Why?

Sandra Brown18 said:They’re coming after me, claiming that... I’m not handing over my sources on Reddit.I reserve the right to keep my sources anonymous.
That’s just standard journalistic practice.

And you were right there on Reddit, too. You basically ate that whole lie about the "new transit lines" just once.

Sandra Brown18 said:Duplicate.

You're just making things up. It’s not a duplicate; you simply deleted the content of the post, which only those with specific permissions can actually see. 🤦

Sandra Brown18 said:I have every right to keep my sources anonymous.
That's just standard journalism.

😁 Sure, you can play that game in your own media outlet, assuming you actually own one and your editor isn't breathing down your neck. But you aren't a journalist here. You're just an anonymous user with zero accountability. You seem to think you can just post whatever random thought crosses your mind.

Look, you can't just do whatever you want. Check the Rules on this matter. (Translation: drop the anonymity, take legal responsibility, and then maybe you can write what you want.)

I ride the light rail quite a bit—it’s better for the environment.
It’s great to see you guys following my transit adventures...

P. S. The rules on Reddit don't actually say I have to cite a source.

Why is it allowed for posts to be edited so heavily that they no longer resemble what was originally written, especially after someone has already replied to them or referenced them in some way?

For instance, Mark Harris66 has essentially gone back and edited almost every single one of her posts here, completely altering their original meaning. Now, all the replies directed at her look somewhat nonsensical or unfounded because the context has shifted.

Sandra Brown18 said:P.S. Nowhere in the site rules does it say you have to cite your sources.

But it *does* say if a corporation calls you out on a lie and you’re just some anonymous user, your post gets nuked.

Sandra Brown18 said:It’s obvious you wouldn't just take anything at face value.

We went from a site where someone actually leaked a user's Intel address after they were questioned by a public figure, all the way to having thousands of active users. A community isn't just the admins and the website itself; it includes everyone participating, and even then, any platform can be hacked.

Is that really okay with you?

As a regular user here, I just don't trust the situation anymore. Maybe I would have considered your side if you had been honest about not engaging in these little gymnastics—if you had just stuck to saying you wouldn't reveal your source.

Though, I suppose when facing such a heavy accusation, it might be fair to provide some proof—maybe via private message to the admins if you don't want to go public. Otherwise, anyone could start throwing mud around and then just hide behind "journalistic privilege" or "source protection" later on.

"Saying 'from the forum' really only implies one thing—it's an accusation that some random individual used Reddit as an official entity to hunt down someone's Intel address, actually got it, and then showed up at their house...

If they had said "on the forum," it would imply something much broader, though even then the accusations would be pretty wild—regular users can't see IP addresses, and moderators can't even see them outside their own specific subreddits, so it wouldn't be such a sweeping claim...

Since making excuses about other forums doesn't work, the first post is pretty blunt: someone was being gossiped about in the women's corner, so that person requested from the forum the IP addresses, obtained them, and then tracked the gossip down to their front door. It’s a very direct statement, and it implies either legal liability for Reddit or that whoever is making the claim is just lying. And it goes beyond just Reddit, too, because a regular person can't do anything with an IP address alone; they would have had to illegally obtain data from an ISP or the police to figure out who was behind that address...

Since we’re on the subject, I’m not sure if you all remember, but a former moderator here made some pretty heavy allegations a few years back. They claimed 🥳
that Maria Barnes had an inside man working at an ISP who was using Intel addresses to leak private user data.
No evidence was ever produced, of course, but I can't quite wrap my head around why someone would make that up. Regardless, I think using a solid VPN is a non-negotiable requirement for this site. 😁

Hi everyone,
this whole debate kicked off because someone claimed that certain users get a free pass when they use phrases like "heard it on the subway" and stuff like that.
Then came the breakdown of where that phrase actually comes from and why people use it.
I even pointed out the specific origin and the incident that started this whole trend.
So, here’s how it started:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...postcount=3884
Ever since that scare, everyone’s been extra careful about citing sources.
Even one of our most active female users—who I think most of you know—backed up similar points:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3984

And look, the site rules don't actually say you have to cite a source for every single thing you say...

Scott Long71 said:But they say if a corporation disputes a claim as false—and you're posting anonymously—it gets taken down.

The rule is pretty straightforward...
Doesn't apply to me, though—no big company has come out publicly to dispute what I've been saying.
It's just random anonymous users on Reddit arguing with my points...

