respect the forum rules and penalties with that same level of consistency.

It’s honestly just disheartening to witness what this community has become. This is the place where we’ve spent years writing, connecting, and just being ourselves. But it isn't just my own perception. Most people on this board feel the exact same way. What happened?

Regardless of everything else, I haven't noticed any change in how I treat you compared to anyone else. There is no special "surveillance" happening here, despite how some of you might want to frame it. Why would there be?

If that's really how you want to play it, then why don't you tell me: who else have you "kindly" suggested via private message should stop posting on your PDF?

Eliza, if I’m really such a terrible moderator—and if I’ve supposedly been "targeting" you by handing out warnings left and right—then do me a favor. Take a long, hard look at your own infraction history. Just double-check exactly how many warnings you've actually received from me. Is that really the case?

Where exactly did I claim you were constantly banning me? It isn’t even a matter of you refusing to do it. There simply isn't any reason for it.

It’s all pretty obvious what I’m complaining about:

You’re deleting the entries, yet you aren't always archiving them properly. Why bother? Is there even a point to this half-measure?

So, he just drifts into the chat, drops half a thought, and thinks he’s actually contributing? It’s insulting, really. He barges in with this incomplete, half-baked sentence that has absolutely nothing to do with the current thread. Does he think we’re just here to entertain his random tangents? Is he under the impression that relevance is optional? It’s a blatant attempt to hijack the flow without doing any of the legwork. Someone should probably toss him into the ban corner.

You drive the forum members around. Sometimes you do it indirectly through your moderation tactics, and other times you do it directly with those blatant requests. Which is it?

I stated my intention to overhaul the moderation process. I am moving away from simply deleting posts without notice. Instead, I will be issuing formal strikes while leaving the offending content visible. That is exactly how I am proceeding.

May we live long enough to see it happen. Or perhaps, may we live long enough to witness the fallout.

It’s only a matter of time before Tyler Vaughn7 finally caves and adopts it too.

Gary Chavez82 said:I get where he's coming from; his joke wasn't even that bad.
I've seen much worse.
The guy actually showed up to the chat and didn't derail the conversation.
I've seen this a hundred times, but I won't snitch.

:notcommentingonmoderation:

West End Blues said:Wacky and Ball & Chain don't have any room left to maneuver except by stepping back down to being regular users. We saw what they were capable of, and there's nowhere else to go from here. All that remains is the arbitrary dismantling of their own authority.

Gentlemen moderators, the time has come. Find someone different.

Nevera HC said:I've been all for elections for a long time now. Look, I like Tyler Vaughn7, she can stay.
But double standards are definitely at play here. Some people are treated one way, while others are handled completely differently.
It isn't exactly fair, but whatever. This isn't exactly a land of justice.
ot-tikvica, relax, I haven't lost my way in the suburbs.

West End Blues said:I am not satisfied with the moderation, and I am telling you directly. This user ban is just one more unnecessary move in a long line of them. I will simply state that I want changes, and I expect them at any moment. I believe in the logic shared by you two—that you can realize when too much damage has been done.

Let's start the cleanup process. Your resignation, Wacky, is merely the first step.☕

nevermindMe said:^^How can a chat discussion be considered "derailing"?
It's a chat; surely he has the right to say what he wants. It's not like he was obligated to debate with you or everyone else. Besides, he didn't insult anyone. He was actually somewhat witty.😉

Off-topic: A little poem.

So, the consensus is that we’re all the villains here. Every single one of us users is "problematic." Apparently, we become most problematic when we dare to point out biased, unfair moderation—especially when it comes from people who have repeatedly flouted the very rules they enforce on everyone else.

It was deeply unsettling to see slypuma12 nominated for a moderator role right after he spent several paragraphs insulting me. As per usual, Tyler Vaughn7 simply deleted the mess and, I suspect, conveniently failed to issue any actual penalty.

It is equally troubling that both moderators are now pushing half-baked narratives regarding personal disputes. I remember Tyler Vaughn7's response quite clearly when I first tried to raise this issue. He essentially told me, "Don't cry over spilled milk."

