Are you feeling any better?

Jose White18 said:I suspect it really comes down to the 'well-done steak' factor...

Writes:

even if the whole thing was cooked up by some total moron

It’s possible, though I can't say for sure, that Hook didn't explicitly state she was an incompetent idiot when she wrote this.

Sandra Parker3 said:Absolutely nothing, so she can just keep trolling if she wants.
It seems to have become the standard rule lately: you just make up a whole story, and then when someone actually calls you out on the inconsistencies, you get banned like they're "killing the messenger."

There was a similar situation recently over in the Psychology section—total fabrication too. The author, 🙄, is a notorious troll here. If you check the last page of that thread, her two old handles were called out, and yet, absolutely nothing happened.

She got a strike for being abusive when she lost her mind (if you can even call it that) after those handles were mentioned
(Oh, right, I forgot to mention... those were permabanned handles) and 🤷 nothing came of it.
Now she's facing another ban, but since she's already accumulated enough strikes, she can basically keep trolling without any real interference.

Just as an FYI for anyone interested, that thread about aggressive Sex with Zionist Kitchen was moved from Psychology to where all the other nonsense lives. So, I'll head over there now and ask how one is supposed to enjoy being raped.

Maybe click that report button after all? Or perhaps not... 🤷

Sandra Parker3 said:Absolutely nothing, so she can just keep trolling if she wants.
It seems to have become the standard rule lately: you just make up a whole story, and then when someone actually calls you out on the inconsistencies, you get banned like they're "killing the messenger."

There was a similar situation recently over in the Psychology section—total fabrication too. The author, 🙄, is a notorious troll here. If you check the last page of that thread, her two old handles were called out, and yet, absolutely nothing happened.

She got a strike for being abusive when she lost her mind (if you can even call it that) after those handles were mentioned
(Oh, right, I forgot to mention... those were permabanned handles) and 🤷 nothing came of it.
Now she's facing another ban, but since she's already accumulated enough strikes, she can basically keep trolling without any real interference.

Just as an FYI for anyone interested, that thread about aggressive Sex with Zionist Kitchen was moved from Psychology to where all the other nonsense lives. So, I'll head over there now and ask how one is supposed to enjoy being raped.

If you spot any trolling or anything else that breaks the rules on our Psychology subforum, please do us a favor and report it. Our moderators can't always keep up with monitoring every single user or reading through every post across all the different threads—so having the community step up and flag those obvious troll posts would be a huge help to us. 🙂

Nicholas King said:What’s missing here—and I mean truly missing—is any actual instruction on how this process is supposed to work... specifically, how a blatantly trollish post (especially on such a sensitive topic, mind you) gets deleted and the offending user actually gets sanctioned.

So, I guess what I'm asking is: what is a regular forum member supposed to do when a moderator handles a controversial situation this catastrophically?

Look, the post was flagged and taken down. But let's be real: sometimes we just can't tell if someone is making things up on the fly or not. We can strongly suspect a story is fabricated, but usually, suspicion alone isn't enough to hand out a sanction. If a user had provided a link to another one of the author's posts proving this whole situation was made up, we would've handled it completely differently. Moderators don't go digging through a user's entire posting history just to fact-check every single claim unless it's one of those really extreme cases.

hollowtrucker77 said:Why on earth did you guys ban Linda Price5 over here??
The woman is absolutely spot on
Is this really happening just because she used the word damn or freaking??

No, it wasn't that; it was because of that "complete idiot" comment. I'll admit, at first glance, I wasn't even sure if she was targeting the author or someone else, but I eventually decided it was an insult and acted accordingly. Honestly, looking at it again, I'm having second thoughts 🙈, so I think I'm going to go ahead and rescind that warning. My apologies if I overstepped there.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, the post was flagged and taken down. But let's be real: sometimes we just can't tell if someone is making things up on the fly or not. We can strongly suspect a story is fabricated, but usually, suspicion alone isn't enough to hand out a sanction. If a user had provided a link to another one of the author's posts proving this whole situation was made up, we would've handled it completely differently. Moderators don't go digging through a user's entire posting history just to fact-check every single claim unless it's one of those really extreme cases.

No, it wasn't that; it was because of that "complete idiot" comment. I'll admit, at first glance, I wasn't even sure if she was targeting the author or someone else, but I eventually decided it was an insult and acted accordingly. Honestly, looking at it again, I'm having second thoughts 🙈, so I think I'm going to go ahead and rescind that warning. My apologies if I overstepped there.

That would be fair, I guess 🙂.

Michelle Evans said:Maybe click that report button after all? Or perhaps not... 🤷

I mean, I could have, sure, but I guess I’ve just been conditioned to come here and whine. 😁

Eric Gray2 said:If you spot any trolling or anything else that breaks the rules on our Psychology subforum, please do us a favor and report it. Our moderators can't always keep up with monitoring every single user or reading through every post across all the different threads—so having the community step up and flag those obvious troll posts would be a huge help to us. 🙂

Right, fair enough, but we did drop names in that thread, so... anyway, it was just an assumption.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, the post was flagged and taken down. But let's be real: sometimes we just can't tell if someone is making things up on the fly or not. We can strongly suspect a story is fabricated, but usually, suspicion alone isn't enough to hand out a sanction. If a user had provided a link to another one of the author's posts proving this whole situation was made up, we would've handled it completely differently. Moderators don't go digging through a user's entire posting history just to fact-check every single claim unless it's one of those really extreme cases.

