Posts by John Hill

Look, placidmarlin3, we don't just go sniffing around IP addresses for the hell of it. We only dive into that if there’s actual cause for suspicion. Take velvettinker41, for example. She was constantly popping up on the exact same threads with a bunch of clones, basically running her own little support group and trolling everyone under different handles. What are the odds that all those accounts share the same IP, hold identical opinions, hit the same threads at the same time, and spend their days backing each other up if it isn't just one person?
If people aren't out here causing trouble on the forum, they can post from the same IP for years and nobody will even blink—they could even run a whole fleet of clones without anyone ever catching on.

It’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. I actually called it first—velvettinker41 and John Doe are clearly the same person. She was jumping between both accounts within minutes just to back herself up on two different threads. After that, she went quiet on the velvettinker41 account for a while, only to dust it off again recently... if I remember right, she only brought it back after being totally exposed while using the John Doe and Jane Doe handles.

If anyone else was complaining, I might actually take these accusations seriously.

John Doe, velvettinker41, and Jane Doe are clearly just one person. Every single time they pop up on any thread, they're insulting people or picking fights, and they even go around giving themselves fake support under different names.
And there's a pretty strong suspicion that Mary Smith is just one of the most tedious trolls popping up over at the FBI too. The IP addresses match up, but since the writing style is slightly different—even if it's just as aggressive—I can't tell if it's the same person or just a family member.

Michelle Wilson8 said:Why don't you say that when someone jumps into a thread full of scammers just to stir the pot?
Instead, you end up banning the people who actually try to defend themselves against those trolls, all while using that tired excuse that "this is a free forum where anyone can post," then calling us gatekeepers on top of it all.

The thing is, what was labeled as a "provocation" directed at the scammers wasn't actually a provocation. It wasn't just velvettrucker52's opinion either—every single moderator at the Department of Public Works agreed, and after looking over the disputed posts, the admins backed them up too.

I haven't been around the forum much lately, so I spent some time catching up by reading Tuggin's posts.
Look, this isn't the same situation we had with Nicholas King back when the scammers were involved. In that case, Nicholas was just offering advice that people didn't want to hear because they preferred a pat on the back over reality. With Tuggin, the issue is different; her entire way of participating in a discussion basically boils down to just spitting on anyone who disagrees with her.

Jose White18 said:Once we got to the room, I told her: 🆙 pick whichever one you want.

😬

Now I'm just sitting here wondering which one she actually went with.😁

We only bother using color over at the FTC when we’re actually moderating.

crimsonhound80 said:I was thinking the exact same thing.
You mean you're already starting off on the wrong foot—it’s basically decided from the get-go, isn't it? You’re just assuming—I mean, you’re really out here just making assumptions without any actual proof, aren't you? It’s funny, I guess, how people jump to conclusions like that—it's almost impressive, in a misguided sort of way—but honestly, it's just plain wrong. You can't just decide something is true because it fits your narrative, you know? It doesn't work that way. Not in reality, anyway. I mean, I guess if things were flipped around—if the roles were reversed—I definitely wouldn't be the one sitting here penning some sort of protest manifesto. Not me. Probably wouldn't even have the nerve, honestly. 🙂 !!!???

Assumptions... man, they are a dangerous thing—truly. I mean, people just jump to conclusions without a second thought, and then suddenly, you've got a whole mess on your hands because nobody bothered to actually check the facts first. It’s reckless, really. I guess we all do it sometimes, but when you start building an entire argument on nothing but guesswork? That’s where the trouble starts. It’s a slippery slope, maybe even a cliff, if you ask me.

Look, if you’re going to act like a moderator, I guess you really ought to actually know the rules of the Politics subforum—it's not exactly rocket science, is it? Honestly, it's just common sense, but apparently, that's asking too much these days.

One of the rules is... well, I suppose you could say it's basically this:

Look, I’m just going to lay this out clearly—Article 5, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for the US Politics subforum applies to everyone, period. That means using derogatory nicknames for fellow forum members or any third parties is strictly off the table. From this point forward, we aren't going to tolerate anyone maliciously twisting names—you know exactly what I mean, like calling Donald Trump "Sranjo," or messing with Kradimir Čačić's name, or turning Ivo Sanders into "Smranader" and all that nonsense. It goes for user handles, too. If you try to twist someone's nickname just to be a jerk, it’s going to be treated exactly the same as direct insults. Consider this your fair warning.

