Does this subforum even serve a purpose?

neongull93 said:Look, it doesn't really matter what the mods over at the subreddit think. It’s about the entire mod team, the people hanging out in that specific sub, and honestly, everyone on the whole forum.

Since PDFs are such a specific beast, the only opinions that actually matter regarding their formatting rules come from the people who spend their days editing them. This isn't some new thing, either—it’s been a standard rule for over five years now, dating back to previous versions. There’s clearly a good reason why everyone is in agreement that following it is absolutely necessary.

Look, we aren't about to go changing the rules just because some other mod or user decides they don't like them. Unless the owner steps in and gives us an actual order to change things, the rules stay put. Besides, this isn't some draconian decree; it literally just says we expect a thread to have a few sentences—you know, a proper intro with a beginning, middle, and end, rather than just some low-effort one-liner. Honestly, I don't see how removing this would do anything to improve the quality of our PDFov content.

neongull93 said:So, what you're telling me is that there isn't a single topic on that site where you can just get straight to the point without being forced to churn out at least six sentences per post? Seriously?

We’ve been locking threads that only have one or two sentences for ages now—it feels like we're just shutting things down without even giving them a second thought. Every once in a while, a topic actually manages to gain some traction and turns into a multi-page discussion, but even then, they usually get locked the moment we notice them.

rustydrifter10 said:Personally, I don't really feel like the forum is in such bad shape...

😁

Oh, man, you couldn't be more wrong about that... 😉 🙂

This whole forum is a rotten apple, and honestly, it’s ripe for the picking. It’s a shame, really, because I’ve put quite a bit of my time into this place, but looking back, it feels like it was all for nothing. When you see how people here are constantly nitpicking over absolutely nothing, it makes you want to just throw a punch at someone. It’s pretty obvious where this is headed.
Improving the forum? Definitely not.

Matthew Anderson said:Look, since PDFs are such a finicky, specialized beast, the only opinions that actually carry any weight around here are the ones from the folks who spend their days elbow-deep in editing them. This rule isn't some new thing pulled out of thin air, either—it’s been standard practice for over five years now, dating all the way back to the previous management teams. There’s clearly a solid reason why everyone in the industry is on the same page about why this is absolutely necessary.

Look, we aren't about to go around changing the rules just because some other mod or a random user decides they don't like them—unless, obviously, the owner of the site steps in and gives us a direct order to change things up. It’s not like that. Besides, the rule itself isn't some terrifying monster or anything; it literally just says we expect a thread to have a few actual sentences instead of being a total one-liner or just a couple of choppy, half-baked thoughts. Honestly, if we scrapped the rule, I don't see how it would actually improve the quality of our platform at all.

Man, we’ve been doing this for ages—just slamming down topics that are barely even sentences, you know? It's like we just lock them in without giving anyone a second to actually process what was said. Every once in a while, someone might actually put some effort in and spark a thread that stretches out over a few pages, but even then... the second a moderator catches wind of it, boom—thread locked. Just gone.

Look, that’s really the core of the issue right there—it's something we absolutely have to figure out if we're going to move forward.
Look, here's the thing about this whole topic—it’s not actually about how many sentences someone writes or anything like that. Honestly? Just shutting down a thread without even giving it a second thought is just a pretty lousy way to handle moderation. It’s bad business, really.

Look, the rule can definitely stay—but honestly? It shouldn't be some hard-and-fast requirement where you get penalized or blocked from starting a thread if you don't follow it perfectly. That feels a bit much, right? Instead, we should treat it more like a "best practice" or just something that’s highly encouraged. Think of it like a suggestion rather than a strict law—you know, something that makes the community better without being a total headache for everyone involved.
Just because that rule has been sitting there for decades doesn't mean it actually carries any weight—honestly, it’s basically just a relic at this point.

rustydrifter10 said:The mods actually stay pretty on top of things—they know their stuff when it comes to how this place flows, the general vibe of the users, the quality of the threads, all that jazz. Like I was saying before, any real changes around here usually happen in small increments—think more like fine-tuning or adding a layer to something that’s already working, rather than tearing everything down and starting over. Honestly, your take feels a bit too broad and vague... it almost sounds like you're describing a total meltdown or some kind of apocalypse. Personally, I don't see the site being in nearly as bad of shape as your posts make it out to be. Sure, there’s definitely room for improvement—I’m fully aware of that—but we’re constantly working on those tweaks. Perfection is kind of a moving target anyway, since the whole community is always evolving.

