Posts by Roger Foster95

Does anyone else feel like modern country is leaning way too hard into that whole "dark revenge" vibe lately? It’s fun for a song, but it feels like we're seeing a lot more of those gritty, cinematic storylines than we used to. Is it just a trend, or are we actually heading toward a new era of darker storytelling?

hollowtrucker77 said:Yeah, because apparently, mastering the art of quoting is just too much intellectual heavy lifting for some people.

Except, since it’s clearly not rocket science, maybe don't make threads unreadable by doing it that way? 😉

So, when is that poll actually coming out? 🤷

darkmarlin16 said:hollowtrucker77, man, seriously, whatever you say to him and he just starts handing out points and bans like he’s some kind of petty dictator🤮

He doesn't even know how to quote properly. Instead, he just drops a brand new post in response to yours... and does it on an entirely different page, too. Typical. 🤷

Ronald Allen said:You forgot a few more moderators from the NY Times, by the way. There's plenty more of us... 😵

P.S. Man, I'd love to be first in that lineup... 😛

hollowtrucker77 is still quite a bit ahead of you.🙂
you’re basically fighting for second place against Drake... 😁

but I see you grinding every single day to take the throne. So, who knows? Maybe that possibility isn't totally off the table in the near future... 😉

lost
d eç
j o n y b d l

not necessarily in that order... 🙂

redmarlin3 said:Maybe I wasn't being clear enough; 😬 the warning cards issued to a member are visible only to the moderators—meaning all of them—the supermods, the admins, and of course, the user themselves when they check their "Options" menu.

+ With this newer version of vBulletin, every single card—even a yellow one—automatically triggers an instant PM to the user. So, honestly, there’s a very slim chance someone wouldn't realize they were flagged, or why it happened in the first place. 😉

Glad you corrected yourself in time... 😁

I was already starting to cook up some conspiracy theory about moderator plots... 😁

redmarlin3 said:Not gonna happen. 😉 Only the moderators can see this...

Those invisible points get added straight to the account total—how does a regular user not realize that? 😕

redmarlin3 said:In most cases, going off-topic earns you a 10-point penalty card, but users can't even see those if the moderator just wipes the post entirely. 😉

I'm not really looking to weigh in on this specific situation since I don't have the full story, but I can say that's not how I handle things. In the worst-case scenario, I'll just strip out the off-topic part of a post and give the group a heads-up to stay on subject...

That’s just not true. 🙂

Most of the time, posts just get deleted without any actual penalties for the offender. Why bother?
Even if the post itself isn't visible, you’d still see the post count on their profile.

I’d be all for deleting posts if we weren't nuking constructive threads just because they drift slightly off-topic. I'd support it if moderators weren't abusing the delete button and actually treated everyone on the forum equally. But in practice? It doesn't work like that. So, I'm against deleting posts.
There are penalty cards for every kind of violation. There’s a reason they exist. They're there to be used. 😉

Bradley Lopez12 said:Signature.

And more. Honestly, don't even waste your breath on this absolute wreck of a forum. Just glance at the banned users and appeals section. It’s famous for it—take, for instance, how they target certain smart-alecks. Every time a post doesn't suit their taste, or some sycophant reports a comment, they slap on a sanction without a second thought. They claim "trolling," but the guy doesn't even know what trolling actually means. He just heard the word somewhere, realized he has the power, and decided: punishment!

And what is there to say about how these mods work? You see people commenting on their penalties saying, "I skimmed the thread quickly, so I *assessed* which punishment was appropriate."

Give me a break. What kind of moderator "assesses"? There are rules; follow them. As for this little gang of mods who think they're untouchable? Forget it. We should look for forums that actually maintain a decent atmosphere.

What exactly do these mods think they're doing when they lock threads under the excuse of, "I decided this wasn't good, so I locked it"? Who gave you the right to judge? Your job is to ensure everything stays within the rules, not to act as a judge deciding what's "good" or "bad." So many interesting discussions are dead because a moderator couldn't handle the actual content, so it was easier to just hit the LOCK button out of sheer incompetence.

This whole setup is a joke and a tragedy. This isn't how a forum should function; it's a place where the digital world has gone to hell. Why? Because of incompetent, bottom-tier moderation.

So, my vote goes not just to this specific individual, but to several other mods as well. I have two heads, and both of them are spitting mad. Consider this two votes for replacing the mods who are ruining the fun in the virtual world!!!

👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎

👍

You've hit on all the core issues that prevent this forum from ever being high-quality.🙄
Beyond the constant deleting of posts, you've got unjustified thread locking, using "trolling" as a catch-all excuse for subjective penalties, a general failure to apply rules objectively, and a system that shuts down any chance to prove anything if it doesn't suit the moderator's interests.
If the administration actually had the will to fix these five key problems, I think this forum could finally reach a higher level of quality. ☕

redmarlin3 said:So what, 90% of the users who follow the rules and don't cause trouble are supposed to wade through pages of someone else's mindless rambling? Give me a break...

Off-topic stuff has always been deleted, and it always will be. If it's harmless, maybe move it to a general chat thread without handing out penalties. But either way, it has to go, because no sane person wants to sit through someone else's endless chatter and nonsense.

