Punishing just for the sake of punishing

I’ve been posting on this forum for several years now, and I’ve noticed that the "rules" regarding how people react and how things get moderated have shifted quite a bit. My gut feeling is that the moderators' penalties have become totally arbitrary—they don't seem to have anything to do with an actual, objective need to step in.

I’m going to lay out two specific cases where I was penalized. I’ll quote them directly, and then I’d love a logical explanation as to why this was deemed "trolling" or "spam."

The most recent case / thread: In contact with an ex-boyfriend Basically, some guy is writing about how a girl cheated on her boyfriend, then dumped the guy she lived with to hook up with this other guy, but then that guy realized the girl is *still* in contact with her ex... 😍
WTF wrote the following:

WTF says:
What kind of bullshit is that? She cheated on him with you, then dumped him, but they're still in contact?

So, I'll repeat it:

She cheated on him with you, then dumped him, but they're still in contact. ☕

Honestly, WTF's little letter absolutely cracked me up 😍 😂 and I couldn't help but agree with him. However, since the rhetoric went a bit overboard, I expressed my support for WTF's point using this gesture— " 👍 ☕ "

In response to my perfectly heartfelt and sincere gesture, Eleuther hit me with an infraction for spamming.

The case before that / thread: My father is cheating on my mother, what can I do I’m having a discussion with Shefty; nobody is insulting anyone, we aren't even necessarily agreeing, we're just laying out our individual arguments... Shefty believes the son shouldn't have broken/cracked his father's password (after suspecting and eventually discovering that the father was cheating on the mother—which the siblings had all somewhat sensed or were worried about due to the dad's changed behavior), even though the father himself actually asked his own son to set up his computer specifically so he could secretly message his mistress. ...Shefty also claims the son betrayed his father's trust by cracking the password... Well, I obviously saw it differently. Shefty also argues that if she were in the mother's shoes, she wouldn't expect her son to tell her her husband is cheating (even if she knew all along) nor would her whole world fall apart because of it... anyway, here is an excerpt from that little debate...

Quote:
Shefty says:
Yeah, maybe I'd be hurt, but not enough to make my entire world crumble and blame it on him.

ME: You must have lived several lifetimes (and definitely experienced something like this) if you can claim to know exactly how one would feel and whether their world would actually collapse or not...
Quote:
Shefty says:
So, in your view, a child who doesn't take sides, doesn't snitch on their parents for something they only found out by breaking their father's trust, and reacts reasonably to a situation that doesn't even involve them—is such a child just supposed to be screwed? Honey, I wish you had a kid just like that.

ME: Pay attention to the bolded part. It's not that the kid is concerned about his father cheating on his mother (mind you—this isn't about a neighbor cheating on a neighbor), but rather that his father is cheating on his mother and the family might fall apart because of it. Is it really reasonable to expect a teenager to just sit there calmly and watch without any "intervention," so to speak?

Furthermore, regarding the underlined part—that the child betrayed his father's trust? I honestly can't decide if that observation is an insult to intelligence or to basic fairness. The father is literally using his own child's services to facilitate messaging his mistress. I think it's pretty obvious who is actually betraying someone's trust and insulting someone's intelligence and feelings here—especially when the father is being so indiscreet that it borders on being downright rude...

Quote:
Shefty says:
My take is that she’s my mother, even if she isn't my biological mom. She considers me her daughter, and she's her husband's daughter. Isn't that just how things work?

Joe: YES, there is absolutely nothing controversial about that. But again, that doesn't actually support any of the points you're trying to make here.

Quote:
Shefty says:

Sorry, but this actually made my day. You clearly don't have a clue about people, let alone how to judge someone's character.

Joe: Oh, I get the distinct impression that you're some kind of absolute expert on judgment, reasoning, and human behavior.
So, my dad is cheating on my mom. Big deal... who cares? She's his wife, he's her husband, and I'm—well, I'm just the daughter sitting there in total silence, doing nothing, because apparently, it has nothing to do with me...

