Moderator inquiry for the psychology subforum

I’m curious about the exact criteria used in the psychology subforum to distinguish between trolling, ad hominem attacks, and off-topic posts versus irony, acceptable banter, or staying on subject. It feels like the same mistakes keep being made, which makes it difficult for me to express myself when I actually want to contribute something meaningful to certain discussions.

Alright, I’ll break down one specific post and my responses—the ones that just earned me a 60-point penalty. I’d like to ask the moderator with that horrific avatar—and maybe the other moderator with the stylish woman as her avatar (the avatar, not the moderator, God forbid)—could they perhaps update them to something more appropriate? Or at least point out where I went wrong:

Quote: addx said:Tricyclics often have more side effects than SSRIs, but they can also be more effective.
There are also complications regarding how you take them; for instance, you have to watch what you eat so you don't block the enzymes that break them down—that's something I've read frequently.

I took Serzone and honestly didn't notice any side effects. It's cool because you take it before bed, it works while you sleep, and it actually helps with sleep... When I was on it, I was combining it with two other medications, so I'm not entirely sure which one did what. Also, you can practically start and stop taking Paxil without much trouble, unlike with SSRIs. I've tried all those types of antidepressants, though I tend to avoid SSRIeve.

Then there are antidepressants that aren't even serotonergic, like Wellbutrin. That one is also prescribed quite effectively as a smoking cessation aid, and it can be stopped relatively easily. It's also frequently combined with SSRIs because it partially counteracts their side effects. I took that one too, but quit quickly; I felt somewhat angry/aggressive from it... though I definitely noticed a very obvious effect that helped me quit smoking (since I'm a smoker).

You have Paxil, which is an SSRE (the opposite of an SSRI), and it also has an antidepressant effect for certain populations—mostly helping alcoholics dealing with depressive symptoms during abstinence, as far as I know. I tried that one as well because, again, unlike SSRIs, you can stop immediately. It's actually quite bizarre that both the inhibition of serotonin reuptake (SSRI) and the "enhancement" of serotonin reuptake (SSRE) can result in antidepressant effects, but presumably for different groups.

casualharbor9 says (deleted post):
It’s great how comprehensively you treat everything from insomnia to depression, alcoholism, mood swings, and smoking cessation using psychopharmacology. Is marijuana consumption part of any of those therapies, or is it the cause? Can you tell our colleague James Bond when a total recovery is projected?
And are you on the organ donor list? 🙂

- is this part trolling, ad hominem, or off-topic—and why?

Quote:

Is there any point in even bringing up addx? It feels like we're just circling the drain at this point. As requested: It’s pretty obvious that, to some extent, we’re just playing a game of blindfolded darts here. casualharbor9 (deleted post): To a certain extent? Or should we be more precise? When you're dealing with emotional states that don't have a clear-cut cause, isn't psychopharmacology basically just a blind chicken scratching around a field, hoping to stumble upon a grain of truth inside someone's brain?

Is this just trolling, an ad hominem attack, or is it strictly off-topic? And more importantly—why?

Quote:

Is there anything more predictably exhausting than this? Just when you think you’ve finally mapped out the landscape of your own brain, some new variable drops in to derail the entire process. It feels like we're constantly chasing moving targets, doesn't it? One day you're convinced you have the formula, and the next, everything shifts again. Is it progress, or just a different way of spinning our wheels? Hard to say. Asks: Look, I’ve gone through enough clinical studies on all these medications to know they exist and what they’re capable of. It isn't like the researchers haven't tried to perfect them—it's not as if they haven't attempted to refine the formulas or engineer better ways to target specific receptors. But honestly? This is simply the ceiling of where we are right now. At the end of the day, if it actually works for someone, isn't that the only metric that truly matters? casualharbor9 (deleted post): Let’s be real: this stuff clearly works for people actually dealing with severe conditions like schizophrenia or those requiring heavy-duty intervention. But does it actually help the masses? Not really. It certainly doesn't help the millions of people who have been broadly labeled as "disordered" and immediately shoved onto pharmacotherapy. Think about it. What could possibly explain that massive 400% spike in diagnosed mental health issues we've seen over the last two decades? Most of these cases are just categorized under the broad umbrella of depressive or anxiety disorders. Is it an actual epidemic of illness, or just an epidemic of over-diagnosis?

Is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic? And more importantly—why?

