Coffee & Chat - Ball & Chain - Post deletion and chat moderation

Good day.

I believe the Coffee & Chat thread isn't being moderated with any sense of transparency or fairness. The reason? Posts are being deleted at random.

It seems moderators have a tendency to scrub certain—though certainly not all—low-effort posts. I fail to see the logic behind this, and I would appreciate some clarification. This practice needs to end. Why? Because when a post is removed, those of us who aren't the targets can't verify if the content was actually problematic or if the punishment was appropriate. Without the evidence, how are we supposed to file a legitimate appeal against moderator conduct?

There has been a palpable tension on this forum for quite some time now. Users are under the impression that punishments are arbitrary and that the rules don't apply equally to everyone. Right now, I can't even point to specific egregious examples because they’ve been wiped away, making it impossible to show who is getting a free pass while others get flagged for the exact same behavior. I am formally requesting that posts no longer be deleted. If these situations continue, I need the material on hand to hold people accountable according to the rules.

However, I will highlight one specific instance involving one of the mods.

Specifically, I want to know if the post by Wacky Davidson—in which he called me petty and insecure—was actually penalized. I have no way of knowing, as the post vanished from the thread somewhere around this page. I reported it properly, but since the post simply disappeared, I cannot tell if the penalty issued was sufficient. If it wasn't, then it is high time we question the integrity of the DIC moderation. Currently, users are receiving penalties for "deviating from the topic" within the chat thread.

It seems DIC is the only forum where you must stick strictly to the moderator's chosen topic within the chat, or face penalties for straying. I request that this rule be reviewed. If possible, let the chat thread serve its intended purpose: casual conversation. It should be a space for informal banter without insults or bickering, but without the forced imposition of a specific subject. Discussion shouldn't be mandatory.

So, regarding whether we delete unformatted posts or not... Basically, we strip out anything offensive, stuff that derails the conversation, or anything that might stir up trouble. If a post breaks a rule but is otherwise "benign" to the actual topic at hand, it usually stays. Just a heads-up though—deleting a post doesn't mean it vanishes into thin air; the admin team can still see everything that's been removed.

So, can I finally get an answer to this:

Is slypuma12’s post actually getting banned?

How are we even supposed to appeal unfair moderation if we don't have any posts to work with?

Are we strictly forced to discuss whatever topic the mods throw at us, or can we just chat casually without being flagged for trolling and tossed into the ban corner?

Hannah Johnson44 said:So, can I get an answer to these questions now:

Is Wacky's post getting him banned?

How are we supposed to appeal unfair moderation if our posts aren't even showing up?

Do we have to stick strictly to whatever topic a mod imposes, or can we just chat casually without being called out for trolling and getting sent to the ban corner?

No.
I mean, look at this thread right here; it’s proof enough.
Though, I guess you probably shouldn't judge us solely based on this one example...

It doesn't have to be that way. The mods don't set the topic; they just try to keep things from spiraling out of control...

Maria Fowler39 said:It isn't.

And why is that?

You reported him, you filed the report, you deleted his post... but you didn't actually issue a strike. Why?

There is a certain irony here, isn't there? We are currently embroiled in a heated debate in this chat regarding the injustice of the American legal system—where some walk free while others are thrown under the bus.

Isn't that the height of hypocrisy? Come on, let’s be honest now. 🙂

You know exactly where and how. This thread is all the proof you need.

Come on, Tyler Vaughn7. It's not like you don't understand. I can't provide links to posts, as the rules require, if you just go ahead and delete them.

Can we please just have one request honored? Stop deleting posts. If we want to see who is being penalized and who isn't, we need the evidence to stay visible.

Though I hope you won't judge us based solely on this single instance...

And what exactly was the purpose of pulling my post? It has nothing to do with this topic, and certainly nothing to do with you. Regardless, if I am ever judged, it will likely be when I can't sufficiently hide my tracks, and I'm sure I'll receive a perfectly appropriate strike from you. Just like the ones I've been receiving so dutifully up until now.