I honestly don't think people grasp how much this whole situation—this entire mess with the current administration—is actually tearing at the fabric of our legal system. I mean, maybe I’m just being cynical, but when you look at how certain figures in Washington are playing by their own rules instead of following the US Constitution, it’s enough to make anyone lose their mind. It feels like we're drifting further away from actual stability every single day. And then you have people like Joe Biden just... well, let's just say they aren't exactly providing the steady hand we were promised, right? It’s all just one long, exhausting cycle of political theater that leaves the rest of us picking up the pieces. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though—given the state of things lately, surprise isn't really an option anymore. Everything feels so incredibly fractured, and frankly, it's infuriating. We need actual leadership, not just more of this endless, performative nonsense.

If you aren't allowed to write "Donald Trump" or "Kradimir Čačić" because of some arbitrary "rule"—well then, I guess you shouldn't be allowed to say that Dwyane Wade is a moron or that Čačić is an absolute idiot either, right? It just doesn't add up—honestly.

What exactly is it that you aren't grasping? I mean—really—is there some part of this that’s just flying right over your head? Because, honestly, I feel like I've laid everything out quite clearly—or at least, as clearly as one can given the circumstances—but apparently, there's still some massive gap in understanding here. I guess I should have been more explicit, maybe? But seriously, what part of this is actually confusing to you?

So, here’s how it goes.

Look, Joe Biden is practically family to me—I mean, we’re talking close ties here—so whenever someone goes out of their way to call him a monkey, by your twisted logic, I should be allowed to snap back and say, "Well, a monkey made you." It's just how the math works, I guess.

Look, I’m telling you—there’s no such thing as a verbal offense anymore—it just needs to be scrapped entirely. It’s all nonsense, really. Honestly, I’m just sitting here thinking about how much people around here love to take cheap shots at one another—it’s honestly exhausting. It feels like every time someone tries to make a point, instead of actually engaging with the argument, they just pivot straight to personal insults. It’s low-level, really. I mean, we’re all supposed to be having a discussion here, right? But no, it just turns into this constant stream of verbal abuse and petty jabs. I guess that's just how things have gone downhill lately—everyone’s so quick to lash out because they can't handle a real debate without getting defensive. It’s frankly pathetic, and it makes the whole experience feel incredibly toxic. I can't even begin to describe the absolute state of things on the forums lately—it’s just... well, it's a mess. Honestly, I feel like I’m losing my mind trying to keep up with the constant bickering and the sheer amount of nonsense being peddled by certain people. It’s exhausting, really. You go in expecting a decent discussion, maybe some actual insight into the current political climate or something useful regarding the economy, and instead? You get hit with a wall of mindless noise. It feels like everyone has an opinion on everything these days—which, okay, fine, that's the point of a forum—but there's a difference between having an opinion and just shouting into the void to hear your own echo. And don't even get me started on the specific cliques that form around certain topics. It’s like you can't have a nuanced conversation without someone jumping in to derail the whole thing with some half-baked theory or, worse, just pure vitriol. I guess I’m just getting old, or maybe I’ve just lost my patience for the performative outrage that seems to be the only currency left in online discourse. Everything is so polarized now—it’s like you’re either 100% with one side or you're the enemy. There's no middle ground, no room for a little bit of "maybe we're both wrong here," which—in my humble, perhaps overly cynical opinion—is where the most interesting stuff actually happens. Anyway, I'm probably just rambling. My bad. But seriously, does anyone else feel like they're walking through a minefield every time they log on? 🙄

I wasn't making any assumptions, I was just asking. It's because I find it hard to believe that not a single right-wing user on this forum has ever dropped an insult toward some left-leaning politician without anyone filing a complaint. I was just curious if the mods—since you're accusing them of being leftist—actually handed out punishments back then, or if they handled it the same way they did in this case.