Sandra Brown18 said:Hi everyone,
this whole debate started because someone claimed some users get a pass when they use phrases like "heard it on the subway" and stuff like that...
Then came the explanation about where that phrase actually comes from and why people use it.
I even pointed out the original source and the specific incident that kicked this habit off.
So, here was the starting point:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...postcount=3884
Ever since people got spooked by that, there's been this extra caution about citing sources.
Even one of our most active female members—who I think most of you know—backed up similar claims here:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3984

The site rules don't actually say you have to cite a source for every single thing you say.

Just so I don't have to edit this again:😁
Basically, the first link points to claims made by a user regarding that Adobe file about searching for Intel info.
The second link is a claim from another user who insists that data sharing is standard practice.
I'm just passing along the sources... none of this is my own opinion.

David Richardson67 said:Look, folks,
I’m posting this as someone who doesn't really have beef with you personally, nor am I particularly interested in diving into those "sensitive" topics that seem to keep us stuck in the past while leaving us with zero future.

When the threads aren't politically charged, you’re a solid moderator and user—take the military Adobe threads or the discussions regarding the wars with Turkey, for instance.

But unfortunately, on certain topics, you just can't seem to separate moderator duties from your own personal views and ideology. You end up using that bias to push your own agenda. And don't even get me started on the superficial, emotional name-calling used against anyone with a different opinion; it’s honestly beneath the dignity of a moderator.

At the same time, being so picky about links—insisting they only count if they meet your specific definition of "credible"—has basically sterilized the history section of this site.
At the end of the day, this is a forum, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. It’s a place for regular people, and it should be open to making history popular, even if some individuals get things wrong. For example, should we really ban a user for stubbornly insisting something happened based on local accounts rather than waiting for a court order? The whole point is the discussion. We should be drawing people into the conversation, not driving them away by being overly rigid.

As for the politically charged stuff, what we need is neutral moderation. Right now, it feels like one side gets strictly penalized while the other side can blatantly deny documented crimes with photos and still claim things like, "it's a shame more of them weren't wiped out."

👍

One user ran a poll among the regulars on the history sub-forum.
(Not me), and here are the results regarding Oshrit.

115 surveyed
93 responses;
_______________________

68 - against Oshrit
14 – neutral/undecided
4 – irrelevant/uninterested
7 - for Oshrit

Sandra Brown18 said:To avoid having to edit this again:😁
The first link covers those claims from that user regarding the Adobe file about Intel searches.
The second link points to what another user is claiming about data leaks.
I’m just passing along the sources. These aren't my opinions.

It’s interesting how the mods handle and distribute information they shouldn't have access to. 🥳 Honestly, I'm surprised nobody has slapped those bookworms around yet. 🤣

Sandra Brown18 said:I have the right to protect my sources.
That’s just standard journalistic practice.

Sure, but that journalist can still get sued into oblivion if they end up in court without any actual evidence or verifiable sources to back them up.

A serious investigative reporter isn't going to rely solely on what a source whispered in their ear unless they've managed to find independent proof or dug up extra documentation to verify those claims.

Sandra Brown18 said:To be clear,
this whole argument started because someone claimed the mods were turning a blind eye to posts using certain phrases like "saw her on the subway."
Then came the breakdown of where that phrase actually comes from and why people use it.
I even pointed out the specific origin story and the incident that set this trend in motion.
So, here was the starting point:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...postcount=3884
Ever since everyone got spooked by that, there’s been a real effort to avoid citing sources directly.
One of our most active female users—someone pretty much everyone here knows—actually backed up similar claims:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3984

The site rules don't actually require you to cite a source for every single claim you make.

Nothing mentioned above actually says that.

The woman herself even admitted she isn't sure if it actually originated from the forum.

If the police really did show up at someone's door, it likely happened through official channels, like a warrant or a subpoena.

The post she's replying to is a mess, but even she doesn't know where the info actually came from(and an Intel address alone is never enough; you'd need another agency involved)..

That is, assuming anyone is telling the truth here. If we aren't talking about a legal procedure—like a court order, (which is what happens when the cops show up), then lawyers who are just looking out for themselves end up incriminating themselves. They might accidentally provide a trail that leads right back to whoever leaked the data. Are those lawyers really that incompetent?

As for "Kiss me," it's all vague nonsense. Could some 20-year-old kid working in tech find something? Probably. Could they hack someone? Maybe, though I doubt it's as "everyday" as people claim. In either case, we're talking about serious stuff that probably doesn't happen nearly as often as suggested.

