I thought legal advice was banned on this forum

Did I get this right, or am I only seeing part of the picture? I’ve always operated under the assumption that other people's bans, their disciplinary actions, and their drama simply aren't my business... and I honestly assumed the moderators—and especially the administration—felt the same way.

So, where does it come from, this idea that someone has the right to vote in the Ban Appeals section regarding a post they were the one who reported in the first place? Am I not allowed to participate in a discussion about whether a post I flagged was actually deserving of a ban? For instance... Here it is.

And why is this particular user acting so incredibly shocked by the ban (though I won't be getting into the merits of the punishment itself)? It's because this sets a rather strange precedent, dear nation and administration. We're talking about behavior in the social science subforum that has never once been sanctioned, neither before nor since this incident. So, would she really be the villain for getting banned for something that isn't just tolerated there, but is actually encouraged, based on what we've heard from the moderators themselves?

If this kind of thing hasn't bothered anyone until now, I don't see any reason for the rules to suddenly shift. Either we start enforcing these standards consistently from now on, or perhaps the moderators could finally admit that they aren't entirely sure which behaviors are acceptable and which are not...

vividtiger922 said:Well, since nobody’s really complained about what they allow over there until now, I don't see why things should change suddenly. Either we start cracking down on it, or maybe the moderators should just admit they aren't even sure what's allowed and what isn't.

It's tolerated in the linguistics section, but not in the rest of DZ. Unfortunately, we didn't include that in the sub-forum rules, but I guess the long-time members probably already know.

EDIT: Are we seriously debating this because of some cardboard that mysteriously vanished again? I've noticed a weird tendency for DZ folks to dig through yellow cards and merged posts for months, but this is getting pretty ridiculous.

Grace Sullivan42 said:It’s allowed over in Linguistics, but not in the rest of social science. Unfortunately, we didn't include that in the subforum rules, but I assume the veteran users should just know...

First off, users aren't obligated to intuitively grasp unwritten rules simply because of your own laziness or lack of clarity. Second, when this post was originally made, the Linguistics section didn't even exist; the thread was actually opened under social science. So, by all means, feel free to comb through every single topic and penalize any posts that violate rules which technically don't exist yet... Third, it is your responsibility to announce changes regarding warnings, and Bell pepper has as much right to participate in this discussion as I do, since they are just an ordinary user in this specific instance. And finally, most importantly, rest assured that I will be reporting every instance of off-topic chatter, whether it comes from the users or the moderators themselves.

EDIT: Are we really debating a warning that mysteriously vanished again? I've already noticed a strange tendency among the social science crowd to obsessively dig up old warnings and merged posts for months, but this has reached unprecedented levels...

We are discussing the peculiar tendency of certain moderators to neglect their actual duties, and we haven't just started talking about it today. Furthermore, the fact that someone else is always cleaning up your messes or taking the fall for your negligence doesn't make you any less incompetent...

I’m going to use this thread one more time just so I don't have to start a new one. This is pretty much the only place where one can actually comment on the "management" here and the supposedly constructive work of our dear moderator, Chloe Hughes15. Experience has taught me that you shouldn't even joke about it... because anything you say regarding her will inevitably end with a ceremonial presentation of warning cards. It’s not as if disagreement is permitted under any circumstances.

Actually, I won't focus too much on the moderation itself. I'm not entirely sure if what we're seeing even qualifies as moderation. But then again, it does technically fall under that umbrella, since every discussion eventually concludes with a brilliant moderator move involving a red or yellow slip of paper.

Since the rest of us aren't quite so well-equipped with those kinds of resources, all we can really do is track the behavior. And, for our own sanity, hand out an imaginary card to this lady for her constant, mindless babbling.