No, it wasn't that; it was because of that "complete idiot" comment. I'll admit, at first glance, I wasn't even sure if she was targeting the author or someone else, but I eventually decided it was an insult and acted accordingly. Honestly, looking at it again, I'm having second thoughts 🙈, so I think I'm going to go ahead and rescind that warning. My apologies if I overstepped there.

So now that everything's been double-checked and we know what's actually true... are they gonna strip that user of those 35 points he got right off the bat for asking "Was that fun for you?"... seriously...

rustydrifter10 said:Look, the post was flagged and taken down. But let's be real: sometimes we just can't tell if someone is making things up on the fly or not. We can strongly suspect a story is fabricated, but usually, suspicion alone isn't enough to hand out a sanction. If a user had provided a link to another one of the author's posts proving this whole situation was made up, we would've handled it completely differently. Moderators don't go digging through a user's entire posting history just to fact-check every single claim unless it's one of those really extreme cases.

No, it wasn't that; it was because of that "complete idiot" comment. I'll admit, at first glance, I wasn't even sure if she was targeting the author or someone else, but I eventually decided it was an insult and acted accordingly. Honestly, looking at it again, I'm having second thoughts 🙈, so I think I'm going to go ahead and rescind that warning. My apologies if I overstepped there.

Thanks, I honestly think I just misread the situation earlier
I appreciate you taking another look at it
🙂

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:So now that everything's been double-checked and we know what's actually true... are they gonna strip that user of those 35 points he got right off the bat for asking "Was that fun for you?"... seriously...

I certainly hope not, because honestly, I don't think those points were even relevant to the thread, let alone particularly useful for anything else either.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:So now that everything's been double-checked and we know what's actually true... are they gonna strip that user of those 35 points he got right off the bat for asking "Was that fun for you?"... seriously...

Why? You think her post is suddenly perfectly fine now?

Sandra Parker3 said:I mean, I could have, sure, but I guess I’ve just been conditioned to come here and whine. 😁

Right, fair enough, but we did drop names in that thread, so... anyway, it was just an assumption.

Actually, I’d rather ask you if you think this is even fair or useful—and how long the admins plan on letting this slide.

To clarify, people don't bother reporting posts or sending a PM, but they absolutely love coming here to complain or starting some massive thread about how the mods aren't doing their jobs.
Why is this being allowed before the person whining even tries to give a moderator a heads-up via a report? Instead of actually moderating, they end up stuck arguing about stuff that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

okay, got it. we did post names on that specific thread though... so... I guess the assumption is...

The assumption is... well, you know. That thread (if you're talking about aggressive Sex) hasn't really existed on Zionist Kitchen for a while now; it was cleaned up from the start, but once things went too far, it just got shut down.

I know this isn't really what we're talking about here, but since these out-of-context, totally outdated posts are still sitting here, I figured I might as well weigh in on them.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:So now that everything's been double-checked and we know what's actually true... are they gonna strip that user of those 35 points he got right off the bat for asking "Was that fun for you?"... seriously...

Since when is trolling allowed to troll? 🙂

Take ZUD, for example. They deal with trolls all the time. The people there are smart enough not to engage in pointless arguments or rack up useless strikes. Instead, they pull specific posts and demand the troll actually explain their logic. Either they clarify themselves, or they get tangled up in their own lies and end up banned. 😁

That’s how it should have been handled here. Pull her actual posts and ask her what she meant, rather than attacking a troll on such a sensitive topic. Honestly, I think the ban was totally justified, and the user isn't even complaining—she knows she crossed the line.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Why? You think her post is suddenly perfectly fine now?

Perhaps because she actually did your job for you—effectively calling out a troll on an incredibly sensitive subject?

melloworca6 said:Since when is trolling allowed to troll? 🙂

Take ZUD, for example. They deal with trolls all the time. The people there are smart enough not to engage in pointless arguments or rack up useless strikes. Instead, they pull specific posts and demand the troll actually explain their logic. Either they clarify themselves, or they get tangled up in their own lies and end up banned. 😁

That’s how it should have been handled here. Pull her actual posts and ask her what she meant, rather than attacking a troll on such a sensitive topic. Honestly, I think the ban was totally justified, and the user isn't even complaining—she knows she crossed the line.

I’d say you aren't around ZUD that much,
.🙂
Actually, it's quite the opposite: most of those troll threads just devolve into this grotesque speculation by forum members about what the initial (entirely fabricated) situation might actually look like, while the troll—after maybe two or three opening posts—wisely retreats from the discussion (and is probably laughing their head off).

I honestly can't remember the last time a troll actually ended up getting banned.

Nicholas King said:Perhaps because she actually did your job for you—effectively calling out a troll on an incredibly sensitive subject?