Honestly, if you ask me, this whole site is way too obsessed with the rulebook—it’s like they're more interested in policing everyone than actually having a conversation. It feels like any time you try to bring up a perspective that doesn't perfectly align with what the mods or the majority think, they just shut it down immediately. It totally suffocates any real debate, you know? It's like trying to have a deep discussion at a dinner party where one person keeps correcting your grammar instead of actually listening to your point.

@neongull93/">@@neongull93, we haven't actually clashed before—at least, I don't recall any such confrontation 🙂
I’m just acting as one of those mobile mods; you picked up a warning from a colleague, and I want to clarify why that happened. It was completely unnecessary, I agree, because if you had simply chosen a different tone, you wouldn't be facing a strike right now.

Regarding what moderators think about the rules, everyone should stick to commenting on the specific sub-forum they are responsible for. The rules can vary drastically from one section to another. Personally, I am satisfied with our guidelines and find them quite easy to follow. The fact that we receive so few complaints proves it—we hand out very few warnings, and when we do, it’s usually just people arguing over strikes received for criticizing the moderation team. And Nick already explained that part
.

I’ve been hanging out on Reddit since all the way back in 2003... if my memory serves me right—and I think it does—I didn't get banned once during those first seven years, maybe just one little hiccup... But nowadays? It feels like there's a solid 30% chance I'll catch a strike with every single post I make.

Casey Bennett said:@neongull93/">@@neongull93, we didn't actually get into it, at least I don't recall us clashing 🙂
I’m just speaking from the perspective of one of those mobile app mods—you know, the ones where you end up getting flagged by a colleague and you're just trying to explain why things went south. It was totally unnecessary, I agree—if you had just phrased things differently, you probably wouldn't be staring down a warning right now.

Regarding what the moderators think about the rules... honestly, everyone should really just stick to commenting on their own specific sub-forums. Rules can vary wildly from one section to another, kind of like how different departments in a massive company like Amazon have totally different protocols. Personally, I’m pretty happy with our guidelines; they aren't exactly rocket science to follow. And if you look at the facts, there aren't even that many complaints—well, not many of us are complaining, anyway. Usually, when people do gripe, it’s mostly about getting flagged for talking about the moderation itself. But Nick already covered that part.

Hehe, since you brought it up, I thought you were that guy.
I don't buy the idea that you can't comment on moderators. I mean, the second someone posts anything in any thread, they're part of the conversation too—so they shouldn't be treated like they're untouchable.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I’ve been hanging out on this Reddit since 2003. If my memory serves me right—and I might be wrong, who knows—during those first seven years, I barely ever got flagged, maybe once at most. But now? It feels like there's a 30% chance I'll get hit with a warning for every single thing I post.

I guess I should just jump in here too... I haven't actually changed my tone or anything, not even a little bit.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I’ve been on this site since 2003. If my memory serves, I didn't get banned once in those first seven years—maybe one time. Now, there's basically a 30% chance I'll catch a strike every time I post.

It's funny how you've decided this has to be the moderators' fault... 🙂

Maybe it is. But tell me, were you posting things like "we should drop a nuke on Meek" back then? Dropping links to hate sites? Claiming same-sex marriage was a "stab in the heart" of heterosexual unions?

And as for the bans... you're mistaken.

Even if you did report something every single time (which, let's be honest, you didn't), you only started opening threads about the FBI on March 28, 2009 (mostly whining about how the mods and Anderson are going to destroy this place)... then again on June 8, 2010, immediately after on July 15, 2010, then July 14, 2011, January 14, 2013, January 27, 2013, March 30, 2013, April 6, 2013, and October 6, 2013...

You've opened three threads regarding the FBI over the last year or so, so it's not like your behavior on the board has actually shifted much. You're actually doing better than you were during that dark stretch in 2013...

By the way, you've picked up 21 strikes from 9 different moderators just between last year and this one. I'd start wondering where the actual problem lies. You have 87 total strikes over 8 years. Clearly, nothing has really changed.

briskbison55 said:to build on that—I haven't changed my tone even a little bit.

Nor has the moderators' attitude toward your tone changed even a millimeter. Over 10 years, you've racked up 234 strikes from 43 different moderators...

neongull93 said:Maybe we could keep the rule on there, but instead of making it a punishable offense or a strict requirement just to start a thread, let's frame it as something that’s just encouraged. It works better as a "nice to have" rather than a mandatory hurdle.
Just because a rule has been sitting there for years doesn't mean it actually means anything.