Would you have even bothered writing this protest if someone had called a leftist politician an idiot? You’d only be crying about moderator bias if they were slapping people down for insulting the left while letting everyone run wild against the right. If they aren't reacting to insults regardless of who they're aimed at, then this definitely isn't some political agenda thing. Public figures—especially politicians, since their calls dictate so much of our daily lives—have to be able to take a hit. They need to be ready for criticism, even when it gets nasty. At the end of the day, what people say about them is just a raw metric of how much they actually like what those politicians are doing.

placidmarlin3 said:Look, let me ask you nicely—don't act like you're being all high and mighty here. You could actually show some consideration for the rest of us if you tried.🙄

Katie got banned, but only because after her, Stanley posted a private message and got banned immediately right after posting it, along with some guy from politics who also got banned. It was only after various higher-ups and certain connections got involved through channels I won't even get into that, suddenly—oh, suddenly—everyone started caring about this thing called an UNWRITTEN RULE. And just because the moderator who got banned wasn't just anyone, they lifted the bans, and now that rule is somehow "official." If Stanley hadn't been banned himself, Katie would have gotten away with it and the thread would’ve just been locked.
In any other situation—literally any other situation—that user would’ve been banned, and if they kept acting like the moderators were acting, their penalty would’ve been extended!!! (I’m talking about chatting on the CIA forums, which is strictly forbidden. I know this because I saw something similar shut down with my own eyes, though I can't say for sure, and Katie's
chat... well, you could probably start your own if you went over to the CIA site; surely you can manage that much effort if you're so intent on arguing your point.)
There are a million unwritten rules, yeah, and I've been told by higher levels more than once that every moderator has their own specific way of handling things and handing out warnings, so please, don't insult my intelligence with this nonsense.
Honey, if I was wrong about one thing, I wasn't smoking the Titanic.

So, either show some respect or go check the CIA archives yourself to see how similar cases were handled.

I'm not being inconsiderate, I'm being realistic. Individual cases that happened UP UNTIL NOW are completely irrelevant to what I'm saying (though I did catch a glimpse of that chat in the meantime). It became clear that unwritten rules aren't enough for certain things, so a real, written, valid rule was introduced. That’s exactly why they changed things—to prevent the exact stuff I highlighted from happening when more important matters are at stake. (A bit of personal judgment during moderation is always going to be part of it, and that's fine, but for anything leading to major sanctions, there needs to be a set regulation to follow).
It's obvious things are moving toward being better, and it's totally pointless to bring up past mistakes now. Yeah, there were mistakes, and that's exactly why things were changed—to minimize them. React if you see things still going wrong despite the new rules. React if you think one of those unwritten rules you mentioned is important enough to warrant a formal rule to reduce errors. But bringing up old sins? It makes no sense.

placidmarlin3 said:I honestly can't believe this. It's unreal.
Just when you start thinking things might actually be heading in the right direction, they swoop in with another massive spin cycle.🙏
God, I really hate how optimistic I am sometimes.

There was this unwritten rule that everyone on these forums had always followed without question, but suddenly, it’s become official policy. And honestly? It only happened because of the moderators.
Which rule did he actually break? 👏
Of course, if this were anyone else on this forum, nobody would even care enough to make a rule about it.
There isn’t even an official basis to manipulate anything here, yet this forum user has basically been on a forced month-long vacation for ages.😍

I’m just curious here—how exactly do the power players and admins plan on fixing the whole mess of moderator-driven trolling over on Reddit?
I honestly think there's this unwritten rule that reading stuff on the FBI is strictly off-limits.
It's banned now, so I'm wondering if they're actually going to make that rule official.
So they can basically give themselves a free pass to wipe away all those bans they racked up.
So, what happens when someone actually breaks the rules?

My respects.🙏

P.S. You guys really went overboard with the April Fools' jokes this year.☕

edit
The question in this post is crystal clear, so there's really no point in censoring it.

I honestly can’t stand people who are never satisfied. Seriously. We should have codified the PM rules a long time ago instead of just leaving them as some unwritten suggestion—that was a massive oversight from the start. And yeah, the whole mess between Stanley and Katie was finally the breaking point that forced everyone to actually fix it. It sucks that it took a disaster like that to get things moving, but let's be real: that's just how life works. Things rarely change until everything hits the fan. This is definitely an improvement, so all this complaining from people acting outraged is just noise for the sake of making noise.