They don't have to; the moderators don't set the topic, they just try to keep things from spiraling out of control...

Then why is a comment like "I'm against all forms of violence, except for S&M enthusiasts" considered trolling?🤷

Evening.

Since I got tagged, here’s my take on things:

Hannah Johnson44 said:Basically, mods have a habit of deleting certain posts—not all of them, just some junk—and I don't see why. I'd love some clarity on this so we can stop doing it. The issue is that besides the person getting flagged, the rest of us have no way of knowing if a deleted post was actually problematic or if the mod overstepped, which makes it impossible to file a legitimate appeal against moderator actions.

Regarding that point, we already went over this in the chat, but let me lay it out one more time. We delete posts to serve as a warning when people go too far, or just to scrub insults from the board.
Neither Tyler Vaughn7 nor I are trigger-happy with flags; you can tell by looking at our moderation history. Honestly, we try to settle everything through conversation first, and we really do try to communicate with you guys. If talking doesn't work, a polite warning and deleting the post is our next step to show someone they crossed a line. If there's still no reaction after that, what else is left but a flag? Sometimes it's just a warning, other times those points pile up until someone hits the ban corner.
You can always appeal a moderator's decision. I've told you guys countless times to use the specific subforum meant for appeals, instead of hijacking threads to attack us.

Hannah Johnson44 said:I feel like DK is the only mod whose chat must revolve around a specific topic, where any deviation gets you flagged. I'm asking for this rule to be reviewed so the chat can stay what most people consider a chat—casual hanging out without insults or bickering, but also without forcing a specific topic on everyone. It shouldn't have to be a formal debate.

The chat doesn't have a set topic, true. You can talk about whatever you want, as long as you follow the rules.

Since this whole mess started because Richard Sanders7 got flagged (and eventually banned due to accumulated points), I'm just reposting what I wrote in his thread in the ban corner. This explains exactly why he was banned and why the chat is "moderated" and "suppressed," as some of you are claiming:

Quote: slypuma12 said:You got the warning because after this, I told you to stop trolling. My post "@Richard Sanders7: please no trolling" was about the specific post I linked.
A missing comma doesn't give you a free pass to keep trolling and making a fool of yourself instead of actually contributing to the thread. Everyone makes typos sometimes...

slypuma12 said:Fine, if we're really going to overanalyze everything, here goes:

Okay, besides the sadomasochism and that spike girl who loves ☕

Nobody mentioned sadomasochism or any kind of "violence" during the whole discussion...

Honestly, you just jumped into the conversation with nothing concrete—just a half-baked post. And then, even after being warned, with or without a comma, you just kept trolling. You knew exactly what I meant, but you chose to ignore a polite request. What was I supposed to do, pat you on the head and say "good job"? 🤷

Also, that user wasn't banned because of the post you mentioned, or the one he was analyzing. He was banned because of this post right after it. It came right after a decent warning to stop trolling. Instead, he ignored it and decided to play "grammar Nazi" over a post that was perfectly clear and consistent, even without accents...

slypuma12 Asks:
Good evening.

Since I’ve been called out, here is my take on the situation:

Regarding the point mentioned above, we already covered this in the chat, but let’s lay it out one more time for clarity. Those posts we deleted? They weren't arbitrary. They served as a necessary warning to users who crossed the line, or simply acted as a way to scrub insults from the board. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Neither Tyler Vaughn7 nor I are trigger-happy when it comes to handing out sanctions. If you look back at our moderation history, the evidence is right there. We aren't here to play cop. In fact, we believe almost everything can be settled through a simple conversation—which is exactly why we prioritize direct communication with you all. If a discussion breaks down, our next step is a polite warning and a deleted post. It’s an attempt to signal that a user has crossed a line. But what else is left if they ignore that warning too? A strike becomes inevitable. Sometimes a strike is just a single mark on the record, but other times, once those points accumulate, a user finds themselves facing a permanent ban. Is that really how we want it to work? Perhaps not, but rules are rules.
You can always file an appeal regarding moderator conduct. I have urged you countless times to use the specific subforum designated for those grievances. Do not hijack active threads to complain or launch attacks. Is that really too much to ask?