Look, we aren't going to see eye to eye on this one. The rule exists because we genuinely believe it’s necessary, and frankly, we aren't interested in letting anyone bend it.

neongull93 said:Honestly, I feel like this place is so obsessed with policing the rules that it ends up suffocating any actual conversation that doesn't perfectly align with what the mods or the majority think.

Since the rules on Reddit aren't exactly enforced with an iron fist—there's a ton of wiggle room around here—we just can't get behind that.

Look, I think we can all agree that we’re fundamentally at odds regarding the rules here. If the mods decide this thread needs to be nuked, then so be it—it'll be gone.

lonebadger6 said:It's pretty funny how you just assume this all comes down to the moderators...🙂

Maybe it actually does... I mean, tell me—have you ever posted stuff like "we should drop a nuke on Meek"? Or shared links to those super shady racist sites? Or claimed that same-sex marriage is basically a "stab in the back" to traditional marriage?

Even looking at these questionable examples, you can really see the pattern in how things are moderated here.

The first thing mentioned is just a straight-up oversight by the mods—they let that whole thread stay live to this day: http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=837159

Then there's the blatant disrespect part. You post a perfectly fine YouTube clip or an article, and if there's some tiny, "unsettling" comment tucked away in the corner based on some weird criteria—boom! instant ban.

And thirdly, we have a textbook case of censorship: so, basically, I'm not allowed to express my opinion that same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage?🙏

velvetmaker3 said:This whole site is basically a rotten apple waiting to fall off the tree. It’s such a bummer because I’ve spent so much time here, and now it feels like it was all for nothing. When you see people nitpicking over absolutely nothing, doesn't it just make you want to throw hands? It's pretty obvious where this is heading.
There's no fixing this place.

Honestly,

I've been Googling forum software since yesterday just so I can start my own community.😁
Reddit is too censored, constantly crashing, slow, and just feels ancient.

I'm thinking about grabbing vBulletin—specifically version 5, not this old junk.
I'll launch my own spot, sink $1,000 into some ads, and just go for it.

neongull93 said:Haha, since you brought it up, I thought you were the one talking.
I strongly disagree with the idea that moderators should be immune to commentary; the moment they post anything in a thread, they're participating, which means they shouldn't be treated as untouchable.

You have to distinguish between actual moderation—where they're performing their duties—and just tossing out an opinion within a discussion.
First off, you don't push back against direct moderation, and second, any personal opinion shared by a mod should be subject to a reasoned, topic-specific debate. Moderators are users too, and those two roles are generally quite distinct.

For instance: "Please stop the off-topic chatter" is a formal warning from a moderator, and you don't argue with that.

But if a moderator writes, "Man, it's a beautiful sunny day out," in a weather discussion thread, then obviously a conversation will follow—especially if it's actually pouring rain outside.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The first example you brought up is just a straight-up failure on the moderators' part for letting that thread stay active until now: http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=837159

Secondly, it’s pure greed. You drop a link to some perfectly fine little clip or article where there happens to be an "inappropriate" comment tucked away somewhere off to the side based on some bizarre criteria, and boom—instant ban card...

These are prime examples of how you refuse to follow basic rules—I won't even bother explaining the third one since it wasn't my ban—all while happily trolling by making things up as you go...

That first point is about the mods; on the Politics board, there are ten of them, hand-picked by the higher-ups. It's their job, not yours, to decide if a thread stays or goes...
And the thread is about a strike on an ISIS stronghold, yet you're out here implying that solving the issue requires a nuclear strike on the heart of the Islamic faith and every Muslim on the planet. What can I say, besides that your "misunderstandings" with the moderation team aren't going anywhere if you can't see what the actual problem is 🙂

Then there's your usual trolling and twisting of facts. There wasn't some "inappropriate comment" hidden in your link; the link itself was clearly problematic and loaded with hate speech. A YouTube link isn't just the video content; it includes the comments, the channel description, and all that. It’s hardly our fault if you choose to "get informed" via sites and channels overflowing with hate speech and absolute garbage—or if you just happen to click a link without checking what kind of filth you're actually sharing...

