Posts by Benjamin Taylor90

Chloe Cooper10 said:I'm with you there—Lou is an absolute rockstar when it comes to moderating. :)

You’re basically a ghost on the US forums. Your activity over there? Practically non-existent. 😛

neonskipper2 said:And me: same here.

You’re basically a ghost on the US forums. 😛

Your take on Luis’s moderation style seems pretty biased—it feels like you're viewing his work through a personal lens because you actually know Louise. I’ll give you that much; she’s definitely a pleasant, easygoing person to be around.

Donna Doyle2 said:I mean, come on. Nobody is actually calling her out en masse. Peter Rabbit just started this thread to flag it.

Exactly. I’m not saying Louise is a bad moderator, she just lacks the necessary edge for a platform like the US. It's like dealing with a system that sends you a polite "friendly reminder" about an overdue debt instead of actually coming for your head. $0.01 Just sending out that one formal warning costs ten times more than it should. 🐔

We're still here. Against all odds, we actually made it. Kids. With special needs! (Ali, don't take this literally!) 😂

Donna Doyle2 said:Oh, please. You think I’m actually going to call for a ban just so you can walk away thinking you "won"? Give me a break. That's just pathetic.

The old "divide and conquer" playbook. Classic. 😛

I’m with you on that second point. Louise treats everyone with actual respect and keeps her tone grounded. She just knows how to value herself without stepping on anyone else, which is honestly pretty rare. It goes a long way toward keeping the vibe here healthy and decent.

Can't say I have any complaints. 🙂

Drew Ross2 said:caught you red-handed. You guys just proved how much of a headache you can be when it comes to following the rules about off-topic chat. :D

Your Honor, I surrender! Actually, scratch that—Ali is the guilty one here. 🤣

Drew Ross2 said:Peter Rabbit, I’m going to need a formal apology and a supporting graph, obviously. 😁 : D

Deal! 😁

Lock the thread!

Donna Doyle2 said:Luujzaa, we're getting way too off-topic here. I can barely keep myself in check. Someone needs to reel us back in before we lose the plot entirely.

And you dragged me down with you—shame on you! You definitely deserve a 100. 🙂

Donna Doyle2 said:Basically, yeah, it wasn't just that Wikipedia's posts made up all 90 entries a day. It was more that after those specific threads died down, people just stopped talking. Some moved over to the OFF section... there wasn't really anything left to latch onto. If you look at the subforums, there were days where maybe one single post would show up, excluding the chat, which I think stayed pretty active. For a while, it felt like a total shock to the system, then things slowly started moving again, and that’s basically been the vibe ever since—though we haven't seen that kind of volume since the Wikipedia crew and their friends were running the show.

You make sense, but:



I could run this analysis by completely ignoring Wikipedia and everything related to them, and the result would still be the same. It would just be without the era of Wikipedia. 🤣

Anthony Nguyen81 said:I wasn't really around during the home stretch.
Think you could pull some data on my posts? Might be an interesting experiment.🤔

I think I actually showed up even earlier—got posts dating back to March 2018—but regardless, I hit a baseline and then things started picking up. 😬
And I highly doubt I was just talking to myself; I usually manage to drop a decent POV and get a debate going. 🙂

Here you go:
https://postimg.cc/yDB8q9Jb
https://postimg.cc/ZC3KWjtR

That’s without the chats or your own entries. Compare it to the ones above. You'd see some overlap between the old and new data, but I already wiped the files. 🐔

So, yeah, there's a visible difference from that period mentioned earlier, but nothing significant enough to shift the overall trend. Mainly because, quantitatively speaking, you don't have enough posts to work with, and they're pretty evenly spread out over time. 😁

Donna Doyle2 said:Haha, those massive drops in post counts didn't happen when Luisa started moderating (she’s been around way before June 2019, and there were actually several peaks during her tenure), they happened exactly when Wikipedia got partially banned. :ro fl:

Drew Ross2 said:And regarding your graphs, just like Donna Doyle2 pointed out, the charts show the situation before and after one specific user's partial ban.

Yeah, I get where you're going with that conclusion. Wikipedia basically jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. 🤣

But the math doesn't add up: 4000-1200/31 = 90. That would mean Wikipedia was dropping 90 posts a day just on US-Themes, without even touching the chat, despite having a total forum PPD 20.00. Besides, Wikipedia has been active on the US side since August 2018, with a frantic little spree during the last three months before finally getting the deserved ban. ☕

Donna Doyle2 said:she’s been here long before June 2019

Only the moderation period actually matters. ☕

Drew Ross2 said:You’d want me to let things slide sometimes and issue warnings other times, probably depending on who is chatting, since in your opinion, that chat would be perfectly fine if it were you.

I don't chat, nor do I like it. Generally, I’m not the type who cares about small talk. Almost every single time I post in the chats, it’s just a reply to the exact same female user. 😁

So, here it is:
Do I provoke people within threads? Yes.
Do I try to trigger a reaction? Yes.
Do I troll within threads? Yes.
Do I pick fights? Yes.
Do I wander into off-topic? Oh yeah, I get carried away.