Much appreciated for the effort. Now, let's get back to what I was actually getting at. This isn't some petty grievance regarding my own record; rather, it's this:

The issue with deleting posts is that you’re just using them to mask a blatant lack of consistency. You scrub the evidence to hide the fact that you aren't holding everyone to the same standard when it comes to insults or weaponizing medical diagnoses. Is it justice if the rules only apply when it's convenient? It isn't.

Take, for instance, that situation where Tyler Vaughn7 went ahead and deleted your post addressed to me, all while failing to issue any kind of official penalty. Not one person here seems interested in discussing how this practice of scrubbing or hiding specific posts can become such a massive problem. Is anyone actually paying attention?

The chat lacks a specific theme. That’s the truth of it. Anyone can post whatever they please, provided they stay within the rules. Is that really such a problem?

Richard Sanders7 didn't break a single rule. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

And now you’re handing me this sentence that stands in total contradiction to your next statement. How does that even work? It’s completely inconsistent.

Honestly, you just jumped into this debate without saying anything of substance. It was nothing more than a half-baked post. Why bother?

He drifted into the chat with the most mundane statement imaginable—claiming he was against all forms of violence. Apparently, some people here were suggesting he should torture or kill that kid who killed his girlfriend just to satisfy some sense of justice, so he chimed in with this moral high ground. Then you called him out for trolling, pointing out how his little sermon had absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion. All of this went down right there in the chat. 🙂

And what about when Nihilism starts pointing fingers at a murder victim, blaming them for their own fate by throwing around labels like "gold digger" or all sorts of other insults? Don't you see that for what it really is? Isn't that just blatant trolling?

Since this entire mess kicked off because of the cardboard incident—and the subsequent ban triggered by Richard Sanders7's constant accumulation of violations—one has to wonder where we go from here.

It wasn't about that one specific ban. That’s just a symptom of a much larger issue with how you handle moderation. Honestly, most long-term members of this community have already pointed out how bizarre your decision-making process is. Gary Chavez82, Nevera, Richard Sanders7, myself, WEB, even nevermindMe... haven't any of you noticed the pattern?

Furthermore, let’s be clear: that user wasn't banned because of the specific post you mentioned—the one he even tried to defend and dissect himself. No, there was a different reason entirely.

It is perfectly obvious to everyone which post you actually penalized, even though I never explicitly told you which one it was. All I did was ask for some clarity on why you labeled his initial comment as trolling in the first place.

The reality remains unchanged: you call people out for saying things like, "Good evening. I am against all forms of violence, except for the sadomasochistic kind who love ☕," yet you conveniently ignore posts like "Eliza is just a small soul with deep complexes."

Do you honestly believe the users calling for your resignation from the moderation team are doing so without legitimate cause?

Hannah Johnson44 said:Why not?

You reported him, you registered the report, you deleted him... but you didn't issue a strike. Why?

It’s actually kind of ironic that the current controversy is centered on a chat discussion where everyone is busy condemning an unfair American legal system—where some people walk free for things others get locked up for.

Isn't that just peak hypocrisy? Come on, let's be honest here 🙂

Reports are actually pretty helpful for us because they flag issues when we don't have time to read everything. But, just because a post is reported doesn't necessarily mean it gets a strike.

Come on, Tyler Vaughn7. It's not like you don't get it. I can't link to posts, as the rules require, if you go ahead and delete them.

Could you please respect the request to stop deleting entries? It would make it much clearer for everyone to see what has actually been penalized and what hasn't.

If you want to change the rules, you'll have to contact the forum administration. I don't have the authority for that.
And you already got answers to your questions without those links, or was that somehow not enough?

And what was the point of pulling my post, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or with you? In any case, if I am ever going to be judged, it will be when I can't hide it well enough, and I'm sure I'll receive a perfectly appropriate strike from you all. Just like I've consistently received so far.

But there is an issue with how you frequently interact with other forum members and moderators.

