Are there any mods on Psychology Every Moment?

Paul Green31, if I were to actually tell you what I really think about this whole situation—specifically regarding how you've gone and planted this thread across such a massive cluster random coincidences—well, I suppose I’d come across as quite rude. I’d end up having to justify my theories on whether these events are truly accidental, or if they link back to those political threads I mentioned earlier, specifically that one known as "spin."

To me, it seems somewhat symptomatic that from the very beginning, you’ve just brushed off everything specifically addressed to you in this thread. You ignored me when I first pointed out that it isn't true that there are no moderators present, and you seem to be ignoring the admin posts in this discussion as well. It makes me wonder—should moderators feel obligated to respond to every single inquiry, especially when it's obvious the issue has already been settled? Furthermore, should they overreact to every outburst from undisciplined users who just clone themselves and start provocative threads, only to then scatter themselves across the message boards, wishes, and comments? Shouldn't they simply justify themselves to the users who claim to be bothered by an unruly user's topic—users who insist on discussing it even after the thread is closed and the original poster has been sanctioned? Or is it enough for them to simply resolve the issue and move on with their work?

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Paul Green31, if I actually told you what I really think about this whole situation—about you starting this entire mess of a thread—you wouldn't believe me. Just random. It’s funny how things work, isn't it? One minute you're diving into some deep, borderline unhinged thread over in the Psychology sub, and the next thing you know, you've spiraled through a dozen rabbit holes. It’s those weird little coincidences that pull you from a topic on the absolute edge of sanity straight down into... well, you know where. Someone decided to go on a late-night spree, opening up this exact same thread across every single subforum in the middle of the night. What's the deal with that? Who even does that?I’d just end up looking rude. I’d be stuck there trying to justify my takes on "coincidences," explaining the actual probability behind them, or diving into those political topics I touched on at the start—you know, the ones that are nothing more than pure spin.

Look, I’d find it a hell of a lot easier to wrap this whole argument up if you could just get to the point. Be direct. Give me something concrete to work with. Honestly, I really don't have the energy to play detective and try to decode what you're actually trying to say every time you post.😕
That bolded text makes me wonder. Are you actually suggesting this whole thread was started because of that one spammer's fault? Like it’s all just some elaborate setup cooked up by some mysterious figure in the middle of the night? Is that really what we're doing here?
Look, I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.😕

It’s pretty symptomatic to me that from the very moment you joined this place, you've been completely ignoring everything that actually addresses the topic at hand. Seriously? Is that your strategy?

Aside from that little update about adding more moderators to the psychology subforum, nothing actually useful was said in this thread. Is anyone actually getting any real answers here?

You totally ignored me when I first pointed out that you were wrong about there being no moderators.

Look, I’m saying if they’re actually lurking here and choosing to stay silent on this thread, then they seriously need to take a long, hard look at their own moderation standards. Seriously.

You’re just straight-up ignoring the forum admin on this thread. Seriously? Should moderators be jumping to answer every single question about this or any other PDF? Is that really how this is supposed to work?

They don't have to, sure. But isn't it just common courtesy? We already have this subforum specifically designed for communication between the admins and the users. So why can't the administration actually step up and respond to an inquiry? A little clarity on the rules we’re all playing by wouldn't hurt. It would go a long way in clearing up exactly how anyone is allowed to create or open new threads. Is that really too much to ask?
Honestly, it would've been the decent thing to do if they had just shown up.

Especially when it’s obvious the problem was already settled?

When this thread first kicked off, things weren't even close to being resolved. It was right at its peak.

Also, should they be overreacting to every single outburst from undisciplined users who make clone accounts just to start provocative threads?

Hell yeah!!! That’s literally their job! Or what else do you expect them to do? They shouldn't overdo it, but they definitely need to react.

, and then they go spreading it all over messages and comments, trying to justify themselves to the users who were supposedly offended by some rule-breaker's thread—users who keep insisting on talking about the topic even after the thread is locked and the poster has been sanctioned?

The solution doesn't come from moderators acting like psychologists; it comes from everyone else. ☕

And finally, you're the one ignoring the actual points made in this thread. You haven't defended your claim that the topic is stupid enough to be deleted with anything other than saying the user has "literary talent." Is that really your only argument?