Now, suddenly, it seems appropriate to cry over spilled milk. Isn't that convenient? It’s certainly better than answering the fundamental question: why aren't moderators held accountable for the same insults that would get any "ordinary" user banned instantly?

Perhaps most concerning is that neither moderator intends to stop the practice of hiding certain controversial posts. This ensures we still can't tell how biased or subjective they truly are.

I am calling on Nica to address these issues. Furthermore, please consider replacing the current moderation team on the PDF. Long-time users are either leaving or preparing to walk away because they are tired of seeing personal vendettas disguised as moderation.

Maria Fowler39 said:So, you actually received answers to all those questions without even needing those links, or was that somehow still insufficient?

Of course it isn't enough. That single post is merely one symptom of a much larger problem—just one among many controversial or intentionally buried entries. Is anyone actually paying attention?

But there is a certain way you tend to address the other members and moderators around here. Isn't there?

I certainly didn't expect this kind of blatant dishonesty, orchestrated solely to steer the conversation away from you. Is this how we play things now?

You have received an answer to this question.

I am. I’ve had enough of the "smart" crowd. 🙂

slypuma12 Asks:
Good evening.

Since I’ve been called out, here is my take on the situation:

Regarding the point mentioned above, we already covered this in the chat, but let’s lay it out one more time for clarity. Those posts we deleted? They weren't arbitrary. They served as a necessary warning to users who crossed the line, or simply acted as a way to scrub insults from the board. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Neither Tyler Vaughn7 nor I are trigger-happy when it comes to handing out sanctions. If you look back at our moderation history, the evidence is right there. We aren't here to play cop. In fact, we believe almost everything can be settled through a simple conversation—which is exactly why we prioritize direct communication with you all. If a discussion breaks down, our next step is a polite warning and a deleted post. It’s an attempt to signal that a user has crossed a line. But what else is left if they ignore that warning too? A strike becomes inevitable. Sometimes a strike is just a single mark on the record, but other times, once those points accumulate, a user finds themselves facing a permanent ban. Is that really how we want it to work? Perhaps not, but rules are rules.
You can always file an appeal regarding moderator conduct. I have urged you countless times to use the specific subforum designated for those grievances. Do not hijack active threads to complain or launch attacks. Is that really too much to ask?

Much appreciated for the effort. Now, let's get back to what I was actually getting at. This isn't some petty grievance regarding my own record; rather, it's this:

The issue with deleting posts is that you’re just using them to mask a blatant lack of consistency. You scrub the evidence to hide the fact that you aren't holding everyone to the same standard when it comes to insults or weaponizing medical diagnoses. Is it justice if the rules only apply when it's convenient? It isn't.

Take, for instance, that situation where Tyler Vaughn7 went ahead and deleted your post addressed to me, all while failing to issue any kind of official penalty. Not one person here seems interested in discussing how this practice of scrubbing or hiding specific posts can become such a massive problem. Is anyone actually paying attention?

The chat lacks a specific theme. That’s the truth of it. Anyone can post whatever they please, provided they stay within the rules. Is that really such a problem?

Richard Sanders7 didn't break a single rule. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

And now you’re handing me this sentence that stands in total contradiction to your next statement. How does that even work? It’s completely inconsistent.

Honestly, you just jumped into this debate without saying anything of substance. It was nothing more than a half-baked post. Why bother?

He drifted into the chat with the most mundane statement imaginable—claiming he was against all forms of violence. Apparently, some people here were suggesting he should torture or kill that kid who killed his girlfriend just to satisfy some sense of justice, so he chimed in with this moral high ground. Then you called him out for trolling, pointing out how his little sermon had absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion. All of this went down right there in the chat. 🙂

And what about when Nihilism starts pointing fingers at a murder victim, blaming them for their own fate by throwing around labels like "gold digger" or all sorts of other insults? Don't you see that for what it really is? Isn't that just blatant trolling?

Since this entire mess kicked off because of the cardboard incident—and the subsequent ban triggered by Richard Sanders7's constant accumulation of violations—one has to wonder where we go from here.