So, Chloe Hughes15, I am taking this opportunity to issue you a card for your relentless, hollow chatter and nonsense. Feel free to adjust the points as you see fit. And, for both your sake and ours, I beg of you—stay away from discussions regarding American linguistics. Believe me, ten lines of pure bullshit would be preferable to what you call "trolling," which is really just your reaction when people don't bow down to your ideas. I've read your various inventions since I arrived, especially those concerning American linguistics, and occasionally even general life and philosophy. If you had ever actually opened a grammar book—or any other textbook, for that matter—I believe you might have gained some inkling of how ambiguous and contentious these topics truly are. Clearly, you haven't, nor do you have the slightest clue. Even if you did, you still have the option to show a tiny shred of patience or tolerance, which you simply lack. Then there is a third option: stay quiet, stop the rambling, refrain from drawing false analogies, and be polite enough not to expect everyone to be thrilled when you share useless whims. You aren't capable of that either. So, go ahead and pass out your cards; it's the only thing you're good at. In fact, it might be the only thing you know how to do.

Grace Sullivan42 said:It’s fine over in Linguistics, but we don't allow that kind of thing in the rest of DZ. Unfortunately, we didn't explicitly put it in the subforum rules, but I honestly figured the veteran members would just know better...

Like I said before, I’d add...
I’m genuinely curious about how you guys plan to handle the PDF rulebook—specifically, how on earth you're going to decide where exactly the line is drawn regarding what's actually tolerated.

Just a quick correction here.
So, is it just a simple correction, or are we adding a little extra flair to make the comment more tempting?

Since I'm already here, I might as well ask one more thing.
The PDF rules clearly state that directed insults toward other users aren't allowed.
And that was actually how they did things.

Look, I already know all about how moderation is basically just a messy social science...
But what on earth is this supposed to be?

To the OP, you’re completely out of line. Screw your liberal fascism and everything you stand for. Do you even know how to speak American?

It’s not directed at anyone here... it isn't profanity... it just isn't... 🤷
Just let me know when I should show up.

Sorry for barging in like this.

Thanks.

Regarding Macaroni and his topic, from where I’m sitting, the attitude toward him has been super aggressive and blunt right from the jump. Honestly, I don't get why. If someone is studying American, they have every right to be puzzled by some of the "illogical" parts of the language without getting flamed for it.

He’s getting attacked like he wrote something unforgivable. It’s like he’s being blamed just for existing. Personally, I think the topic is great because it brings together discussions on English and American in one spot. You’ve got people here who actually know one or both languages, and I’ve genuinely enjoyed reading through all the posts.

It’s a bummer that things are being allowed to devolve into these petty personal vendettas. If you don't like what someone—specifically Macaroni—has to say, fine, just move on. No need for this massive outrage that seems to happen just because someone reacted to the very first thing they read.

When he mentioned feeling like he was in Xibalba (or something like that), it didn't sound nearly as harsh to me as she took it, so I don't see why he deserves a ban. At least not based on how this thread looks right now. To me, it just feels like a misunderstanding that’s been blown way out of proportion.

I usually think the moderator on DZ is pretty decent, but in this specific thread, those recent bans on Macaroni were totally uncalled for.

Man, those critiques were delivered with surgical precision! 🙏

Sandra Parker3 said:On top of what was already said, I’d add this:
If you guys actually end up making a PDF rulebook, I’m dying to know how you'll define what’s actually tolerable:

Just fixing a typo?
Or fixing a typo while adding a more or less snarky comment?

Correcting an error is fine—sometimes even encouraged.
As for the snarky comments, I'd say it all comes down to context. 🤔 Not everything carries the same weight.
I think I mentioned this to you last time, too, but we can't just compile a list of forbidden words. It's like that whole debate about emojis... for some people, an emoji might feel like they're being condescending, whereas for one Bulgarian guy who occasionally drops by the DZ, that same emoji is just expressing genuine surprise. 🙄 🤷

While I'm at it, let me ask something else.
The PDF rules state that swearing directed at other users isn't allowed,
and that rule has been enforced before.

Look, I know all about moderation being a social science rather than an exact one and all that...
but what would you call this:

It’s not directed at anyone... it’s not profanity... it’s not... 🤷
just wondering for when I show up again.

Sorry for jumping in.

thanks.