Quote:
Shefty says:

Isn't it just unrealistic to expect a child to pick sides and blindly defend their father?

Joe:
No, it isn't. And we aren't talking about blind defense here, but I'm afraid that's a concept you just can't wrap your head around.

To wrap this up, I find these "armchair judges" incredibly irritating—people who sit behind their screens, completely untouched by actual experience, acting like they're masters of logic. They pretend to be totally composed and "above it all," yet they lack even a shred of empathy, human reasoning, or a connection to reality. I honestly wonder if this way of thinking—yours included—leads to being alienated from your own family, or creates some weirdly hypocritical and delusional value system... but I won't go too far down that rabbit hole of overanalyzing...

Anyway, this is exactly why I got banned. I'm not sure if Shefty earned it by throwing out those judgments about me in the first place. In my opinion, she didn't deserve it (if she even got one, though I don't know), and I certainly don't see any reason why the highly respected moderator Jose White18 would hand me an infraction. ☕

Look, I believe discussions should stay civil. If someone uses heavy profanity or crosses a major line, then yeah, intervention and punishment are warranted. But when moderators start stepping in over a period, a comma, or some random emoji, it stops being moderation and turns into pure ego and annoying, senseless power trips.
I'd love to hear what you guys think about this.
thanks.

Following up on what I said earlier—
The thread "He's still talking to his ex" is over on Reddit, while "My dad is cheating on my mom" is being discussed over at the IRS.

Regarding that warning about off-topic or spam content... I honestly don't see the issue here.
The rule over at the forum regarding only smiley posts (meaning posts consisting of nothing but an emoji) being flagged for off-topic/spamming has actually been in effect for quite some time.
It just seems like people either aren't bothering to read the guidelines or they're choosing to ignore them entirely.🤷

Jamie Chase6 said:To wrap this up, I find these self-appointed "referees" pretty annoying. They sit in their comfy chairs far away from any actual experience, acting all logical and detached, as if they're somehow above the whole situation. It’s like they have zero empathy or connection to reality. I honestly wonder if thinking this way leads to being alienated from your own family, or if it just creates a weird, hypocritical value system. Maybe I'm overanalyzing, but still...

Don't bother. That exact type of overthinking is probably why you got the ban you're complaining about.
I don't get where this urge comes from—trying to build psychological profiles based on absolutely nothing.

Jamie Chase6, look—you found the "rule" that justifies this penalty. I wasn't even thinking about how much this illegal move by 😁 actually cost me, but the rule you're "defending" is a total paradox when you apply it strictly and consistently. Look, gestures are a fundamental part of how humans communicate; they aren't something you should be penalized for. There’s zero logic in punishing someone for using hand gestures on a forum (unless someone goes overboard and tries to communicate entirely through hand signals), but that clearly wasn't what happened here. Honestly, and I mean truly, tell me straight: don't you think they went way too far in my specific case? If a reaction was absolutely necessary because of this "non-negotiable rule," isn't the rule itself kind of... forced? Like trying to force a hazelnut to grow in concrete? Or just plain ridiculous? It feels like they're saying, "If you laugh, go sit in the corner or get lost." 😁 Hello? 🙄

hollowtrucker77 said:And honestly, let’s call it what it is: engaging with the person instead of actually addressing the topic is just straight-up trolling.
The mods let him get away with a lot, sure, but there’s a line. Once he starts getting condescending, throwing insults around, or just being an absolute jerk to people, they really need to step up and do something about it.

Jamie Chase6, you’re really out here sitting in this thread passing judgment on people you don't even know. Seriously?
Don't you think it's a little arrogant to put yourself on a pedestal like that and then try to lecture everyone else?
If mods actually acted like that—just picking targets and punishing whoever they personally didn't like—it would be absolutely pathetic and incredibly toxic.