Quote:

Is anyone else dealing with this? I feel like I’m just spinning my wheels here. casualharbor9 says: Honestly, I feel for the people who claim this stuff doesn't work or simply refuse to believe in it. But there’s really no sense in using that as an excuse to label every patient whose quality of life actually improves long-term as some kind of addict, or worse, turning around and dragging their psychiatrists through the mud like they’re nothing more than street dealers. casualharbor9 says (deleted post) People who actually feel better because they believe in the medicine? That’s just the placebo effect. Honestly, if you're dealing with nasty side effects, you might as well just stick to peppermint candies. Then you have the ones who aren't even getting any relief, yet they keep taking them because they can't seem to quit—you could pretty much call those people addicts. And the doctors prescribing them for their own gain? They might as well be called dealers. At least that's how I see it, and frankly, it feels like there should be laws against it. Where exactly am I supposed to be seeing bile splashed all over the screen? Personally, all I’m picking up is heavy irony, sarcasm, and satire—concepts that, frankly, the psychoanalysts on this sub probably ought to be a bit more acquainted with, rather than just lazily labeling everything as "trolling" or "flaming."

- is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic—and why?

Quote: addx said:I mean, look, as a man, I just can't wrap my head around paying for sex. But what am I supposed to do? Am I going to go out of my way to ruin everyone else who does it? Post endless nonsense on a forum attacking hookers or whatever... I don't even know where to start. Maybe it's a bad analogy, but why all this vitriol over something that doesn't even touch your own life? It feels like some kind of performative righteousness in a field you aren't even stepping into. To me, it looks like using any excuse just to feel superior to someone else...

casualharbor9 says (deleted post):
I suspect that you, as a "real man," would actually be bothered if someone else's recreational indulgence with prostitutes—and the enrichment of their pimps—was being funded by your own pocket (which effectively fills the federal budget) while at the same time people have to scramble for donations to treat terminally ill children.

- is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic—and why?

Quote: addx said:okay, so someone has certain principles and doesn't want to take pills? fine. but it seems like in this "covert narcissistic" context (since we are clearly on a psychology forum), that principle is being used to paint oneself as better than others, and others as worse than you. this entire thread has been saturated with covert narcissism, from Dr. Torres himself down to the people arguing here.

Look, you have your principles. You don't take medication. Fine, if that's what matters to you. But this behavior seems less about holding onto a value and more about squeezing that principle for "ego-upholding"—rather than it having any actual utility if it were a real principle. It feels like the only application for this stance is to draw a line between who lives "better" or, even more interesting, who lives "harder" than someone else—implying they are somehow superior because they didn't take the "easy route" (like some dirty junkie on pills)... are we competing on principles now or what?

casualharbor9 says (deleted post):
It seems to me there are serious psychological reasons why someone who advocates for the excessive consumption of psychoactive substances reacts so intensely when faced with the negative side of it.

- is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic—and why?

Quote:

Is there anyone actually getting anything done today? Or are we all just staring at the screen, waiting for the brain fog to lift? It feels like my focus is currently somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. Does anyone else feel like they’re running on empty before the day has even truly started? casualharbor9 says: I’m all for raising some awareness about these pills—what they actually do, how they function, and what you can realistically expect from them (which, let's be honest, isn't always much). As for ADs, especially SSRIs, I tend to view them as a temporary bridge to help pull the brain out of a pathological state. casualharbor9 (deleted post): How do you actually view the pathological states that the brain and other organs fall into because of ADHD?

Is this just trolling, an ad hominem attack, or is it off-topic—and why exactly?

Quote:

Is there any point in even bringing this up? Does anyone actually think adding more to the mix solves anything, or are we just stacking pills like Jenga blocks and hoping the whole thing doesn't collapse? It feels like we're constantly looking for that one magic ingredient to balance out the chemistry, yet here we are, still searching. Is it progress, or just more noise? casualharbor9 says: In case you hadn't heard, depression isn't just some vague feeling—it’s actually something measurable in the brain. And no, I’m not talking about simple serotonin levels. It’s much more complex than that. We're looking at the expression of specific genes within particular regions of the brain, which shifts quite clearly when someone enters a depressive state. Personally, I find the changes in opioid receptor distribution to be the most fascinating part—specifically things like the proliferation of kappa opioid receptors and stuff like that. Unfortunately, measuring gene expression requires invasive methods, like taking tissue samples directly from brain matter. Obviously, that’s not exactly an option for anyone currently living. casualharbor9 (deleted post): So, if this is really the only way to land a reliable diagnosis—well, thanks for that "treatment" approach.

Is this part just trolling, an ad hominem attack, or is it simply off-topic—and why exactly would you say that?