Do I leave enough material to justify a sanction? Absolutely.

But is that "chatting" within a thread? No, it isn't.

In my view, mindless chatting and off-topic nonsense should be sanctioned. Including my own, if any exists. Talking about wine in a dating thread is a textbook reason for a warning!

Anyway, I never said the problem was deleting chat; the problem is keeping the threads sterile.

I'm exaggerating (since my memory is shot and I can't be bothered to dig up examples):
If someone drops a comment in a dating thread that isn't actually about dating—say, rambling about how much their zip code affects their social life—I’m going to delete it.

And/or, for example,

If you see someone posting two or three stories that are only tangentially related to dating within a dating thread, I'll wipe them out. It doesn't matter if those posts actually make the thread more lively or encourage everyone to open up and share. 😁

Maybe these aren't the best examples but, alright...

The US and LJES are social forums. People perceive things differently, and they often wander off-topic, which I don't think is inherently bad. But total off-topic nonsense, like talking about North Korea in a dating thread, is just garbage. 🧐

Drew Ross2 said:You aren't the first one to complain like this. Some people act like they can just chat because they're "forum veterans," while everyone else gets banned for the same thing. That's not how I moderate. Rules apply to everyone equally.
You have several specific threads for chatting: the general chat, the astrology chat, the movie meetup thread, the ice skating thread, and the other hangout threads. I really don't see why I would allow casual chatting in every single other topic.

Like I said, I'm socially stunted 🤣 and trying to police every little bit of chat without writing an entire manifesto is basically mission impossible. That's exactly why I'm on the US site—because people tend to write extensively and loosely. 🐔

Anyway, I'm looking for, or rather suggesting, a bit more flexibility. 🕺

Look, let's just get straight to the point. Even though I’ve always been one of the loudest voices calling for much stricter moderation here on the US-Theme, I honestly think Drew Ross2 is a bad pick for that PDF.

Here’s my take on where the moderation is falling short:

First off, most importantly—even though we're all hanging out on a forum called US-Theme... Lonely hearts.It usually just implies that people are feeling lonely. And when you’re lonely, you end up frustrated, or pissed off, or just generally dissatisfied with everything. It's like they're just looking for a little bit of connection to take the edge off. Just hanging out and catching up.Look, man, let's be real about these various topics. Lu keeps things so sterile that she’d make an official FAQ look scandalous. Every time someone tries to actually expand the conversation or take it slightly off-topic, it gets nuked. It’s not even rare at this point—half the time, the entire discussion ends up crippled before it can even get started.

Posts that fall under the "off-topic," spamming, trolling, or provocation categories? Luiza just nukes them most of the time without even handing out a warning or a formal strike. Instead of attaching a penalty to the post—which would actually help if they decide to pull the same stunt again—she just wipes the whole thing clean. It’s a felony. Simple as that. Honestly, you just have to take authors like that out to the curb and serve them up to everyone else as a cautionary tale. Most of the time, these posts aren't even coming from a place of malice—they’re just plain boring. But occasionally, they actually manage to stir the pot and start a fight.

On the flip side, we’ve got people dropping posts that are nothing but pure, unadulterated insults. Sure, they might get slapped with a "warning" or some minor disciplinary action, but the posts stay live on the forum. It’s like leaving a pile of trash right in the middle of the sidewalk because you gave the guy who dropped it a stern look. New members—the guests just wandering in—read through all that garbage without any context. They have no clue the offender was even sanctioned. All they see is a community that seemingly shrugs its shoulders at blatant disrespect and harassment. In the end, the offender just keeps doing exactly what they were doing, and the damage is already done.

On the flip side, I have to give it to the moderator—she's incredibly quick on the draw. 👍

--
People know me around here for writing long-winded posts, but honestly? I’ve lost all interest in having a real conversation. Every time I actually put effort into something, my posts get nuked because they supposedly "didn't stick to the topic" (whatever that means). Right now, this site just motivates me to troll and stir the pot—just posting useless junk just so I can say I did something without wasting my precious time or wearing out my keyboard. I'm an addict. 🙂

And just to be clear right off the bat, I don’t have anything against Luiza, and I never have. I hooked it. Honestly, she’s great. Even if she’s a bit much sometimes, I actually find her pretty likable outside of the moderation stuff.

Anyway, yeah, I'm not just throwing a tantrum here. To prove I’m not just shouting at clouds, I’ll attach a couple of figures that actually address the core issue:
Graph 1, monthly data from 2016 to 2019 (excluding the chat logs):



Graph 2, daily data from 2017 to 2019 (chats excluded):



Since this isn't some official technical manual or a high-level professional white paper, I honestly think moderation needs to find a middle ground. We can't go back to that Wild West era where nobody was watching the gates, but we also shouldn't be living under a microscope like we are now. There should be room for a little bit of casual chatter and off-topic banter. Let the threads breathe a bit—let them evolve naturally, rather than suffocating every conversation the second it drifts slightly off course. The community. Hope and optimism. Even when they drift a little bit outside the bounds of the actual topic.

And that’s that. Case closed.

