Posts by Eric Newman75

Rachel Williams said:(...) Given how sketchy this whole thing sounds, I’d definitely suggest checking the final discussion thread first to see if the risk of buying oil is even worth it. It’s incredibly hard to find the genuine stuff because there are just way too many scammers out there, and we aren't talking about small change here. Plus, despite all the ads and hype, the oil itself isn't some magic cure-all.

Hey everyone, I'm looking into hemp oil. How can you actually tell if you've found the "real deal"? Is there any reliable way to verify what you're buying? Also, beyond that, is there a specific list of diseases (like certain cancers) where the oil actually helps, versus cases where it won't do anything at all?

I know there are scammers. Trust me, I get it. And yeah, I know it's expensive. But people are talking about it everywhere—probably for a reason. 🙂

I’m starting to think the issue isn't actually you—it's Mark. He honestly can't seem to wrap his head around basic questions like who, what, when, where, how, or why. Seriously, an Indian traveler who just touched down in the States twenty minutes ago and spent that same amount of time trying to learn our language would have drafted a much clearer, more coherent complaint than this. 🙄

Go ahead and start a thread over in the Health section asking for recommendations on the best dermatology clinic in the States. If that doesn't scare them off, I don't know what will. ☕

Aha, so you’ve decided that the subforum titled "Technical Support for Reddit" is the perfect place to dump all your random questions? Way to go. ☕

Did it ever cross your mind to maybe check out Student Corner instead?

It’s honestly fascinating how many people end up here because they’re just completely lost—or maybe they're just looking for friends who come with special perks. 🙏

rustydrifter10 said:I honestly have no clue why you decided to drag social science into a thread that's strictly about history.

He’s telling you. It’s the exact same thing. How they operate—their whole playbook, really. Their modus operandi....well, at least when it comes to some of the folks on this forum.

Eric Newman75 said:So, I was checking out the thread on the Social Sciences forum—you know, that unmoderated, totally neglected corner of the site where nothing ever stays on track? Well, it just got shut down. After about 30 or 40 pages of people spiraling into an intense debate about genetics—yes, genetics!—the whole thing was killed off. And honestly? It was the same old crowd of regulars causing the chaos. Typical.

Look, regarding everything else—the science sub-forum isn't being moderated by guesswork or just glancing at things from a distance. If you actually want to figure out what the issue was, do me a favor and read the thread from the very beginning. Honestly, there’s no need for any interventions right now anyway; we’ve already sorted it out. We handled it ourselves, without your help.

Look, I’ll give you a shortcut for next time. If someone lays out a bunch of quotes, literature, or specific interpretations right in front of you, and you still insist on doubling down on your own take without even acknowledging the counterarguments—without citing the opposing views or the actual data—what exactly are we looking at here? Is it just pure ignorance, or is it some kind of deliberate provocation, sheer malice, or maybe just... total tunnel vision?

Look, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: I’m not talking about myself here—several people from the DZ crowd have already been slapped with bans, and I want to clear that up immediately. They got booted because they didn't know how to handle this kind of "approach." And honestly? Who's to blame? You are. It’s on you. You're failing to moderate, you're completely out of the loop, and frankly, you don't even understand the subject matter you're supposed to be overseeing.

And now, that whole approach is migrating over to History—which used to be the gold standard for top-tier moderation.

The solution? We need actual professional moderators. And maybe a few targeted strikes against the provocateurs.

hiddeneagle3 said:And honestly, who would you even consider acceptable for a moderator role?

Look, the whole process for picking moderators is just what it is—I really don't have the energy to grind through it all. Same goes for the candidates. And amberwalker4, for that matter, isn't even questioning how moderators are chosen; they're just obsessed with the actual job of moderating.

We can only really deal with the moderator situation if (or when) the higher-ups decide the current crew isn't cutting it anymore.

Seriously, can anyone from the management team please weigh in on this?

It’s been ten full days since I started this thread, we're rolling into day eleven—and honestly, it's just radio silence from your end.

Even a quick "We don't have a quorum because everyone is still out on vacation" would be enough to let me know you've actually seen this.

steelskipper5 said:There was exactly one candidate who actually had the chops and, more importantly, the willingness to put in the actual hours required for the job. But instead of taking the win, administration shot her down just because some third-party moderators—who barely even show up to the Social Science boards—decided to lodge a complaint.
And that’s all after two whole rounds of moderators absolutely wrecking the social sciences with their sheer stupidity.