Quote:

Is anyone else here dealing with Adderall? I feel like there’s a lot of noise surrounding it lately, and I’m trying to wrap my head around how it actually sits alongside everything else we talk about here. Is it just me, or does the conversation always seem to circle back to the same few points? What’s the actual consensus on the long-term effects versus the immediate utility? Just wondering if anyone has some real-world perspective to share. casualharbor9 says: Changes in gene expression clearly alter how the brain responds to stimuli—how it interprets everything around it. This essentially dictates our entire lived experience, and when it goes wrong, it can make life feel irreparably bleak and unmotivating. I mean, let’s be real: severe depression isn't just feeling blue; it’s the literal physical inability to get out of bed, let alone accomplish anything meaningful in life. It’s a scientific fact that SSRIs influence this gene expression. That’s why you need at least six weeks of consistent use before those changes actually kick in to facilitate any kind of recovery. In my view, you can't just sit there and rely on a pill to do all the heavy lifting. You have to actually use that "therapeutic window" to implement positive changes in your lifestyle. If you don't, how are you supposed to maintain a stable state once you eventually taper off? Plenty of people have successfully navigated this by doing exactly that. But then again, plenty haven't either. And honestly? In many cases, the failure isn't necessarily the fault of the medication; it's because some people did nothing except swallow a pill without making any actual life adjustments. Of course, there are also those cases where the medication simply fails to open that window at all. casualharbor9 says (deleted post): And how exactly do these hit-or-miss pharmacotherapy results justify the 400% surge in mental health diagnoses over the last two decades? To me, it still feels like that loop Dr. Torre described: "we’re treating more because we’re getting sicker, and we’re getting sicker because we’re treating more."

—is this supposed to be trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic? And why?

I am asking for a serious response to all these questions. Please leave room for at least one follow-up reply, rather than following the usual custom where complex issues are promptly swept under the rug by some administrative executive order.

You’ve actually earned a custom card here because of your recent contributions to this thread—specifically all the trolling, off-topic rambling, and those cheap ad hominem attacks. Honestly, if I handed out points for every single one of your posts, we’d be having this conversation over in the ban corner by now.

Most of what you write in the psychology subforum boils down to the same pattern: trolling, attacking people personally, whining about the mods, and veering wildly off-topic. On top of that, you constantly jump into threads about psych meds or psychiatry just because you see them as an easy target to vent about "evil" psychiatry, Big Pharma, or whatever other white-supremacist conspiracy theories you're currently obsessed with.

We used to tolerate that kind of rhetoric in the psychology section for a while, but we aren't in the business of overlooking trolling, insults, or people trying to drag public debates into private vendettas—especially from users who have over 8,000 posts and enough seniority to know better, especially when they drop lines like

But shhh, let's not give the mods any reason to shut down this super educational thread again. 😉

It’s pretty clear you know exactly which rules you're breaking. 🙂

Sophia Kern43 said:We used to be more lenient with this kind of talk over on the Psychology subforum, but we won't stand for trolling, insults, or dragging discussions into private messages. This applies to everyone, especially long-time members with over 8,000 posts who use comments like

to show they know exactly which rules they're breaking. 🙂

Consider this a final warning before a partial ban is issued for the Psychology section, following the next post which will result in a formal strike.

Sophia Kern43 said:You earned yourself a custom card on this thread for your total contribution over the last few posts—mostly just trolling, going off-topic, and throwing personal insults. If I had awarded points to every single one of your posts, we’d be having this conversation over in the ban corner right now.

Most of what you write over on the psychology subforum is exactly that—just trolling, personal attacks on other users, constant nitpicking about the moderators, and nothing but off-topic nonsense.

Honestly, I didn't really notice you getting worked up, nor did your colleague.

Look, I’m asking you to be specific. Tell me exactly what happened, where it happened, and why it qualifies as trolling, an ad hominem attack, or going off-topic. I’m looking for actual substance here—not just this vague, sweeping generalization you keep throwing out. It shouldn't be much of a struggle, considering my entire body of work follows this exact pattern.

This entire subforum feels less like a serious Psychology section and more like some amateurish support group for people addicted to psychotropic drugs. Every once in a while, a thread pops up that actually touches on legitimate psychological questions, but they’re handled with the depth of a preschooler’s finger painting. To make matters worse, it’s all drowned out by a sea of pseudo-spiritual nonsense. You have blatant trolls running around opening mocking threads right under your noses, and when someone finally manages to draw a line in the sand after fifteen failed attempts—like what happened with James Bond, for instance—you honestly call that moderation?