I’d say you aren't around ZUD that much,
.🙂
Actually, it's quite the opposite: most of those troll threads just devolve into this grotesque speculation by forum members about what the initial (entirely fabricated) situation might actually look like, while the troll—after maybe two or three opening posts—wisely retreats from the discussion (and is probably laughing their head off).

I honestly can't remember the last time a troll actually ended up getting banned.

I mean, how does a post like that make someone a troll? Especially on such a sensitive subject.

Edit: Look, Nicholas, if you’ve got an issue with me, just say it. You're starting to trip over your own logic just to try and knock me down for "not doing my job."

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I mean, how does a post like that make someone a troll? Especially on such a sensitive subject.

Edit: Look, Nicholas, if you’ve got an issue with me, just say it. You're starting to trip over your own logic just to try and knock me down for "not doing my job."

In my very first post, I wrote...The only real blunder this cardboard-thin forum dweller made was failing to be explicit enough with his allusion—he really should have just dropped a direct link to the original post to prove the girl was clearly just trolling.Look, maybe the post could have been phrased better—I’ll give you that—but that doesn't change the fundamental reality of the situation. It was clearly just someone playing the troll on a sensitive topic. Even if we ignore that specific post entirely, it’s blindingly obvious from the context alone that the whole thing reeks of bad faith and deserves a bit of investigative scrutiny. And honestly? Now you know that too.

It isn't really the initial reaction that bothers me—I mean, if you leave out a crucial link, it’s perfectly understandable why someone might misinterpret the point of a post. That part is easy enough to forgive. The real issue—the thing that actually gets under my skin—is that even after the whole situation has been laid out and everything has been clarified, they still choose to dig their heels in and stubbornly defend a position that is, frankly, indefensible.

Look, Nicholas King—if you actually have some kind of issue with me, then just say it. Seriously.

Don't try to flatter me—and for heaven's sake, stop making this about us personally.

Where am I defending the indefensible? Did I even say my first post wasn't just trolling? Is that settled now?
But I’m still sticking to my guns—asking "And did you enjoy it?" is definitely trolling.
That's all.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Where am I defending the indefensible? Did I even say my first post wasn't just trolling? Is that settled now?
But I’m still sticking to my guns—asking "And did you enjoy it?" is definitely trolling.
That's all.

Actually, you didn't—not really. At the moment when both posts (the first one unbanned and the second one sanctioned) were sitting right there on the thread, all you said was that you had nothing more to add to what blissine said. There was zero mention of trolling, and certainly no talk about deleting the troll post once the whole situation became clear.

is this resolved?

It’s been resolved—but honestly, you don't have much to do with that resolution to be citing it now; it only got settled after an entire thread broke out regarding your moderator actions. This whole "everything is fine, nothing happened, let's move on" rhetoric is just a joke, regardless of where you're standing.

My bad, I didn't realize I had to send you some formal written notice regarding how the moderators handle things.
Besides, mods aren't supposed to—and honestly can't—be totally in sync or perfect all the time. That’s why we have sub-mods and admins, I guess.
If you can only feel okay about things when someone here comes crawling by to offer a humble apology for their own opinions, then maybe that's just your issue.
What's even the point of your posts on this thread today?

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Actually, I’d rather ask you if you think this is even fair or useful—and how long the admins plan on letting this slide.

To clarify, people don't bother reporting posts or sending a PM, but they absolutely love coming here to complain or starting some massive thread about how the mods aren't doing their jobs.
Why is this being allowed before the person whining even tries to give a moderator a heads-up via a report? Instead of actually moderating, they end up stuck arguing about stuff that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

okay, got it. we did post names on that specific thread though... so... I guess the assumption is...

The assumption is... well, you know. That thread (if you're talking about aggressive Sex) hasn't really existed on Zionist Kitchen for a while now; it was cleaned up from the start, but once things went too far, it just got shut down.

I know this isn't really what we're talking about here, but since these out-of-context, totally outdated posts are still sitting here, I figured I might as well weigh in on them.

Oh Karen Rodriguez3, you're being so serious—I was just joking around with my answer and the whole "whining" thing; trust me, I won't start moping until I've tried everything else first. 😉

Sorry if I offended you somehow, that really wasn't my intention.

And that comment of mine was actually about a different thread in the Psychology section (which is already sorted), though I agree I should have checked with the mods first; it just caught my eye right as I stumbled onto this topic, so it ended up being pretty pointless given how things turned out, but we've moved past it.

Why is this allowed before the person complaining has even tried to alert the moderators via a report? Instead of actually moderating, they're stuck debating things here that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

I'm not sure, but I agree that you should notify a moderator first; if I recall correctly, there's actually a set procedure for that somewhere.

The assumption is... well, you know. That thread (if you mean aggressive Sex) hasn't existed on this forum for a while; it was kept clean from the start, but once it crossed the line, it was shut down.

I wasn't talking about aggressive Sex, I meant a previous thread in Psychology (it's settled now).
(By the way, since you mentioned it, you guys deleted the aggressive Sex thread instead of closing it.)

🙂Hey!

Alright, I think I finally get what's going on now🙂