And how exactly do you think that’s going to play out? It’s time to finally lay down some official rules. So, I’ve been sitting here thinking about how the mods could actually get themselves an amnesty. It's a weird thought, I know. Maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe I'm just looking for trouble. But seriously, how does one even go about getting a clean slate with the admin team? Is there even a way to make that happen without everything blowing up in their faces? Just some food for thought. 😕Look, if they actually pass an official rule like that, everyone’s going to get hit—including the moderators. As long as these unwritten rules are hanging around, people are just going to exploit them. They'll just claim, "Oh, this is an unwritten rule," and use that as an excuse to either enforce it or ignore it whenever it suits them. I haven't seen that Google chat, but honestly, if there was a written rule explicitly banning chats via some PDF, then anyone caught doing it would be getting punished, no matter who they are.
I honestly have no clue if they’re actually going to pass a rule like that or not. And look, I don't even know if the chat on the forums is truly such a massive disaster—I was just using your example to make a point. But at the end of the day, if a problem keeps happening over and over, it's always better to have some actual rules in place to handle it.

Sophia Evans76 said:So, following that logic, some murderer or criminal—maybe even a war criminal—could just be a forum moderator 😁 promoting illegal stuff. But hey, why should anyone care? That’s what other government agencies are for, right? 😉

Anyway, what you wrote above doesn't line up with how the other subforums operate.
As far as I know, mods on the tech subforums aren't allowed to link to or suggest illegal software. They also have to scrub any posts from users who drop those kinds of links. I think it's the same deal over in the movies and music sections.

Why don't the mods in those sections have the same authority as the mods over in 'Pets'?😕

Neither of those things applies here.

Promoting violence or anything that definitely causes harm to others is off-limits. Murder and theft fall squarely into that category.

Advertising something illegal isn't just a debate; it’s an actual crime. And the fallout—I think, anyway, I'm not certain—could hit the site owners too, since it's being hosted on their platform.

But if someone claims they walk their dog without a leash, the only person getting hurt is them if they get caught. Making that claim isn't breaking the law. Plus, it's just a minor infraction, not a felony. If they frame it as a discussion about the law or why they disagree with it, then it becomes a perfectly legal forum debate about whether a specific law is actually right.

And regarding that first point... look at me. Out of the entire admin and mod team, I only really know one person, and even she didn't realize until recently that I was posting under the name John Hill, let alone that I applied for a mod position. The people who appointed me only know me by my writing style here. For all you know, I could be some six-foot-four bald guy covered in tattoos with a massive rap sheet, typing this from a jail cell.
But as long as I follow the forum rules and do my job as a moderator properly, none of that matters, and it doesn't hurt the site in the slightest.

Sophia Evans76 said:As far as I'm concerned, under US law, the leash is mandatory. If the moderator of this forum is pushing a different narrative, then she’s basically breaking the law. I honestly don't get how she can still hold a moderator position.🤷

placidmarlin3, if I were you, I'd report her posts to the actual authorities.😉

Look, for a forum moderator, the only thing that matters is following the site rules.
Whether or not she keeps her dog on a leash—and whether she gets cited for it—is a matter for local law enforcement, not some forum staff.
Sharing an opinion isn't a crime. Walking a dog without a leash is a violation, sure, and if she gets caught by the cops, she'll pay the fine. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the moderators or admins of this American forum. It's a completely separate issue from her role here.

Zachary Fox2 said:It’s completely justified that three separate threads were opened, and honestly, I think it’s blindingly obvious to everyone why we need three instead of just one!?
Those adulteresses barely spent any time on ZUD before everyone started throwing that same old "it's been happening forever" excuse at them.

What kind of massive, explosive shouting matches are we even talking about here???
Look, not every single disagreement has to be treated like some kind of toxic back-and-forth battle. And honestly, if things actually reach a breaking point, why on earth shouldn't grown adults be allowed to go at it? If a situation has escalated to that level, let people vent and argue it out. It's part of being an adult.
And yeah, look, people have definitely split off into different threads based on what they're talking about, though only a handful of folks actually bothered to jump over to the next Topic... and honestly, even if it was some kind of mass exodus, it’s not like there's a rule against it or anything, so I don't see the big deal.
Or maybe we should just stick to guarding the sheep, making sure they don't wander off and join the neighbor's flock?