I agree with you that getting bogged down in an argument isn't ideal. But look, when someone brings a problem to the table, people naturally start throwing out their own takes. Opinions differ, and let’s be real—nobody can stay perfectly neutral or just focus solely on the original poster (who usually disappears from the thread the second things get heated anyway...). That’s how discussions spiral. It’s a regular occurrence. This isn't some quiet, one-on-one chat over coffee with a buddy who's having a rough day; this is a debate. That’s why it’s called a forum in the first place. That was exactly what happened here. So, yeah, I'll concede that I jumped into a debate with another user, but you're dead wrong if you think I was making judgments about strangers or trying to make everything about myself. Look, I wasn't talking about myself or my own life story here—I was defending my position. Since we’re talking about legalities, let’s get one thing straight: Shefty has been busy drawing her own conclusions about me. Seriously, go back and look at who actually started throwing around judgmental value judgments about their opponent first, then come back and tell me what you think. All I’ve done is push back and provide actual counterarguments to whatever she’s putting out there.

If Jose White18 really thought this discussion was about to spiral into a full-blown fight, he could have just stepped in and given you both a warning. He should have framed it by saying he was staying objective and just trying to keep things on track for the sake of moderation—but let’s be real, that’s definitely not what happened here. ☕

Jamie Chase6 said:Honestly, just give it to me straight—don't you think I went a bit overboard and unnecessary in my specific situation here? :

Look... what can I actually say?
If you let one person slide, then you have to let the next one slide, and before you know it, the whole neighborhood's rules are out the window.
Then you go and penalize someone, and suddenly they’re complaining because you didn't hit the other guy with the same hammer... it becomes this endless, exhausting cycle.
And frankly—and I mean truly, deeply frankly—I don't see any logical reason why they would make an exception for you and not for anyone else. 🤷

Jose White18 said:Honestly, don't even bother. You got that warning you're whining about precisely because you tried to play psychologist again.
I have no idea where you get this sudden urge to build psychological profiles based on... absolutely nothing.

It wasn't an "analysis," it was a debate. Period. It was just two different perspectives clashing. Instead of rising above the fray or actually doing your job as a moderator, you let your own irritation get the better of you. Because you didn't like my opinion, you took a shot at me and handed out a penalty just because you had the power to do it. ☕ That’s how it looked from where I was sitting, and deep down, I think you know exactly what your motives were.

slywolf45 said:Look... what can I even say to you?
If you let one person slide, you have to let everyone slide, otherwise the whole neighborhood goes to hell.
Then you go and punish someone, and suddenly they're whining about why you didn't punish the other guy too... and it just becomes this endless cycle of nothingness.
And honestly, and I mean truly, deeply honestly, I don't see any reason why they'd cut you a break while denying it to someone else. 🤷

I’m not talking about being soft here. I already said that punishing someone over one single fucking gesture is completely mindless. A rule that targets one specific action like that just lacks any logic or reason. Don't you think?

Jamie Chase6 said:Look, I’m not talking about being lenient here. I already mentioned that handing out a penalty over one single, isolated gesture is just plain nonsensical. A rule that exists solely to punish a solitary action lacks any actual logic or reason. Don't you agree?

It’s about penalizing a post that consists of nothing but a smiley face.
That’s the whole thing. I don't care who wrote it—whether they're some "legendary forum regular"🙄🙂, a brilliant intellectual, or someone who barely passed middle school.
(And yeah, you're drifting into "letting things slide" territory now. You're complaining about a warning, which tells me everything I need to know.)
Etogac. Fine then, 👋

Jamie Chase6 said:... deep down, you know exactly what's driving you.

It doesn't stop me from sleeping like a baby.
I'm not sure if that changes your perspective, but honestly, it won't keep me up at night.

Jose White18, my interest in your little dream is directly proportional to how much I care about your track record as a moderator.☕ Regarding that dream of yours and your belief that you're actually doing a good job running this place...