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye, but I can't force myself to accept your logic, no matter how hard I try.
ZgSash, let me have my say on this post first, and then you can lock me out if you want. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere constructive anyway, and I don't see any new angles being brought to the table.
🙂

Paul Green31 said:Look, I think it would be a whole lot easier to wrap up this discussion if you could just be more direct and specific—honestly, I’m finding it a bit exhausting trying to read between the lines of posts like yours to figure out what you're actually getting at...😕
The way you’ve bolded that makes me wonder if you think this whole thread was actually sparked by that one spammer's fault—as if it's all just the result of some mysterious spin job pulled off by someone in the middle of the night... I guess maybe that's how you see it.
I’m sorry—I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at.😕

It's a shame we can't see eye to eye on this—really, it is—but even with the best intentions, I just don't think I can bring myself to accept your arguments.
Hey ZgSash—if you could just give me the chance to reply to this post first, that would be great. After that, maybe you could wrap up my part of the conversation? I have a feeling this discussion isn't really heading in a constructive direction anymore, and honestly, I don't see any new perspectives coming our way to keep it going.
🙂

You aren't going to win this argument with me—in fact, I think I’ll be the one finishing it. If you’ll allow a lady to step in, that is. And honestly, I’m glad you finally noticed there are other people participating in this thread; it’s actually the first time you've acknowledged anyone else, though I suppose you chose to do so by using Lisa Hernandez3's name in such a condescending way toward me. But really, I shouldn't have expected anything more than that, I guess.

Let me be direct and get straight to the point.
I suspect that the recent chaos occurring within the Psychology PDF is being driven by specific individuals—or perhaps just one person—who are intentionally spamming the forum out of pure self-interest. I have my own theories about who this might be, as I suspect they’ve even been posting under their original usernames on certain threads, though I can't say for certain—nor do I really intend to make an investigation my business. I don't have enough insight to make any definitive claims; I can only speculate. My only "job" here is to speak up when I feel the truth is being intentionally distorted through dishonest tactics—basically, people causing trouble just to sabotage those who actually want to use this resource properly without all the childish nonsense. It honestly feels like typical adolescent behavior from people who simply can't stand Cocaine's style, which I suppose is a bit too sophisticated and assumes too much for them. To add some context, this mess has ramped up significantly since Ego stepped down from the moderator position over at Psychology. And, if I'm being completely honest—and I truly believe this is the most likely scenario—it seems like this is all being orchestrated by someone who is clearly angling to take over that moderator seat.

I have a feeling that there are a few topics floating around here that were likely cooked up by someone with some pretty shady intentions:

What exactly constitutes "homophobia"?
Thread starter: Godivan Registered December 2009 (banned)
I’ve been personally trying to wrap my head around why the moderators even left this thread open—it’s been driving me a bit crazy, honestly—and the only conclusion I’ve really reached is that they knew exactly whose clone started it. It feels like they just kept it active because they viewed the whole thing as some sort of "literary" exercise or just a joke, rather than anything serious.
There was some explicit hate speech on that thread—it resulted in a red card and a permanent ban for the author:

It seems like the natural reaction for any typical man to feel a sense of aversion toward gay men and contempt for lesbians. Similarly, I suppose the natural response for any typical woman would be an aversion to lesbians and a disdain for gay men.

Post author: Alex Jelinić, registered January 2010 (banned)

- This entire thread was opened under the guise of being a serious inquiry into the definition of "homophobia"—as if it were a legitimate question—where the author initially posed certain logical questions to, well, try to clarify terminology (on a topic that was quite topical on the forum at the time). From there, it just devolved into a total mess, driven mostly by users who had registered during those early months of 2010, eventually leading us to this result, which I might appropriately call A tribute to a massive troll.

Then there is the thread you started here:
I imagine I am The Best
Thread author: KLP, registered April 2010 (banned)

Suicide - the solution to all problems
Thread author: Dino-Admin, registered February 2010
- A complaint was promptly filed on the forum regarding this thread: Suicide-the solution to all problems / bad thread!

And finally, although I am not entirely certain if it was the work of the same individual or individuals:

Are men or women more intelligent?
Thread author: Uzvišeni, registered January 2010
- A completely futile topic—theoretically and methodologically ungrounded, and heavily politically charged (though perhaps not maliciously so; maybe it is just immaturity)

All these threads—even if I am placing this last one in that category somewhat conditionally (since it could just be the result of the author's youth)—are indicators that the Psychology subforum has been taken over by spammers and trolls in the vein of slightly older adolescents (mentally speaking, if not necessarily in age). Through uncontrolled cloning and general nonsense, they seem to be trying to prove that the moderators aren't doing their jobs and, generally speaking, just to mess with the users. Though, in my opinion, the issue isn't really about how two moderators (or the one currently active) approach this, but rather about those specific users who ought to be sanctioned. It’s about identifying who they are and warning them to stop. The emphasis shouldn't be on whether we need to re-examine the moderators' work, but whether we should re-examine the conduct of these users. In other words, specifically: whose clones are these?