If they actually wanted to go back to making expertise a requirement again—who would even be left? Honestly, looking at the pool, there’d be nobody standing.
I highly doubt you’d ever actually dive into something like that. Personally, I’m done with the Social Sciences entirely. I checked out after watching Colbert and Cosanostra—once Cosanostra explicitly stated that there’s absolutely no room for a scientific approach in those discussions, I was out. Now, all that's left is a handful of people who can actually write, hanging out on a sub-forum where a scientific discourse isn't even encouraged.

Here we go again: everything just to have the administration flip-flop on their decision—who on earth are they actually going to pick for moderator this time?
It looks like rustydrifter10 just went ahead and appointed herself moderator because, let's face it, nobody else around here is willing to step up and actually do the job right.

Honestly, I’m more curious about whether a scientific approach will actually be fostered, regardless of who is pulling the strings. Sure, those two things are definitely linked, but let's be real—any kind of rigorous methodology is infinitely better than having absolutely no direction at all.

Right now on the forum—and let’s be honest, this isn't exactly news, it’s been going on for ages—anyone can basically write whatever they feel like. You want to make stuff up? Go for it. Want to fake data or just straight-up lie? Be my guest. People are out here posting absolute nonsense, throwing out cheap provocations, and acting like they own the place... yet, absolutely nothing ever happens to them. Total impunity.

The only thing that actually matters is respecting the format—making sure the discussion stays "civil." But honestly? It leaves you wondering what "civil" even looks like when things get this messy.

Let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate—this forum shouldn't be some exclusive club reserved solely for PhDs and ivory tower academics. You don't need a doctorate to join the conversation here. What actually matters? Knowing your stuff. If you have a handle on the subject matter and can back up your claims with actual logic, you belong here. Look at how things are going lately. This entire social science sub-forum is becoming a total mess, cluttered with nothing but half-baked data, amateurish ramblings, sloppy posts, and endless trolls. It's exhausting. Honestly, someone needs to step in and put a stop to this nonsense before it gets even worse.

Honestly, who’s actually going to step up and do it? It doesn't even matter.

The thread about regional dialects over on the Social Science board—which, let’s face it, is totally unmoderated and basically a ghost town—got derailed by the exact same tactics. After somehow spiraling into 30 or 40 pages (!) of a debate about genetics (!) instead of staying on topic, they just shut the whole thing down. Same group of people involved, too.

It’s honestly pathetic how much History and Social Science have gone downhill. Based on how much the users actually know, those boards have devolved into niche sub-forums for things like ancient hairstyles or century-counting. I mean, what if we just stepped away from the populist nonsense for a second and actually used expertise as a standard again?

I see they’ve added Apophis back in, even though he was already on the DNC roster before. Is this a permanent move, or just some temporary fix while they figure things out?

bluecyclist64 said:Look, I’m putting Jack forward, but if he passes, then you’ve got me. It’s not exactly ideal, but if there isn't anyone else left to save the DNC, and if Jack won't step up, I'm willing to sacrifice my own time—even if it's just temporary.

I wouldn't, but hey, thanks—it means a lot that you trust me. 🙂

I’ve poured way too much time, sweat, and soul into the DNC already. Most of what’s written there, under both my old and my current username, is mine. And I’ve been hanging out here since 2003, which is—man alive—nearly ten years.

Do you even realize what ten years looks like? In that time, I could have started three companies, knocked out two college degrees, maybe even married five times... 😬

Sam Green73 said:The FBI isn't exactly the place where you go to vote on how moderators should be picked.

I didn't even mean to eat it. But honestly, the FBI has become this place where the admins and mods just wash their hands of everything, and nobody at CNN even bothers to look into what's actually happening.

Nadia claimed she just doesn't have the time, arguing that nobody actually wants to moderate over at CNN and that there isn't a single candidate anyone can agree on... Honestly, Lisa Rodriguez84 was basically just echoing her excuses word for word.

Look, while you guys are all busy polishing your little alibis, half of the old crowd from CNN is completely avoiding that subforum—kind of like what bluecyclist64 so perfectly pointed out.

Doesn't that just scream that there's something fundamentally broken with this whole "moderator election process"? I mean, seriously, if these mods are so dead-set against any kind of actual solution, why don't they just go moderate CNN instead? Or are we all just supposed to sit here and wait for everyone to quit until the whole thing fixes itself?

At any rate, the Czechs are going to have to foot the bill for CNN. If that works for you guys, it works for me. It’s just funny—ten years ago, when we were actually talking about linguistics, it was just Dee Dee and me holding down the fort. Eventually, other people showed up and CNN actually started growing. Now? It’s falling apart all over again. It takes an incredible amount of work to make a place credible. Not just "nice," but actually credible. That’s what CNN used to be. But how is it now? Ha, who cares. We’ll just tear those pop songs apart until we're throwing our hands up in frustration.