Is it really that much to ask? If someone actually takes the time to report a problem on the Topic, can't you guys just take a quick look and see what's going on? It shouldn't be this hard.
Look, if there aren't any complaints rolling in, that just means everything is running smooth, right? It means you can actually sit back and get your moderator duties done in peace without some random person breathing down your neck.
If there really was such a massive wave of reports and complaints flying around about certain dialogues and debates, then why on earth did everyone just suddenly shut up about it? Seriously, if things were hitting that boiling point, you don't just let the whole thing go silent without a single word being said. It makes zero sense.
It’s not even the same thing, you know? We aren't even gathering in the same spot. And honestly, how do you guys even envision this working—just opening up a brand new thread and calling it a day? Like, seriously? How are we supposed to actually carry on a conversation if we have to follow someone else's arbitrary rules and judge everything by their own twisted standards of what makes an adulteress? It's ridiculous.
Honestly, cheated spouses, mistresses, and adulteresses have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about when they start venting about the whole "infidelity" issue. It's like they're all speaking different languages. Instead of just rambling on, they seriously need someone to hand them a specific formula—a set of rules or a playbook—on how they should actually be communicating with one another.
No, I honestly have no clue what they were thinking with that move.

It wasn't clear, and honestly, we didn't let even one problematic person on ZUD get away with it. Especially since the whole debate was constantly jumping from one thread to another anyway, so keeping it all in one place would have been easy. First, there was the thread about cheating, then the adulteresses started complaining they were being targeted and demanded their own space. They split up, and some of them opened their own thread because they felt like they were whining too much on the original one. There were attempts from a few other groups—both cheated spouses and adulteresses—to start their own discussions, but we shut that down early on.
If we made a mistake as moderators, it was only because we didn't force everything to stay under one single thread from the jump.

What kind of "intense fighting" are we even talking about here???
Having different opinions isn't the same thing as fighting. And if things actually reach a breaking point, why shouldn't adults be allowed to argue it out?
And yeah, people did split off by topic, but only a handful of individuals were crossing over to the next topic... even if it became a widespread thing, it wasn't banned, and I don't see the issue.
Or what, are we supposed to treat people like sheep that need to be kept from wandering into another flock?

As long as everyone follows the rules of conduct, I don't see any problem with people posting in whatever threads they want. But we had threats of lawsuits, people sliding into DMs demanding we punish someone from a certain camp, and requests for moderators to act like judges in every debate. If we actually moderated, we'd just get accused of playing favorites based on who got penalized.

Is it really that hard? If someone reports a problem on a topic, just take a quick look to see what's happening.
If there aren't any reports, then everything is fine, and you can just go about your moderator duties in peace.
If there truly were that many reports and complaints about specific dialogues and debates, why was everything kept quiet?
And no, where we gather matters. How are we supposed to imagine opening a new thread? How are we supposed to run a discussion based on someone else's arbitrary rules and standards of what counts as adultery?
Basically, the cheated, the mistresses, and the adulteresses have no clue what they're talking about when discussing "cheating," so they need to be given a specific formula for how to talk to one another.
Seriously, I just don't get this move.

There were tons of reports via the icon and through DMs. On a forum this size, there isn't a way for us to notify every single member saying, "Hey, heads up, there's constant fighting going on in those three threads." This forum is too massive for that.

The only rule we expect is no insults, and that was impossible to maintain across those three threads.
Opening one thread shouldn't have been an issue, since the conversation was migrating between topics regardless.

Edward Grant3 said:Three different moderators stepped up to explain why they made this call. And honestly? Every single one of those explanations was weaker than the last.

It turns out the reasoning is that this thread is supposed to be a chat, which—let’s be real—it isn't. Then we hear that moderating three hundred-plus pages felt like too much work, so instead of actually stepping in, you just let things spiral. It feels like you were all just sitting back, crossing your fingers, and hoping the whole thread would just die out on its own—and when it didn't, you hit a snag. So, the "solution" was to move the thread over to the "graveyard" section, even though it’s still very much alive, just in the hopes it might finally expire there.