OT: Leave Shady alone. 🙂

The thing is, off-topic stuff keeps happening precisely because there aren't any penalties. A post just gets wiped, no sanctions, no nothing. So why wouldn't a user keep rambling off-topic if they know there are zero consequences? 🤷
But honestly, the bigger issue with deleting posts is when someone writes ten lines on a topic, and maybe one or two lines are technically off-topic just to clarify a point—then a moderator "decides," in their own unique way, that the whole thing is spam and nukes the entire post. Most of the time, they do it just because they don't agree with the user, and in the process, they kill any chance of a constructive discussion through pure incompetence.

I have zero clue who this Shady guy is, but honestly, any moderator who goes around deleting posts should be replaced. ☕

Rules exist for a reason. You apply them objectively, and everything works fine. No big deal.
From what I can tell, this was flagged as off-topic. If a moderator is actually clueless about the rules, a lighter penalty for off-topic chatter should just be a yellow card. A harder strike would be a red card plus a 10-point deduction.
In reality, deleting posts is usually just pathetic moderator tyranny—a way to scrub anyone's words they don't agree with from the board. 👎

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Alright, here’s a constructive proposal for ya.

I’m suggesting that every three months, we rotate moderators on each sub-forum through a vote involving both users and mods. And who gets to vote on a specific sub-forum? Here's the deal:

Any user registered on that sub-forum who has started at least one thread that hit at least 20 replies and over 2,000 views.
(And if anyone’s wondering why people with 500 or even 1,000 posts can't vote if they haven't started a thread on that specific sub-forum—it's simple. They haven't shown they actually care or have the ability to kick off an interesting discussion, which would actually add value to the boards they're trying to influence.)

If at least 30% of the eligible voters aren't happy with how the current mod is doing, then that mod is out.
The users who voted against the current mod can suggest replacements, and we hold a poll to pick the new one. Everyone on that board who has started at least one thread with at least 15 participants and 1,000 views gets to vote in that poll.

Then, we run the whole process again in three months.

That’s how you actually improve the quality of moderation (and the boards themselves)—by having people step up to help out rather than just acting like little bosses.

I'm on board with the proposal, but honestly? It needs a total overhaul from top to bottom. 😁

Look, this whole thing about "contributing quality" by starting a thread is completely irrelevant. Why should I be forced to start a new topic just to participate? If there’s already a thread I care about, I’ll just jump in there. It’s a non-issue. Otherwise, you just end up with a bunch of clone threads created by people who only want to cast a vote. Plus, there's always that risk: a moderator could just lock a thread without any real reason—even if it hits 1,922 views in two days—just to intentionally block someone from voting. Makes sense, right?
Even with 30% of the voters backing the change, it’s still not enough to trigger a swap. Meanwhile, voting for a new moderator? Completely impossible. Is anyone actually listening?

This is how I’d probably put it together...

To be a voter, you need at least 500 posts total. Plus, you gotta have at least 10 posts in the specific PDF where the poll is actually hosted before it goes live. That’s it. Simple enough?
A limit of 500 posts total just to prevent clone voting. Let's be real—clones with that many posts are incredibly rare anyway. Anything over 10 posts on the PDF is just unnecessary clutter. A user can follow the thread both actively and passively, and honestly, maybe the moderators' own rules are what’s stopping people from posting more on the PDF in the first place? If someone hits that 10-post threshold, the burden of proof is on them. If a moderator or whoever started the vote change starts asking questions about where this voter came from or why they're suddenly appearing on the PDF, they'll have to provide the receipts.

Maybe we should just set a minimum voter turnout requirement for elections to be considered valid? Just a thought.
It’s honestly impossible to pin down exactly how many users are actually contributing to the PDF. If we want a real number, we should probably just look at the total count of unique users—clones included—who participated in the single most active thread on the entire PDF, whether that was a casual chat or something else entirely. It would be a perfect way to backfire on anyone cloning accounts, since it would only drive up the minimum voter turnout. Plus, it would give those people constantly chatting a much-needed reality check.

The vote percentage required for removal would be exactly the same as the threshold for impeaching the Constitution. That means two-thirds—or 66.67%—of valid voters have to cast their ballots for a removal if we want to oust the moderator.

Elections aren't mandatory. Any user who meets voter requirements and is fed up with how a moderator is handling things can request one. The poll would run for a month—enough time for everyone who actually cares to weigh in. If the vote fails to unseat them, no new elections can be requested for that same moderator for three months, and a single user can only trigger this once. If a moderator survives three failed election attempts, they get permanent immunity from user-initiated removals. To prevent random people from messing with the results, the poll thread would stay pinned at the top of the specific subreddit/board they moderate, rather than being out here, so only active members of that community are voting.

Naturally, breaking these election rules would result in a ban, with the length determined by the severity of the violation.

If a moderator actually gets ousted, they’re removed from that board. Depending on what the admins decide, they either get fired or moved to a different board if leadership thinks they deserve a second chance. Either way, they can never return to the board they were kicked from. Appointing a replacement is strictly up to leadership; regular users shouldn't have any say in who takes over.

Look, this proposal actually favors moderators quite a bit. The chances of successfully "toppling" someone are slim. BUT, if someone actually manages to get replaced despite all these hurdles, then they clearly don't deserve to moderate that space anymore and it's for the best. Moderators shape the culture of a sub; their style dictates traffic and how people talk, which directly impacts how many people end up unhappy. Higher engagement is a win for both admins and users—more people means more diverse views and better discussions, which naturally drives up quality.

The election bylaws could still be fleshed out in detail, but obviously, we're waiting for the green light from the higher-ups... 😁

Tony👍
tompa👎