There are other possibilities too. Maybe someone tracked them down without ever touching an Intel address, and they just assumed that's how it happened because it sounds more dramatic.
I'm not sure how the law handles it if you hire a private investigator or a data analyst to try and unmask someone just by piecing together their posts, cross-referencing social media activity, and matching that against real-world identities.

gentlestag15 said:👍

Some guy on Reddit ran a poll among the people contributing to that Adobe history doc
(not me), here’s how the numbers look regarding Oshrit

115 surveyed
93 responses;
_______________________

68 against Oshrit
14 neutral/undecided
4 irrelevant/disinterested
7 for Oshrit

Yeah. We're talking about a user who was too stubborn to grasp basic concepts like a "direct quote." He eventually came after me, obviously, and it even got brought up in the moderator subforum.

Reddit isn't a democracy, but even if it were, this poll is a total mess. No election commission, no observers, nothing. 😛 We just have to take this guy's word for it based on some private messages he sent.

He also dropped a list of users he supposedly sent his letter to. Most of the names in that Adobe history file have barely ever posted, clearly picked because they fit a certain ideological or political vibe. Meanwhile, plenty of regulars who actually talk on the subforum are missing from the list just because they don't align with that specific agenda.

Most of the gripes aimed at me are about the 2SR stuff.

And you? You're just getting worked up and seeing conspiracies everywhere involving the dinaracs and the Panonacs. 🤦

There's something pretty cool about riding the light rail...🤣

lonetrucker4 said:Yeah. We're talking about a user who was aggressively refusing to grasp basic concepts like what an "accurate quote" actually is. It eventually landed on my desk, naturally, and it even came up in the moderator subforum.

Reddit isn't a democracy, but even if it were, this whole poll setup is obviously flawed. There’s no election commission, no independent observers, nothing. 😛 We just have to take this guy's word for it that things went down that way based on some private messages.

He also put together a list of users he sent his letter to. A huge chunk of the people mentioned in that Adobe file haven't posted here much, if ever; it's pretty clear they were picked based on whether they fit certain ideological or political vibes. Meanwhile, plenty of regular contributors on this subforum—people who participate all the time but don't align with that specific political lean—are nowhere to be found on the list.

Most of the complaints I hear seem to center around the 2SR situation.

And you're just overreacting here, acting like there's some massive conspiracy involving the dinarac crowd and the Panonacs. 🤦

Don't sweat it, he has a full list of everyone who took part in the survey. I'm not sure if he posted the results and they got scrubbed, or if he just hasn't shared them on the forum yet. It's been a couple of months now, so I'll just hit him up and ask.

I’m staying far away from political discussions here because I always end up getting banned. Look, I support Donald Trump, even if he wasn't exactly great for us—he was great for the USA, which is what those fifty-plus idiots failed to realize. And honestly? Being banned just because I'm calling for justice against an official who killed an unarmed woman right outside the Capitol building is both ridiculous and pathetic.

nn, you really have zero shame. You’re trying to turn this whole “on the subway” thing into some kind of personal win with those emojis, but it’s obvious you’re just twisting the truth to fit whatever story you want to tell.

And those "subway" comments? They're just window dressing for the constant stream of fake facts you throw out. It’s always the same—suddenly the economy is stalling, the agricultural share of the GDP is shifting, or just a mountain of other wrong numbers. Then there's the made-up regulations about domestic product shares, which airport has more traffic, how most companies are actually funded, what happened before what else... it goes on forever. Just baseless opinions claiming Savannah can compete with Long Beach, or that a local platform could take on Booking.com. Honestly, you might as well claim that within our lifetimes, Des Moines will have a bigger population than Washington, D.C. If there's no evidence behind it, it's just a fabrication.

I'm not even sure if these are all just honest mistakes or accidental slips, especially since they always seem to align perfectly with a specific narrative.

Look, I won't even get into the other lies and hypocrisy regarding chauvinism, whataboutism, and all that junk—I guess that’s somewhat understandable since it was under politics and history... But why do you feel this desperate need to shove your ideology (which is way too often backed by falsehoods) into economic discussions? Even Tourism—that falls on you too. My take is that these diversions just ruin the discussion, and honestly, the repeated spreading of misinformation should be moderated more strictly, even if it stays on topic.

By the way, everyone here really ought to look into who can actually identify someone based on an IP address (not even mentioning other kinds of digital footprints) and who can actually "hack" something versus who can't.

Or, you know, you could just stick to not writing things that you'd have to deny if the police actually showed up at your door. If you have something to say about someone, have the guts to say it and stand by it if it's true. Take the attacks on Smith, for example. I have to admit, I mostly get why people do it (he’s actually right about certain things), but the man writes and moderates using his full name.

To use one of his topics (and sometimes nn's too) and apply it here: is it okay for someone to write that they believe either zero or 700,000 people were killed at Auschwitz, if someone like nn follows it up with, "I'm just relaying the source. These aren't my claims"?