And now you have the nerve to tell us we're "welcome" here. I mean, seriously... who ever felt truly welcome at a cemetery? 😕

If nobody had said anything, you’d be accusing us of ignoring you. Now that we actually showed up, suddenly everything is wrong again. Look, I get it—for some people, no explanation is ever going to be good enough, but that doesn't make it a valid point.

1. All three of these are chat threads. You can claim otherwise if you really don't know what the definition of a chat is.

2. This wasn't about being lazy. It was about the constant back-and-forth, where the arguments kept jumping from one thread to another between the mistresses and the betrayed.

3. I don't get this idea that we were just sitting around hoping these threads would die out. Why would I, or any moderator, actually care whether a thread lives or dies? 🤷 Whether it's a three-page thread or a 300-page one, it makes no difference to us. Besides, the plan is to reopen a single thread about infidelity—not three separate ones where everyone keeps dragging the fight from one place to another, which was becoming impossible to follow.

4. > isn't some graveyard; it's just a section of the forum where the rules are a bit more relaxed, so the issues from these three specific Topics don't stand out as much.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Weapon number two: condescending attitudes wrapped in fake empathy.

Just report hollowtrucker77 right now—then we can move straight on to weapons three and four: getting deleted and blacklisted. 😁

Fine by me. hollowtrucker77, Michelle Alvarez8 is coming for you.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:eureka, the classic move—repression. You could've just said so from the start! 😁

Michelle Alvarez8, look, I genuinely don't mind walking anyone interested through the details. They deserve to know. And honestly? I don't get any kick out of implementing unpopular policies, even when I think they're absolutely necessary.

I get that you're bored right now and looking for a fight, but still...

Jesse Taylor80 said:The explanation provided here is both arrogant and pathetic.
You tolerate so much from everyone else, yet somehow these specific topics bother one of the moderatorit for purely personal reasons.

The explanation isn't arrogant or pathetic—it’s just the truth. But hey, if you honestly believe that other threads get away with this much leeway, why don't you show me an example? Show me a thread that stays open this long while having this much constant bickering, which in this case has even bled into three different threads.
To prove my point about what counts as "truth," I could list a whole bunch of threads—take the one about women who don't want to be mothers, for instance. Those discussions were intense and went on for a while, but once they started getting watered down and turned into nothing but petty fighting, they were shut down. That’s exactly what should have happened here. These threads were only left hanging this long because someone was trying to find a softer way to handle it.

PS: I don't get the logic here. Why would you think these topics personally offend any of us when we haven't even deleted or locked them? Look, on the OFF topic section, you can keep talking just like you can on ZUD or pretty much anywhere else on this forum.

driftingfox33 said:Signature + let's make a little bet—how much longer until this thread gets moved, locked, or just deleted entirely? 🥳 Give it about 7 more minutes and it’ll hit the one-hour mark... 😁

Yeah, she moved it. Put it right where it belongs. Honestly, I don't care where it sits—she would've given the exact same response on the ZUD or the PZK anyway.

Alright, look, I moved this thread to where it actually belongs. And just to be clear, decisions like this aren't made by Jose White18 alone, or by me, or any single moderator acting on their own. These three specific threads have been a mess for a long time now. Originally, there was just one single discussion about cheating. Then, a few women showed up claiming they didn't fit into that specific conversation, so three separate threads about adultery were opened. We allowed them because we wanted to be accommodating; we thought splitting things up would cut down on the constant bickering by letting people group themselves by interest. Instead, it just created these little cliques that ended up warring with each other. In any other normal situation, when threads get this out of hand—where moderation becomes a nightmare because we're constantly deleting arguments—you’d just lock them down. But because we wanted to cater to the regulars who frequent these topics, we kept putting it off. Eventually, we hit on the idea of moving them to a section of the forum with more relaxed rules, so they can still have their space to hang out. As for ZUD, we might eventually open a new thread regarding infidelity for new people interested in the subject, but this time without all the fragmentation and the clan warfare.

Rebecca Lee33 said:☕
Mary's wife 🙄 pregnancy test

Nothing else to say here