It wasn't about that one specific ban. That’s just a symptom of a much larger issue with how you handle moderation. Honestly, most long-term members of this community have already pointed out how bizarre your decision-making process is. Gary Chavez82, Nevera, Richard Sanders7, myself, WEB, even nevermindMe... haven't any of you noticed the pattern?

Furthermore, let’s be clear: that user wasn't banned because of the specific post you mentioned—the one he even tried to defend and dissect himself. No, there was a different reason entirely.

It is perfectly obvious to everyone which post you actually penalized, even though I never explicitly told you which one it was. All I did was ask for some clarity on why you labeled his initial comment as trolling in the first place.

The reality remains unchanged: you call people out for saying things like, "Good evening. I am against all forms of violence, except for the sadomasochistic kind who love ☕," yet you conveniently ignore posts like "Eliza is just a small soul with deep complexes."

Do you honestly believe the users calling for your resignation from the moderation team are doing so without legitimate cause?

Maria Fowler39 said:It isn't.

And why is that?

You reported him, you filed the report, you deleted his post... but you didn't actually issue a strike. Why?

There is a certain irony here, isn't there? We are currently embroiled in a heated debate in this chat regarding the injustice of the American legal system—where some walk free while others are thrown under the bus.

Isn't that the height of hypocrisy? Come on, let’s be honest now. 🙂

You know exactly where and how. This thread is all the proof you need.

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

Can we please just have one request honored? Stop deleting posts. If we want to see who is being penalized and who isn't, we need the evidence to stay visible.

Though I hope you won't judge us based solely on this single instance...

And what exactly was the purpose of pulling my post? It has nothing to do with this topic, and certainly nothing to do with you. Regardless, if I am ever judged, it will likely be when I can't sufficiently hide my tracks, and I'm sure I'll receive a perfectly appropriate strike from you. Just like the ones I've been receiving so dutifully up until now.

They don't have to; the moderators don't set the topic, they just try to keep things from spiraling out of control...

Then why is a comment like "I'm against all forms of violence, except for S&M enthusiasts" considered trolling?🤷

So, can I finally get an answer to this:

Is slypuma12’s post actually getting banned?

How are we even supposed to appeal unfair moderation if we don't have any posts to work with?

Are we strictly forced to discuss whatever topic the mods throw at us, or can we just chat casually without being flagged for trolling and tossed into the ban corner?

Good day.

I believe the Coffee & Chat thread isn't being moderated with any sense of transparency or fairness. The reason? Posts are being deleted at random.

It seems moderators have a tendency to scrub certain—though certainly not all—low-effort posts. I fail to see the logic behind this, and I would appreciate some clarification. This practice needs to end. Why? Because when a post is removed, those of us who aren't the targets can't verify if the content was actually problematic or if the punishment was appropriate. Without the evidence, how are we supposed to file a legitimate appeal against moderator conduct?

There has been a palpable tension on this forum for quite some time now. Users are under the impression that punishments are arbitrary and that the rules don't apply equally to everyone. Right now, I can't even point to specific egregious examples because they’ve been wiped away, making it impossible to show who is getting a free pass while others get flagged for the exact same behavior. I am formally requesting that posts no longer be deleted. If these situations continue, I need the material on hand to hold people accountable according to the rules.

However, I will highlight one specific instance involving one of the mods.

Specifically, I want to know if the post by Wacky Davidson—in which he called me petty and insecure—was actually penalized. I have no way of knowing, as the post vanished from the thread somewhere around this page. I reported it properly, but since the post simply disappeared, I cannot tell if the penalty issued was sufficient. If it wasn't, then it is high time we question the integrity of the DIC moderation. Currently, users are receiving penalties for "deviating from the topic" within the chat thread.

It seems DIC is the only forum where you must stick strictly to the moderator's chosen topic within the chat, or face penalties for straying. I request that this rule be reviewed. If possible, let the chat thread serve its intended purpose: casual conversation. It should be a space for informal banter without insults or bickering, but without the forced imposition of a specific subject. Discussion shouldn't be mandatory.

Does an e-manual issued back on October 24th of last year still hold any weight if I haven't even managed to book an appointment yet?