Bradley Barnes90 said:If someone actually stepped up, we’d jump at the chance to take their help. But the problem is finding someone who is both an expert and doesn't stir up drama—and more importantly, someone that every single admin and moderator on the board can get behind.

That is honestly one of the dumbest rules you guys could have ever dreamed up. How many moderators and admins are we talking about here? Fifty? A hundred? Forget about finding someone everyone likes. Or better yet: forget about finding someone without enemies.

You’re basically advocating for the rule of mediocrity. Let me be crystal clear so nobody misinterprets me: you're calling for average people. A moderator should be anything but average.

Bradley Barnes90 said:Comparing this to the hard sciences is totally pointless. On CNN, you can debate the same topics forever and never reach a conclusion; there just isn't one definitive, final answer for most things.

"Most things" doesn't mean "everything." If we're talking about linguistics, there are actual books: grammars, dictionaries, style guides. There is a clear line between what is codified and standardized and what isn't. We know what counts as scientific fact and what doesn't.

This kind of relativism is just nonsense.

Bradley Barnes90 said:I'll say it again: no one is ever going to be fully satisfied. Either the moderation is too strict or it's too loose. Someone is always going to find something to complain about. I think it's always been that way.

Fair enough. But that just brings us right back to my point: forget about finding someone everyone likes.

Bradley Barnes90 said:Plus, on the Linguistics subreddits, it’s actually pretty easy to spot who knows their stuff and who’s just talking nonsense. You shouldn't even sweat it when some idiot jumps in every five minutes; you just have to tune them out.

Look, we aren't the big deal here. We're just a small group of maybe twenty people who have known each other forever. The real players are the readers—there are probably 200 to 300 of them dropping by every single day. As long as we hit at least that many, we're doing fine. If I recall those Nielsen stats correctly, Reddit sits right up there alongside Yahoo, Netscape, and AT&T—that is massive traffic. People show up, they read whatever catches their eye, and then the cycle repeats. It would be great if every one of us chimed in, but let's be real, that's not how it works. I don't have the energy to keep typing the same responses over and over again every time some drama unfolds.

That’s why I’m saying, if they actually penalized stupidity and troll posts (if they don't just delete them outright), there'd be way fewer vultures and provocateurs hanging around.

And honestly? Even some of the old-timers have gotten a little too comfortable—and they deserve more than just a pat on the back for that. 😁

Bradley Barnes90 said:And you’re right—the subforums here are moderated much more loosely than others, which works for some people and drives others crazy.

Look, I don't have an issue with light moderation. Really, I don't. But what bugs me is this low-brow approach being applied to a science-based subforum. Over on Linguistics, people can basically post whatever nonsense they want without providing a single shred of evidence. Or actual knowledge, obviously.

A subforum shouldn't be an elitist club—I explicitly said you don't need a PhD in Philosophy just to talk about language—but when the rules are this lax, we aren't cultivating intellectuals; we're just breeding trolls.

Even Stephen Colbert used to get penalized for trolling just for the sake of being provocative. I honestly don't get why you guys won't do the same. At the end of the day, this is Reddit, not Craigslist or some random Mexican cafe.

I’m all for the initiative to scrap Judolina once and for all.

Tyler Bishop56 said:Tyler Grant76, Nicholas King, and the rest of you—look, I totally get why everyone's pissed off about how some of the site admins have been acting lately, it’s been pretty embarrassing. But honestly, there’s just no ground to stand on for a dedicated thread about it here.

The higher-ups at the organization actually listened and fixed one of those many mistakes people have been flagging over the last few weeks, which is actually a win if you ask me. Plus, I haven't really seen that typical "we know better than you" attitude or the usual condescension when they're talking to users, so that's a nice change of pace too.

Even if we all end up leaving this place, some new group of kids will probably just move on to complaining about the bizarrely weird moderation rules that seem to run this forum anyway. So, yeah, it’s a tiny step, but hey, at least it’s moving in the right direction.

Signed. No need to beat a dead horse.

I'm with you on that. Let's just take it to the DMs then.

stormylynx92 said:1. AC Milan isn't just some random club; they've been the most successful team on the planet over the last 20-25 years (nobody else has more international trophies out there!!!)

Once you're back online, let's really dive into this—I'm curious. Which specific competitions were you counting?

Exactly. By posting, I’ve basically walked away from any compensation. I’m letting Reddit profit indirectly—you know, because people read the site, which attracts advertisers and all that blah blah blah—but every single one of these posts belongs to me. Nobody can just scoop them up and move them to another platform without my permission. They belong right here.