Or, to put it a slightly different way, the primary issues facing the subforum are:

- Uncontrolled and aggressive cloning and the opening of threads intended to provoke, used for ulterior motives, or simply to mess with the moderators.
- The creation of threads that lack heuristic value, sufficient weight, scope, or even minimal theoretical grounding, yet attempt to present themselves as abstract or theoretical—these are often a byproduct of the first category, and sometimes it is difficult to tell where they are headed after the initial post; you usually see the true direction as the thread develops or as a swarm of clones descends upon it.

A lesser issue involves threads that are opened too frequently because of the author's personal life circumstances, asking what others would do or think in that situation. That kind of communication, I think, is actually appropriate for the subforum and contributes to a certain sense of community—it is, in a way, the very fabric (the meat) of the board. The only problem arises if a thread is opened for every little thing without checking to see if a similar topic already exists, something which Cocaine—who is "nowhere to be found"—had been warning about in recent days.

I hope I have said enough and that I have been sufficiently specific. And I would love to see Cocaine show up on this thread; honestly, so would I.

Are you seriously implying I've got some kind of connection to this conspiracy about someone trying to worm their way into the psychology moderator spot?
Trust me, I wouldn't lobby for anyone. Honestly? I wouldn't even take on a moderator role if they were throwing money at me, let alone asking me to do it on my own dime. Why would I?

A lot of things have been off with this psychology sub for a long time. I noticed a certain story back in the day that was completely beneath the dignity of a forum with this kind of reputation, but it happened during the era of the former female admin. In my opinion, she was the absolute worst leadership decision in the history of this place—and believe me, I’ve been here since the very beginning. Back then, I didn't even bother starting a thread to call it out because what was the point? Nothing was ever going to change.
You remember, don't you? this user And then there are those "fascinating" threads about his little adventures over in Silver Lake. Honestly, what went down in that discussion completely crossed the line—it basically dragged the entire reputation of psychology through the mud beyond repair. This user was even being allowed to rake in cash via SMS messages right on the forum; he had instructions in his signature on how and where to send them, and now he’s just sitting there with a link in his signature leading to a blog that says this:

Just text SUBABUSA to 67... and boom, your pass is automatically funded. Easy enough, right? $2.00 It’s like you’re finally lifting a massive weight off your chest, isn't it? But let's be real—you basically just paid for one side of my book to get written. 🙂

I’m pretty sure there’s a whole mountain of instructions on this thread about how to actually get him paid—I think even he wrote some of them himself. I don't really feel like digging through everything to double-check, and honestly, I might be misremembering. Can someone just set me straight if I've got that wrong?

I don't have anything against any of the mods here, really. But if you're going to moderate a sub dedicated to psychology, you need more than just subtlety. You need that certain edge—that same quality every police officer has to carry. You've got to be polite and professional when dealing with regular citizens, sure. But you also need the backbone to step in and lay down the law when you're dealing with people who actually deserve it.
The clones are finally getting busted. I don't know if the mods actually have access to everyone's IP addresses, but honestly, who cares? There are plenty of other ways to sniff out a fake account.
Look, if someone is out here trying to act like they aren't the exact same person as a user who got permanently banned, they aren't fooling anyone. People don't just write like this by coincidence, right?

Amtrak said:So you think you're superior then? Just like me? One of a kind, special, holding your ground... just totally unflappable.I can't even begin to process this. What am I looking at? Is this some kind of joke? It’s just one letter. One single, lonely "c." Are we really doing this now? Is this how we communicate? Honestly, I've seen more substance in a bowl of plain oatmeal. Give me something real to work with here. Seriously.Well, there goes the peace and quiet.zWell, here we go again... just a little spontaneous thought to throw out there.sThat’s a nice thought.
If you can't teach someone how to open a door, stop wasting your breath. Just teach them how to open a window instead. Teach them how to take a risk and own the consequences. Why struggle with someone who just won't learn the basics?
And that’s exactly where we hit the wall. How do you even begin to teach that?čSo people actually want to step up and take responsibility? Please. Give me a break.ćAnd she’s absolutely terrified of it.žThey aren't even fighting it. Honestly, it’s almost funny watching them. Of course, they’ll blame everything else—it’s always the circumstances, it’s always the broken system, it’s always the government. Everyone is at fault except for them. It's easy to point fingers when you're dodging responsibility. It’s incredibly hard to stand up to a machine that just grinds you down. Very few people actually have the guts to push back; most just follow the crowd and take the path of least resistance. But we have to say it: everyone needs to find that spark inside themselves—that feeling of being superior, unique, and absolutely unwilling to bend.