Then why is a trolling post like: 'I'm against all forms of violence, except for sadomasochism'? 🤷

You were already given an answer to that question.

Maria Fowler39 said:So, you actually received answers to all those questions without even needing those links, or was that somehow still insufficient?

Of course it isn't enough. That single post is merely one symptom of a much larger problem—just one among many controversial or intentionally buried entries. Is anyone actually paying attention?

But there is a certain way you tend to address the other members and moderators around here. Isn't there?

I certainly didn't expect this kind of blatant dishonesty, orchestrated solely to steer the conversation away from you. Is this how we play things now?

You have received an answer to this question.

I am. I’ve had enough of the "smart" crowd. 🙂

slypuma12 said:Also, just to set the record straight, that user didn't get banned because of the specific post you mentioned—which he actually pointed out as controversial and started breaking down himself. He was actually banned because of this follow-up post. This happened right after a polite warning to stop trolling. Instead of listening, he decided to play the "grammar Nazi" over a post that was perfectly clear, consistent, and didn't even use any special characters.

Look, there’s no need to politely ask me not to troll, because I’m not trolling. You can issue warnings to everyone, but honestly, you’re the one trolling here. It doesn't make much sense to go around flagging someone for trolling when they've been on this forum for ten years and have only nine bans for trolling—one third of which were issued by you. It feels less like moderation and more like you're intentionally trying to provoke a negative reaction. It’s like asking someone to intentionally be a bad moderator.

Just look at the current state of the board. It’s totally empty; people are actually afraid to post because of these erratic decisions you're making.

But let's move past all that. The fact that a moderator feels they can unpunishedly call a female user a "petty soul with complexes" is just shameful. Honestly, Wacky, you should be embarrassed. Just step down. ☕

I’m trying to keep things as objective as possible with the moderation here. I could be wrong, but I feel pretty solid about the call I made in that card I sent you.

If the supermods and admins don't have anything else to weigh in with, I think we're done here. Can we just lock this thread already?

Hopefully you'll get a chance to reply to Eliza's post before the thread gets locked,
otherwise some things just stay hanging in the air.

slypuma12 said:I really try my best to stay objective when I'm moderating. I know I can make mistakes, but I truly believe I made the right call with the warning I issued you.

If the supermods or admins don't have anything else to add, I think we can wrap this discussion up here. Could someone please lock the thread?

When I was reading through your post last night, yours was actually much longer than mine. That specific part you deleted just screams personal vendetta to me. We weren't giving you a hard time before you stepped into the mod role; this isn't an attack on your authority, it’s just a reaction to how things are being handled personally... 🙂

Just look at how much the atmosphere has shifted since you took over. Posts that used to be considered standard conversational tone back in the day are getting flagged now. I've had people reach out privately to show their support, mentioning they're actually hesitant to speak up publicly because they're afraid they might get "moderated" too.

Gary Chavez82 said:I get where he's coming from; his joke wasn't even that bad.
I've seen much worse.
The guy actually showed up to the chat and didn't derail the conversation.
I've seen this a hundred times, but I won't snitch.

:notcommentingonmoderation:

West End Blues said:Wacky and Ball & Chain don't have any room left to maneuver except by stepping back down to being regular users. We saw what they were capable of, and there's nowhere else to go from here. All that remains is the arbitrary dismantling of their own authority.

Gentlemen moderators, the time has come. Find someone different.

Nevera HC said:I've been all for elections for a long time now. Look, I like Tyler Vaughn7, she can stay.
But double standards are definitely at play here. Some people are treated one way, while others are handled completely differently.
It isn't exactly fair, but whatever. This isn't exactly a land of justice.
ot-tikvica, relax, I haven't lost my way in the suburbs.

West End Blues said:I am not satisfied with the moderation, and I am telling you directly. This user ban is just one more unnecessary move in a long line of them. I will simply state that I want changes, and I expect them at any moment. I believe in the logic shared by you two—that you can realize when too much damage has been done.