My only regret is that in this corner of the internet, filled with outcasts and misunderstood souls,😍 the only people left to react or argue are the very ones who drove everyone else to hell in the first place.😁

So, we're just left with a bunch of mindless drones—let's call them "damaged goods"—since total tyranny is the rule here.
"The judge is out to get you, and the jury is already convicting you..."

Jamie Chase6, look, this whole thing is pretty straightforward and honestly doesn't have much to do with your specific forum pedigree
if "gestures" were actually an exception rather than just a blatant way to inflate post counts—you know, those endless pages filled with nothing but emojis and random pictures—then we wouldn't even need a formal rule to begin with
unfortunately, people took advantage of the freedom provided, which resulted in this irritating trend of posting nothing but smiley faces, eventually forcing us to implement a rule stating that trolls have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to a discussion
that rule was established quite some time ago, and frankly, I’m struggling to understand why you’re making such a big deal out of it
it's also beyond me why you're acting surprised when you get flagged for trolling, especially when you resort to debating tactics that were basically tossed aside in Ancient Greece—you know, using ad hominem attacks against people instead of actually addressing their arguments

I really have no interest in getting personal with you, particularly since you're one of the veteran members here, but I genuinely don't see what your end goal is
right now, it feels like you're trying to argue that long-time members should be exempt from discipline, as if seniority somehow places you above the standard community guidelines
because if your point is that things used to be different back in the day—well, sure, things were different, but that era passed, and there was a very good reason for it

hollowtrucker77 said:Jamie Chase6, look, the story is actually pretty simple and doesn't involve your entire forum family tree.
If "gestures" were actually the exception rather than just a way to inflate post counts—with pages consisting of nothing but emojis and pictures—we wouldn't even need a rule for it in the first place.
Unfortunately, people exploited the loophole by spamming nothing but smiley faces, which forced the creation of a rule so that trolls wouldn't have anything legitimate to ask for in a discussion.
That rule was established, it's one of the older ones now, and I honestly don't get why you're whining about it.

There’s no rule without an exception, but fine. If that doesn't apply here, and if people who clearly aren't trolls—people who aren't just communicating through gestures—are also getting punished just to ensure this rule is applied consistently, then whatever. I'll fall in line. 😉

hollowtrucker77 said:And for the record, I don't see why you're surprised at getting a strike for trolling when you use debate tactics that were rejected back in ancient Greece (like ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the actual argument).

Sasha, I am calling you out here because I don't think it's fair to claim I wasn't using arguments. If you actually read my previous post, it's obvious I was using logic and specific examples. Sure, my tone was heavy on irony and cynicism, but that's a direct reflection of my opponent's tone. If that's enough to warrant a strike, then Shefty should have been struck too. Instead, this strike feels less like an objective necessity and more like a result of someone simply disagreeing with me.
And regarding your claim that I attacked you personally instead of addressing your points—do you really consider "You don't know jack about anyone's experience..." to be a valid argument?

Bottom line, I realize my comments might be seen as excessive, likely due to that famous maxim about the judge...
The hierarchy doesn't work the same way here. 😕

Look, I wasn't targeting you specifically or anyone else for that matter; I’m talking about the underlying principle here.
If the mods start micromanaging everyone's word count or dissecting exactly how people phrase things just to decide whether to hand out sanctions for "inappropriate" behavior—well, I think you can probably wrap your head around how much drama and tension that would stir up in a community.

As far as my own take goes, I actually agree with your point regarding that specific debate, but I really can't get behind the way you handled yourself during the discussion.
The thing is, you were the one who displayed a total lack of experience, which is exactly why Shefty hit back with that "you don't know what you're talking about" type of attitude.
Then, in your next post, instead of sticking to the topic at hand, you bypassed the argument entirely and went straight for the person you were talking to, and that's precisely when the moderator had to step in.
You’re the one who ended up with a warning, while Shefty didn't, simply because she refused to sink to that level and match your energy.
In my book, that is a textbook case for a warning, and honestly, most moderators in any US forum would hand one out in a situation just like this.

hollowtrucker77 said:Look, I wasn't taking a shot at you specifically, or anyone else for that matter. I’m talking about the principle of the thing.
If the mods actually started policing exactly how much people write and dissecting their specific style just to decide if they should hand out sanctions for "inappropriate" behavior—I mean, come on. You don't even need me to spell it out for you. You can probably see exactly how much chaos that would cause. It would kick up a massive amount of dust and trigger a level of tension this place hasn't seen yet.