It’s simple: you either use the damn quotation marks, or you don't. There's no middle ground.
I’ve got nothing against having mods over on the psychology board. My problem isn't with them—it's with the way this whole forum's reputation is being dragged through the mud. How does it work that we're all actually aiming for the same thing, yet we still can't seem to find any common ground? Now, it's up to the admins to step in, clean up the mess in that subforum, and finally put this whole situation to rest.

So, why am I finally speaking up now, after staying silent while everyone else was busy scamming money on this board? Because things have changed. For once, people are actually showing up to the entire forum—people who might be doing this for the first time since this site launched—and they're actually stepping up to fix things. But here's the catch: they're only moving if the arguments are solid and actually make sense.

I'm not necessarily implying you have any connection to this—to be honest, I don't know who you are or what your deal is (for all I know, you could be incredibly honest, just as I might come across as dishonest if someone chooses to see me that way), and anyway, everything here is just speculation on my part (based on certain indicators I decided to point out). Those people I’m highlighting might just be careless users without any actual bad intentions; time will tell what was really going on. I was simply appealing for them to be warned, assuming there is any evidence, so that this whole circus can be shut down with one decisive move—which would hopefully prevent a string of similar incidents down the road.

Everything I've posted here has been from the perspective of an observer and a (sometimes occasional) user of this forum. Knowing that some things aren't quite as they seem when viewed solely through a single thread, I felt I should react. Given how much we've all hung out on this forum over the past few months, I think it was fair of me to speak up—more than enough, actually. As of today, my observations, heaven help me, will end, along with my commentary.

I didn't follow the thread started by Subabuseov, even though I noticed it was extremely popular, so I can't—nor should I—comment on it.

I bid you farewell, and I wish you all a smooth resolution to this situation.

Well, you weren't even part of this discussion originally—you just showed up now to troll me specifically.

From the get-go, I’ve been pretty clear about what bothers me here—the fact that the focus is being placed in all the wrong spots. The core question was, "Are there moderators on the Psychology board?" And the answer is, "Yes, there are." That’s what I tried to demonstrate, and that’s what the admin confirmed—and I suppose we can take his word for it. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the subject matter that Paul Green31 used to kick off this thread either, but I don't think the nature of the topic, or the fact that it sat on the Psychology board for a while, says much about the quality of those moderators. If anything, it reflects the users involved—specifically one or more problematic individuals who I suspect have triggered similar threads before. Honestly, most of this could probably be fixed just by telling those specific people to stop doing it. It seems to be an issue for the administration too, not just the mods—the moderators actually did issue warnings and bans (though I'm not sure if they were permanent), but clearly, that hasn't solved the underlying issue. Maybe the only real fix is just telling whoever thinks this is a good idea to cut it out.

Pointing out other threads and the broader systemic issues isn't contradictory to my somewhat tentative defense of the moderators, nor is it trolling. The author framed this whole thing as a wide-ranging issue regarding the Psychology PDF itself, so our discussion naturally became broad. He eventually brought up the issues involving Subabuseov later on, which I assume you don't consider trolling?

As for the "theater" comment—that's a question of vital importance to me, even if I don't see it happening here. It was really just about knowing when to step away from a conversation where we've agreed and disagreed enough, and where the matter is no longer ours to settle. Sometimes, you just need to exit a discussion—even if you have to use some old-fashioned literary phrasing to do it, even if people end up trolling you afterward for it.

I do, however, fully sign off on your last sentence. I'm just not sure how you intended that as a critique of me. I don't accept anything without scrutiny—just like Paul Green31 does—I just tend to approach it with a bit more consideration and nuance.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Then he went on to bring up Subabusa's issue, which I guess you don't consider trolling?

And what do you think?
My take? This forum shouldn't be a playground for people running active payment accounts or SMS donation services. If that kind of thing is allowed, then I’ve got plenty of my own "ideas" I'd love to pitch.

The psychology board is a total circus today, too. You've got this obvious religious debate dragging on, and now "indigo children" are drifting in, piling on a mountain of pseudo-scientific nonsense about auras...
Some topics just don't belong in a psychology forum.
If rambling about a kid's aura in the psychology section isn't trolling, then fine—call me a troll.

I’m backing off—it’s just an attention issue. 🙂

feralpilot0 said:I’m backing off, it’s just about attn wh. 🙂

?😕

Anyway, I just had a brilliant idea on how to get the admins' attention...

Post this for the community:

"Hey everyone, this site is a place where you can find help if you're struggling financially. Just put an SMS service number in your signature where people can send you emergency funds. You can even leave your checking account info; it's perfectly fine under the rules here."

So, either shut me down right now or watch everyone start dropping their digits.