16 posts shown.
wiredfalcon2 said:Don't worry, we aren't going to wipe out all the off-topic chatter. I actually think leaving some good banter in there makes things better.
hollowmason64 said:Besides the sudden influx of new moderators who haven't even been introduced to us, they've implemented some new policy...
This used to be a place for good-natured ribbing where someone might occasionally get called out, but it was always done to keep the atmosphere fun.
Now we've reached a point where you have to triple-check how you respond to someone just so you don't accidentally hurt their feelings.
I actually got a warning the other day under the guise of trolling, simply because I responded a bit more sharply to a thread—and when you ask which part was trolling, you aren't even supposed to get an answer anymore, which is just absurd.
Please... if I ever start whining, I'll head over to Reddit or some psychology sub.
Most of the regulars still show up, and personally, I can't even remember posting anywhere else since I joined LJES—well, not until recently... but ever since this new batch of moderators arrived and started enforcing these rules, everyone has just scattered.
You're destroying our forum
wiredfalcon2 said:I think you'd be surprised to find out how many people don't post on this board at all because they have plenty of intelligent things to say, but they're put off by you and others who view this place solely as a "place for good-natured ribbing." Those are the people who leave a few constructive posts only to see them get lost in a sea of nonsense, so they stop participating altogether. This board is moving toward attracting the constructive types again (who, when they do joke around, tend to be much sharper and more intelligent than those who only care about being loud), and those of you who just want a playground can take your "good-natured ribbing" to a chat room or some other off-topic thread.
You wouldn't believe how exhausting it is for a huge number of people to read what you consider "good-natured ribbing." And for the record, the moderators aren't here for you; they're here to moderate.
hollowmason64 said:@eleuthera, I’m not really going to get into an argument about why you don't like my feedback regarding your post length. You aren't exactly the first person I've had to tell this to, and honestly, I don't see what the big deal is in just asking if you could keep things a bit more concise.
Unless your ego just can't handle the fact that we aren't all falling into a trance whenever you decide to drop a half-page manifesto quoting ten different posts across every single thread on the forum.
I don't really want to drag this whole thing out here; I just want us to reach some kind of middle ground regarding how much tolerance we're willing to show toward my favorite PDF.
wiredfalcon2 said:Honestly, I'm just going to sit tight and wait until I can clear out those mindless posts myself.
hollowmason64 said:Could you please ask the mods that if they're ever asked to bold a specific part of my posts—the parts where I'm supposedly in the wrong—to actually go ahead and do it? Like I mentioned before, even if it’s for no other reason than to make sure I don't end up repeating myself.
You know, it’s incredibly grating when you actually take the time to ask someone for a bit of clarity, only to have them completely shut you down or brush you off with some dismissive, "because I said so" nonsense.
Sandra James88 said:I have to disagree with you there...
Lješ has honestly been sliding lately—you can count the smart, productive threads on one hand these days. It’s definitely seen better days. Sure, people mess around and poke fun at each other (and I know I go a little overboard myself sometimes), but this place used to host such great discussions and actually teach you something... lately, it feels like it's just trolls starting threads just so we can make fun of them.
I'm genuinely hoping these stricter rules actually pay off and help raise the bar for how we talk to each other here on LjES, even if it means I end up catching a warning or a penalty once in a while.
Sarah Morgan2 said:
Thomas Stewart4;18428792 said:bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.
I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.
First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.
A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.
Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.
Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.
I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.
If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.
The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.
I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.
I couldn't agree more. She’s exactly the same way over in the French section—always ready to lend a hand, but she does it with this incredibly humble, zero-ego vibe. Honestly, you get the sense that she knows her stuff inside and out, even when we move well beyond just linguistics.
Since linguistics is her main specialty, she unfortunately doesn't stand a chance at a moderator position, which is honestly such a huge shame.😢
Honestly, if you just take a quick look at the first page of the DZa, you’ll see that I haven't even said much—if there's even one single thread there that isn't related to languages, then I've gone way overboard. 🤷
If you ask me, we probably shouldn't have someone whose main background is in Social Science running things, because they wouldn't actually have much to moderate. 😁
I honestly don't think laypeople should even be weighing in on things like Social Science, mostly because people find psychology or history much more captivating—and those fields have their own entirely separate sets of complexities to deal with.
We shouldn't forget that half-baked idea about creating a dedicated linguistics PDF. It’s pretty obvious that language makes up about 90% of what people actually care about when we discuss Social Science, so I’d honestly vote for bringing on another moderator who specializes specifically in linguistics.👍
bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.
I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.
First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.
A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.
Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.
Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.
I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.
If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.
The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.
I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.
Tyler Bishop56 said:We’re basically watching a mass migration unfold... a bunch of unruly teenagers have chased all the hazelnut lovers out of every corner of this forum, so everyone’s just trying to find their footing in a new home—assuming they even survived the exodus. That’s life, I guess... everything stays fine until you end up over on Health & Wellness.
Rachel Davis63 said:I couldn't agree more—the quality of these discussions has really hit rock bottom lately, especially now that all those witty, sharp-tongued regulars have moved on...
Amy Long9 Asks:
I was reading through some old threads recently and stumbled upon this discussion about whether people actually care about local politics or if everyone is just tuned out. It’s funny how much can change in a few years, but honestly, most of us seem to stay exactly the same—just sitting around, watching the news, and wondering why nothing ever seems to move forward. I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle a few years back, listening to a group of guys argue about the upcoming municipal elections, and it hit me that we all love to complain, but very few of us actually show up when it matters. It’s almost like we enjoy the drama of the debate more than the actual result.
Just take a look at the thread and you'll see that they aren't even trolling; they're actually being serious. Makes sense to me!
Jesse Cruz3 said:I’ve been hit by this sudden dread about what my life is actually going to look like.
I don't know, lately I was all about "going out, partying, wasting time," while everything else just sat on the back burner... then some things happened and certain people came along who actually forced me to think—to want independence, to travel... but all of that feels lightyears away until I find a job or finish my degree... and there's still so much time left. I think those desires were always there, but maybe it finally clicked that I'm not getting younger, quite the opposite. If I don't take action now, will I just wake up one day realizing I haven't gone anywhere, accomplished nothing, and my life is a total wash?
The biggest trigger for this crisis was probably this guy who moved away to chase a better life... he reminded me that he's actually out there (in the places I've always wanted to be), while I'm still here... just the thought of being stuck here for the rest of my life is revolting.
And yeah, I am studying what I love... I'm lucky enough to have that much... 🙂 though it can get brutal at my university, which definitely drains my spirit and motivation sometimes. 😁
I've noticed that as the days go by, when I finally break down and cry, it lasts a little less time than the day before. 🙂 That's a small mercy. 🙂
Thanks for even bothering to read this nonsense and comment on it. 🙂