Let's start the cleanup process. Your resignation, Wacky, is merely the first step.☕

nevermindMe said:^^How can a chat discussion be considered "derailing"?
It's a chat; surely he has the right to say what he wants. It's not like he was obligated to debate with you or everyone else. Besides, he didn't insult anyone. He was actually somewhat witty.😉

Off-topic: A little poem.

So, the consensus is that we’re all the villains here. Every single one of us users is "problematic." Apparently, we become most problematic when we dare to point out biased, unfair moderation—especially when it comes from people who have repeatedly flouted the very rules they enforce on everyone else.

It was deeply unsettling to see slypuma12 nominated for a moderator role right after he spent several paragraphs insulting me. As per usual, Tyler Vaughn7 simply deleted the mess and, I suspect, conveniently failed to issue any actual penalty.

It is equally troubling that both moderators are now pushing half-baked narratives regarding personal disputes. I remember Tyler Vaughn7's response quite clearly when I first tried to raise this issue. He essentially told me, "Don't cry over spilled milk."

Now, suddenly, it seems appropriate to cry over spilled milk. Isn't that convenient? It’s certainly better than answering the fundamental question: why aren't moderators held accountable for the same insults that would get any "ordinary" user banned instantly?

Perhaps most concerning is that neither moderator intends to stop the practice of hiding certain controversial posts. This ensures we still can't tell how biased or subjective they truly are.

I am calling on Nica to address these issues. Furthermore, please consider replacing the current moderation team on the PDF. Long-time users are either leaving or preparing to walk away because they are tired of seeing personal vendettas disguised as moderation.

Richard Sanders7 said:Last night...

Yeah, I edited my post after hitting send because I realized it didn't really help the discussion about us agreeing to moderate.
You’re claiming I’m on some vendetta trip and that's why I became a mod. Please, show me the receipts for that claim.

And while we're talking "personal attacks":

It was pretty sketchy seeing slypuma12 suggested for mod right after he went on another massive rant insulting me for the second time. And Tyler Vaughn7 just deleted it like usual, and I'm guessing skipped the penalty too.

Isn't this a personal attack on me? 🤔 Whatever happened, happened. I've moved past it, and you could too. We can't change the past. Besides, that same logic applies to you, Eliza. Regardless, I haven't treated you any differently than anyone else—there's no special "surveillance" going on here, despite what you guys want to believe.

Eliza, if I'm such a terrible moderator and I'm so "targeting" you that I'm constantly handing out warnings, maybe take a look at your own infraction history and see how many you actually have from me.

By the way, Richard, I checked your warnings last night. You claim a third of them are for trolling from me. My math says it's more like a sixth, based on the ones I've seen.

Hannah Johnson44 said:So...

If you remember the debate over at the West End Blues board—after we had that talk (because even though I told you guys to settle it here on the main board, you insisted on doing it there)—since everyone was complaining about deleted posts (which I already explained why we delete), I said I'd change my moderation style. Instead of deleting and warning, I'll just issue the warning and leave the post up. That's what I'm doing now.
The posts weren't hidden to cover anything up; they were cleared to keep the forum clean. It's about keeping things orderly instead of just using warnings. We figured the West End Blues crowd wouldn't need many warnings since people would see their mistake once the post was gone.

P.S. No use crying over spilled milk. If I were crying, I would've left my post exactly how it was originally. And for the record... that wasn't whining, it was just stating facts, just like you did.

slypuma12 said:Is this not a personal vendetta against me? 🤔 What’s done is done. I’ve moved past it, and honestly, you could too. We can't go back and rewrite history. Besides, Eliza, isn't it funny how easily your own logic can be turned right back around on you?

This isn't some personal attack against you. It’s a formal complaint regarding your conduct and the way you handle moderation.

Not only did you manage to insult me twice with that relentless barrage of grievances, but you also had the nerve to slide into my DMs to "politely" request that I leave the forum. Is this how it works now? Do "objective" moderators actually behave this way? It seems highly questionable.