That’s a post that needs a sanction, and I’ll handle it as soon as I hit send on this.
I have no idea why C. A. didn't report it.

northerntiger said:Regarding Macaroni and his topic—as an observer, I’d say the attitude toward him has been incredibly aggressive and rude from the jump. Honestly, I don't get it. Someone learning American English has every right to be baffled by some of the "illogicalities" of our language without being attacked for it.

He’s getting blasted as if he wrote some kind of manifesto. It's like he's being targeted just for existing. The topic itself is solid—you have people discussing English and American linguistics in one place. People who actually know one or both languages are writing here, and personally, I’ve really enjoyed reading the various posts.

It’s a shame when things devolve into these petty personal vendettas. If you don't like what someone—specifically Macaroni—wrote, fine. Just stop reading. Don't act all offended just because you reacted to the first thing you saw.

His comment about being in Xibalba (or whatever that attack was supposed to be) doesn't sound nearly as harsh to me as she took it... and certainly not enough to warrant a ban. At least not looking at this discussion right now. It feels like a misunderstanding that's been blown way out of proportion.

The moderator on DZ is usually alright, but in this specific thread, those recent bans on Macaroni were totally uncalled for.

I’m proposing a deal. 🙂

Read the entire discussion over at Problemcica linguistic English-American starting from post 3159 (Macaroni's first post in that thread), and also check the one on Improve Your English (from post 6306). You can't miss the Lingvistick lesson conversation (from post 6471) either. I think that’ll show you the long history of tension between Macaroni and the majority of the Anglophiles in these threads. I know, I'm asking a lot, but it's necessary. 😁

And if you’ve already read all of that and still think he deserved the ban... then... well, I’ll just kill myself. 🙂

Chloe Hughes15 said:Man, those are some incredibly blunt critiques! 🙏

🙏

Correcting a mistake is tolerated, and sometimes even encouraged.
As for offensive comments, I’d say it really comes down to context. 🤔 Not everything carries the same weight.
I think I told you this last time too, but we can't just compile a list of banned words. It’s like that whole debate about emojis—for one person, an emoji might feel like they're throwing money at a Rolls Royce, 🙄 while to some Bulgarian guy who drops by DZ occasionally, that same emoji just represents pure surprise. 🤷

Honestly, I'm curious to see how you'll actually draft that into the PDF rules.
It’s obviously impossible to make a list of "unpleasant" words because everything depends on context.
To me, this rule about "insulting the interlocutor" feels redundant—or maybe excessive?

I haven't read the thread about emojis, but once, someone gave me a red card just for typing "cccc." 🙄

Look, I was just asking, I really don't have the energy to argue about this. 🙂

That’s a post that needs to be sanctioned, and I’ll do it as soon as I send this.
I don't get why C. A. didn't report it.

I have no idea what C. A. is thinking.
I just saw that you were posting on the same page, so I assumed you'd seen that post too.

Well... here I am again, using this thread, even if it means getting another strike against my name.

Look, colbert. I wanted to reach out and say this. I’ve been following the chatter on this thread for a few days now, starting from this specific post, and my takeaway is always the same. Please take this as genuine advice: not everyone spouting nonsense is doing it just to troll or be provocative. Despite all your effort, I can't quite grasp why you haven't realized that people can be incredibly uninformed, uneducated, and stubbornly wrong all at once. Your approach doesn't actually help anyone. I don't see a real desire to educate or clarify things; I just see a desire to mock. And honestly, it isn't doing you any favors. From an outsider's perspective, it isn't funny or entertaining... it just comes across as a bit condescending. This isn't meant to be an insult, though I know that's how it lands.

The reality is that no one is going to walk away from these debates feeling enlightened or informed. Even when you make a valid point, it won't be taken seriously because your entire delivery is so counterproductive. It might be worth considering holding back occasionally, or perhaps sticking to explaining the facts without trying to be the funniest person in the room. Or, better yet, just let someone else handle it. At the end of the day, this just turns into "your word against theirs," and you aren't going to convince anyone when you're looking down your nose at them. If anything, it just makes them dig their heels in further. So, if that's truly your goal...

That's all.