Casey Bennett said:Moderator posts are meant for managing the thread or dropping their own take on the topic itself.
First off, they aren't supposed to be commenting on the discussion directly—second, any actual input should stay relevant to the debate at hand. Moderators are just regular users too, and those two roles are usually pretty clearly separated.

For example: "Please stop the off-topic chatter" is a formal warning from a mod, and you don't reply to that.

But if a moderator writes, "Man, it's a beautiful sunny day out," on a thread about the weather forecast? Well, obviously people are gonna jump in and chat, especially if it's actually pouring rain outside.

I get where you're coming from.
But honestly, I still feel like there should be a way to respond to those warnings.
Just like what I was trying to say in that other thread.
The way things are going, it makes it look like the mods think they're some kind of absolute rulers of this entire site.
At the end of the day, I don't see why someone would need to dance around an issue just so the other person can save face after messing up.
I'm all about being straight up, and that’s exactly how I gave him my honest response to his—let's call it "gentle"—advice.

lonebadger6 said:These are perfect examples of why you just won't follow the basic rules—I'm not even going to explain the third one because it's not my ban to hand out—and besides, you clearly love trolling by making stuff up.

The first thing is a moderator issue... on the Politics sub, there are 10 of them and they're appointed by the higher-ups. It’s up to them (us) whether a thread is allowed or not, not you...
And the topic itself is about an attack on an ISIS stronghold, whereas in your post, you're basically saying that if we want to solve anything, we need to launch a nuclear strike on the center of the Islamic faith and every Muslim in the world. What can I even say, other than your "misunderstanding" with the moderators is just going to keep happening if you don't grasp where the actual problem lies 🙂

Then there's this second thing—your usual trolling distortion. That wasn't some "unpleasant comment" within your link; the link itself is what's unpleasant and packed with hate speech. A YouTube link isn't just the video material, you know... it includes the text next to the video, the channel description, all that stuff. It’s not our problem if you "get your news" from sites or channels filled with hate speech and unbelievable garbage and lies—or if you just happen to click a link and don't bother checking what you're actually sharing.

If I were a moderator on the Politics board (which, by the way, I actually was once...), a thread like that wouldn't have lasted five minutes. I mean, who else has noticed how people on a forum like this talk so freely about using weapons for mass slaughter? According to you guys, that's totally fine. But the second someone shares an opinion on the effects of same-sex marriage? Suddenly, you get banned. 🙏

If I got all my information from mainstream media—which is way more liberal than this forum!—I'd be perfectly happy and politically correct just like the rest of you... but unlike that, I don't enjoy patting myself on the back with lies; I try to find the most accurate info possible. Speaking of which, regarding that migration crisis, you guys handed out a sea of bans, but in the end, it turned out those of us who warned you were right all along...

I really don't want to deal with your weak attempts at condescension. I'm just here to say that we need moderators who are reasonable, capable, and unbiased—not ones who are weighed down by ideology...

I'm right there with you on that one.

The real issue here is that the mods—meaning the supermods, the admins, and ultimately the owner of this whole site—along with yourself, have been operating under a completely different definition of what's reasonable, competent, or unbiased since back in 2009...

There’s really no point in continuing to troll this thread, so I'll just say peace out.

neongull93 said:I get it.
But I still maintain that responding to those warnings should be perfectly fine.
Just like what I pointed out in that other thread.
It just feels like the moderators act as if they’re the absolute overlords of this entire site.
Ultimately, I don't see why anyone should have to dance around a topic just to make it easier for the other side to swallow the fact that they screwed up.
I value honesty, and that's exactly how I gave him my blunt response to his "advice," to put it mildly.

You don't reply to moderator warnings within the thread itself. Take it or leave it. If you have an issue with how things are being handled, there's an entire subforum dedicated to filing formal complaints.

You don't need to dance around anything, but you do need to follow basic standards of decent behavior. The mods aren't dictators; they're here to ensure the site actually functions. Just take a look at the unmoderated or poorly managed boards and tell me how that looks to you.

*The reason we don't allow replies to warnings is simple: threads are meant for discussing specific topics, not for getting into shouting matches with the staff.

If you’ll forgive me, I believe it is time to close this thread. There is little left to be said here—most points have already been exhausted, and several times over at that. Furthermore, I see we have begun to attract those self-appointed moral guardians who insist on interjecting with "back in my day" anecdotes. We ought not to persist, if only because any debate regarding moderation within a topic is counterproductive; such disputes invariably derail the discussion and are virtually never tolerated anywhere else on this forum.