Quark for President! ☕

The ounce on Close hasn't seen anything higher than 1850. Back at High, it hit 1920. ☕

Here we go again with the alternative crowd... 😂 😂 😂

stormytiger4 said:Hey there, fellow Alternative fans. What’s everyone thinking about how PŽK keeps constantly messing with the audience using their garbage tactics? Are you guys actually aiming to shut down Alternative or just target PŽK?
Look, I’m not against anyone here, and I definitely don't want to see Alternative shut down. I just want to know what the end game is so I can figure out where to put my support.

https://beebelawpllcdotcom.files.wor...kids.png?w=686 😁

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Honestly, I was holding off on jumping in because I didn't want to give you an excuse to team up and destroy the thread again, just like you did to Sandra Kern37.
But now, I am genuinely curious about something.
Show me exactly where I supposedly bullied some random female user (who is clearly a fake profile) off this thread. Drop the link, but don't cherry-pick quotes—you know, that nasty little habit you have where you insult people's families, kids, and relatives, and then act all surprised when people snap back at you for being totally unprovoked. Just post the whole thing.
Let's get everything out in the open for everyone to see.

You guys have been claiming for MONTHS that we're all part of some hive mind—me, Sandra Kern37, Linda Moore51, Al Dente, nsvoj, SusFerox, Biljka112, 7nationarmy, Hepoks2, antet, Jessica Morris6, and whoever else you claim are just "clones" sent by one or two people to ruin your discussions. You hide behind your "ignore lists," yet you can't help but jump in to reply to those exact people, effectively killing any conversation where you aren't getting the attention you crave.
Meanwhile, every once in a while, these profiles that haven't posted since 2015 or 2016 suddenly "resurrect" just to swoop into threads and start insulting and provoking people, acting like we were all screaming insults at them yesterday.

And that doesn't bother you? Are those your profiles too, stormyrider28? Is that "dim-witted cousin" of yours—the person who, according to YOUR description, lives in the 21st century but is somehow blind as a bat, doesn't even know her own prescription, won't wear glasses, refuses to see an eye doctor, but suddenly "sees perfectly" thanks to some miraculous healing from "exercises" altruistically provided by Elizabeth Jackson—is she a real person? Just imagine being so "slow" that you can't go to a doctor or even open a profile to ask a question, but you'll take advice from a total stranger and suddenly experience a "miracle cure." That’s your level, stormyrider28. And when it becomes obvious that your story is full of holes and logical fallacies, and that it's easy to prove this person DOESN'T exist, you just pivot to attacking us, claiming "clones" are after you (because heaven forbid more than one person notices you're talking nonsense).
Is the "overweight brother" of our friend Tsine-Iti—who desperately wants to lose weight but apparently can't open a profile to seek advice on any nutrition site except for Alternative—actually real? He can't eat this or that, but he'll take advice on regular enemas or switching to smoothies (which he flat-out rejects just two days later). Then, this female user starts aggressively boosting her post count in the chat, but when she shows up in a thread, she lashes out at anyone offering advice, claiming she can "judge for herself" (she explicitly says she isn't interested in raw food, yet three different users suggest raw food post after post, and when called out, she suddenly turns on them, calling "raw foodists" names, saying meat "STINKS," is "carcinogenic," "toxic," and so on, while they actually suggest combining meat and vegetables as a superfood for weight loss). She treats it like some "enlightenment" and brags about the idea, then spits on and insults the very users who point out that the people giving her advice are the ones who usually shun that lifestyle.

Those are the facts, stormyrider28. Plain and simple. Regarding these weird "profiles" popping up here...
And no, it's not "clones" attacking you; you're accusing others simply because that's how your mind works, and because you use clones yourselves to troll threads. 👎👎

🤣 🤣 😁

You people over at Alternative are way more entertaining than Big Brother. 🙏

Jerry White29 said:So, you're telling me the human body just manufactures its own Vitamin C from carbs and water? That’s about as believable as claiming there's a three-foot worm living inside us that even every doctor in the country has somehow missed.

🤣 🤣 😂 😂 😂 😂

Guess I'll have to start fact-checking these "alternative" takes more often. ☕

wearyotter36 said:I suspect most people are just sitting on their hands, waiting for that all-time high to break 😁

🙂 🤣

Here you go again... 🤣 🤣 😵

And... here we go again. 🤣 🤣 🤣

Casey Bennett said:Exactly.

https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/1...to-caught1.jpg

😂 😂 😂

Linda Price5 said:There are six pages of this stuff over on Zillow. Is there any way to just kill the registration button for new users until you guys figure out what's actually going on? 😁

This could be fixed in ten minutes flat. 🙄

swiftstag66 said:Just slap a Google reCAPTCHA on the registration form and call it a day. Problem solved.

👍

They tried using a question as a CAPTCHA. Real genius move. The issue is that bots just paste the question into a search engine and use the top keyword as the answer. It’s basically an open door for them.🤣

Can we please start seeing more Google verification during registration? 🙄

Kyle Lopez36 said:What exactly is this ad even for? Are you selling mushrooms that actually have some kick to them? 🤷

+1 🤣