Alright, we’ve already covered that ground... My actual point was that you shouldn't be applying rules so rigidly where you're just reacting instantly based on a single gesture, but whatever... fine.

hollowtrucker77 said:Look, regarding what you're saying—I actually agree with your point on that whole debate. You've got a valid perspective there. However, I can't get behind the way you handled yourself during the discussion. Your attitude was off.
Look, let’s be real here—you’re the one who walked into this completely clueless, which is exactly why Shefty shot back with that "as if you have a clue what you're talking about" remark.

I think you weren’t actually paying attention to the conversation if you’re going to write something like that, because... Before I even reached out to Shefty...I actually said this once to some guy on a forum—and I’ll quote myself here: "Look, sorry, but this honestly made my day. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about people, let alone how to judge someone's character." 😂"
Look, I’m telling you right now—I am NOT her. She went on the attack, claiming she doesn't have a lick of experience. Even before she had the nerve to tell me that my experience was "worthless," she was already out there throwing around value judgments that weren't even backed up by any actual data.
Furthermore, she kept insisting that even though she lacks any actual hands-on experience, if she were ever faced with a real-life situation, she’d definitely react differently—saying she’d handle things this way or that, blah blah blah. So, I laid it out for her—with actual facts and solid reasoning—pointing out that you simply cannot predict how you'll behave when the pressure is actually on. Forgive me, but what exactly is so controversial or illogical about that? To drive my point home, I even cited that one great line: "There are three different people living inside you."
Just one kind of guy. That's all I'm saying.
What kind of person do you think I am? Seriously? You’re really going to walk up and drop a question like that without any context? That’s a hell of a way to start a conversation.
And just what kind of person are you, really?
"That's the one thing you clearly don't get." Look, I wasn't attacking her experience. I was making a reasoned argument about why she can't possibly know how she’d react in that situation. I wasn't just throwing insults like, "Your experience is garbage and you don't have the slightest clue how to judge character." That's not what I said. ☕ Are we all on the same page here?

hollowtrucker77 said:In my next post, I’m dropping this entire debate entirely. I’m done playing games with the topic; I’m going straight for the throat of the person I'm talking to, and then we'll see how the moderator reacts to that.
So you got hit with a penalty, but Shefty walked away completely scot-free? Give me a break. That is absolute nonsense. She didn't even bother sinking to that level by hitting back just as hard.If you ask me, this is a textbook case for a ban, and I’m pretty sure most moderators would hand one out in a situation like this.

Do you actually believe that? In her incredibly polite and perfectly civil response—both to others and to me personally—Shefty didn't descend to the level you're trying to pin on her.😢
Give me a break; I’m practically moved to tears over here. Seriously, take a moment to read back through the thread if you can be bothered (though unfortunately Štemajzl wiped some of the evidence, so you won't get the full picture), but even then, you'll see that Shefty wasn't 🙂

Jamie Chase6 said:My only regret is that we find ourselves here—in this little corner of the world populated by the discarded and the misunderstood. 😍 It seems to me—and I could be wrong here, but I suspect I’m not—that the only people actually stepping up to speak out or engage in these heated debates are the very ones who drove them straight into hell in the first place. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it? You push someone to the absolute brink, and then you act surprised when they finally start fighting back. 😁

Look, I didn't go out of my way to drive anyone off. 🙂

Posting nothing but smiley faces, or those mindless "I second this" comments—basically any post that lacks actual substance—isn't some grand gesture of solidarity or a way to spread joy. It’s really just a thinly veiled belief that the public somehow cares that someone is laughing or that someone is nodding in agreement. Honestly, if people want to laugh, they can go ahead and laugh to themselves—it serves them just as well, and frankly, it makes the forum much easier to navigate.