He just keeps on with the insults. You remember, don't you? Eliza is nothing but a small-minded person with massive complexes. And what does Tyler Vaughn7 do? He refuses to even sanction him. Is anyone actually surprised?

I haven't filed a single complaint about the strike I received for my insults. If I deserve it, I deserve it. I stand by what I said; I don't play games and I don't backtrack. However, I do expect you and Tyler Vaughn7 to respect the forum rules and penalties with that same level of consistency.

It’s honestly just disheartening to witness what this community has become. This is the place where we’ve spent years writing, connecting, and just being ourselves. But it isn't just my own perception. Most people on this board feel the exact same way. What happened?

Regardless of everything else, I haven't noticed any change in how I treat you compared to anyone else. There is no special "surveillance" happening here, despite how some of you might want to frame it. Why would there be?

If that's really how you want to play it, then why don't you tell me: who else have you "kindly" suggested via private message should stop posting on your PDF?

Eliza, if I’m really such a terrible moderator—and if I’ve supposedly been "targeting" you by handing out warnings left and right—then do me a favor. Take a long, hard look at your own infraction history. Just double-check exactly how many warnings you've actually received from me. Is that really the case?

Where exactly did I claim you were constantly banning me? It isn’t even a matter of you refusing to do it. There simply isn't any reason for it.

It’s all pretty obvious what I’m complaining about:

You’re deleting the entries, yet you aren't always archiving them properly. Why bother? Is there even a point to this half-measure?

So, he just drifts into the chat, drops half a thought, and thinks he’s actually contributing? It’s insulting, really. He barges in with this incomplete, half-baked sentence that has absolutely nothing to do with the current thread. Does he think we’re just here to entertain his random tangents? Is he under the impression that relevance is optional? It’s a blatant attempt to hijack the flow without doing any of the legwork. Someone should probably toss him into the ban corner.

You drive the forum members around. Sometimes you do it indirectly through your moderation tactics, and other times you do it directly with those blatant requests. Which is it?

I stated my intention to overhaul the moderation process. I am moving away from simply deleting posts without notice. Instead, I will be issuing formal strikes while leaving the offending content visible. That is exactly how I am proceeding.

May we live long enough to see it happen. Or perhaps, may we live long enough to witness the fallout.

It’s only a matter of time before Tyler Vaughn7 finally caves and adopts it too.

slypuma12, here’s just one more example of how biased you're being:

Alice said:Richard Sanders7 and Eliza aren't really fans of this kind of moderation because it keeps them from doing what they actually come here for... constant poking, sarcasm, mockery, and trolling. Once they lose that freedom, they feel like they've lost their room to move, and since their whole reason for being on this forum is basically stifled, now they want to start a revolution. Let them try; let's see who defends them then. Personally, I think most people prefer moderators who don't let the forum turn into a place where people vent their own frustrations by putting others down.

It's nothing but insults and trolling.

Alice said:Hey admin... For instance, Richard Sanders7 has insulted me so many times—often in such a subtle, nasty way—that he should have been banned a long time ago. Just because he hasn't targeted you doesn't change my view; I fully support any moderator action taken to finally put an end to guys like him. It honestly surprises me that this isn't clear to someone claiming to advocate for democracy. If your idea of democracy is just spitting on and insulting people, then you're definitely not moderator material—in fact, you're exactly the kind of person everyone should work together to keep away from that position.

Making accusations without any proof (which is just classic trolling). But sure, I guess it was "so subtle" that there's no evidence left behind.

You didn't issue a single ban or even a warning for those posts. But apparently, this counts as a warning, while this is considered trolling. 🙏

Higher-ups will weigh in on this. I'm not getting into a back-and-forth with you guys...

Appreciate you understanding

Hannah Johnson44 said:All we need now is for Tyler Vaughn7 to jump on board.

Well, looks like even Tyler Vaughn7 has flipped. I'm officially stepping down from moderating DK.
Good luck out there!

Maria Fowler39 said:So, even Johnson & Johnson has folded. I’m stepping down from moderating the forum.
Good luck to everyone!

Why spread falsehoods? 🤔