Alright, let me give you my two cents on the moderation here—assuming that’s actually allowed on this subforum. I’ll address yours and your colleague's oversight (though I’m not even sure if those other two have ever actually shown up for work). To put it bluntly? Your moderation is absolutely useless.
The quality of this subforum used to be significantly higher back when we had a different moderation team in charge.
A whole bunch of people on this forum—folks who’ve reached out to me over the last few years specifically because they value the support I provide here—could testify to just how wrong you are about my "entire body of work."

I sincerely hope that neither of you has anything to do with psychology in real life, because your ability to communicate in writing—let alone grasp basic context—is practically nonexistent.

And then there’s the constant crusading on threads about psychopharmacology, psychiatry, or pretty much any topic that serves as a convenient playground for whining about the evils of psychiatry, Big Pharma, and those endless white-collar conspiracies.

So, what’s the plan here? Are we going to start a crusade? A little lamentation session? Maybe some finger-pointing at "evil psychiatry" or the "wicked industry"? Or are we just diving headfirst into some deep-seated White House conspiracies? 😲 White lies and conspiracy theories? Is that where we're headed now? What exactly are you implying by that? Could you please explain this to me?.

So, that's what you're calling what I'm showing you? Professional papers, expert opinions, and actual, valid statistical data. On the topic of pharmaceutical influence over psychiatry... does anyone else feel like their views just happen to perfectly align with yours and your colleague's? Just a coincidence, I suppose.

That kind of rhetoric might have been tolerated on the Psychology subforum for a while, but we aren't about to let trolling, insults, or people trying to drag discussions into their private lives slide. It doesn't matter if you're a veteran with over 8,000 posts and a massive history here—we simply don't excuse that behavior.

Quote:

But hey, let’s keep it on the down-low so the mods don't get any ideas about shutting this actually educational thread down again. 😉 They're making it pretty clear they know exactly how much the rules are being broken here. 🙂

Don't give me that "🙂" routine. You're clearly more than capable of spotting sarcasm, cynicism, and irony—stuff you love to throw around yourself, both here and in other threads—yet somehow, when I use that exact same rhetoric, I'm the one getting sidelined.

So, let's get specific: what exactly constitutes trolling, an ad hominem attack, or going off-topic in this context? What, where, and why?

Sophia Kern43 said:You were handed a custom warning on that thread for your overall contribution lately—trolling, going off-topic, and using ad hominem attacks. If I rewarded every single post with the appropriate amount of points, we’d be having this conversation in the ban corner...

Here is my "entire" contribution to the thread over what was more than just a few posts (three pages/two weeks):

(take a look at the post I'm responding to too)

- Perhaps you could also show those few posts that you (or your colleague) deleted—the ones where I was calling out a guy who does exactly what you're accusing me of, yet he gets away with it every single time. And not just him, but anyone else who shares your views, throughout this entire thread. You only temporarily locked the topic once it became glaringly obvious that your favorites were flagrantly breaking the rules and things were about to spiral out of control due to the most blatant ad hominem attacks.

I’ll admit, looking back, I might have leaned a bit too hard into the hyperbole in certain spots. Maybe some of those bans were earned. But let’s be real: trying to smear my character just to push me out of this subforum is a massive reach, and frankly, it’s a lot to put on you two. Besides, you’ve been trying to suffocate this entire discussion and sabotage it since day one—long before I even stepped into the fray. And I’m certainly not the only one who caught onto that.

Here is yet another prime example of my supposed "trolling, ad hominem attacks, and lack of contribution" on this subforum:

- So, what was the actual reason behind your 35-point penalty? Did you miss the allusion to the notorious fact that the system allows Big Pharma to bribe doctors? Is the data regarding a 400% spike in mental health diagnoses somehow untrue? Or was it because I stepped outside the thread with a title like "Got a diagnosis? Who cares!"? Suddenly, you’ve become hyper-sensitive to off-topic posts—posts you were perfectly indifferent to until now?
What is the real reason you're siding with a guy who has a phallic object in his avatar, uses "are you down for a hookup" as a subtitle, and heavily relies on antidepressants and anxiolytics—which, I'll admit, don't actually work for him—yet he unreservedly supports their mass prescription?
Is that my "trolling"?

If everything had been sanctioned back then, before the temporary freeze, you would have been the first one stuck in a multi-day slump. You’re lacking objectivity... quite a bit, actually.
But it doesn't matter. We were clear—follow the rules, or we’ll request a partial split. You've spent enough time on these boards to know exactly what following (or ignoring) the rules entails.

We consider this discussion closed. There is no point in dragging it out any further.

Locked.