I mean, I realize it’s easy for me to say—it’s just straightforward—but... I know. It’s one thing to deal with a disagreement, but it feels entirely different when people start laughing at my posts—especially when they go out of their way to sign off on it, as if they're all in on some private joke at my expense. I suppose it’s just part of the landscape here, isn't it? Maybe I’m being too sensitive, or maybe it’s just that certain types of users seem to find more joy in mockery than in actually engaging with the substance of what I'm saying. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly—this tendency to turn a serious discussion into a punchline through sheer, collective condescension. 🥳Regardless—those kinds of posts are just plain useless. You have these massive cliques of forum users who lean on them constantly, and honestly, they just clutter up the boards. I suppose it’s only logical—if not entirely necessary—to strictly penalize that kind of behavior; it really seems like the only way to handle it.

It’s a similar situation when you look at psychological profiling: anyone claiming they don't have a mental map of the people they're debating on these forums—well, they are blatantly lying. But then again, those profiles are meant for personal use—they're your own internal compass. The second someone tries to pivot to an "argument" like, "I know you're only saying that because you're..."—that's where it all falls apart. takav-i-takavHonestly, this isn't even a debate anymore—it’s just a waste of breath. At this point, there is only one thing that actually matters, and everything else is just noise. What? Someone out there actually claims—and I find this absolutely exhausting to even consider—that it simply doesn't matter. Just that. A total dismissal of the entire situation. I mean, really? To suggest that such a factor is irrelevant... well, it’s almost insulting how dismissive that sounds. I guess some people just prefer to ignore the complexities of the matter entirely, rather than actually engaging with the weight of what's being discussed. It's a lazy way to look at things, if you ask me. Who? i Why? I mean, seriously—why? It’s the question that seems to hang over everything lately, isn't it? I guess we could spend hours dissecting the underlying causes—the systemic failures, the sheer lack of common sense in modern policy, the way things just seem to drift aimlessly—but honestly, where do you even begin? Maybe there's a logical answer buried somewhere under all this chaos, but I suspect it’s more likely just a series of unfortunate coincidences and poor decisions. It’s frustrating, really—to look at the state of things and just be left wondering what the point was. Go ahead. I’m listening.

Finally, a bit of constructive feedback: your posts would actually be much more enjoyable to read—and more importantly, significantly "stronger"—if you stopped constantly inserting your own interpretations of other people's motives or trying to psychoanalyze what they supposedly meant.

In that specific thread—you know, the one titled "you gave me points, but..."—I was thinking about how things were handled. I guess you could say I felt like the scoring was a bit inconsistent, though maybe I’m just being overly particular about the whole thing. It seems to me that while some folks were getting credit where it was due, others—myself included, I suppose—were left hanging without much acknowledgment at all. It’s a strange way to run a discussion, really—if you ask me—to hand out points somewhat arbitrarily like that. Shefty 😁 I suppose you aren't. 🙂 I suppose it might be best to just stay out of it—not that I always agree with that kind of restraint, but perhaps, in this particular instance, it’s wiser to mind one's own business. 😁

ondine , I can see the deleted posts
🙂
and honestly , I don't have the bandwidth to keep up with every single thread popping up on this forum anyway , nor do I particularly feel the need to
that whole bit where stefy is talking to someone else is strictly between her and that person , so it's none of our business
if you’re under the impression that a post is out of line , you're more than welcome to hit that legendary little report button and move on...
what we actually have ground to cover is the drama between you and stefy and that suspension you ended up getting
I've already given you my two cents on that matter , and if you're feeling unsatisfied , feel free to go ask tyndall for his take instead