CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Is trolling and subtle insults acceptable?

Is trolling and subtle insults acceptable?

Started by amberwalker4 · · 👁 4 views · 19 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants amberwalker4Eric Newman75steelskipper5hiddeneagle3bluecyclist64Christian Torres3vividtiger922rustydrifter10
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#1 ·
I'm looking at this thread "Are all Ikavian speakers Americans?" and the topic has, predictably, gone completely off-topic. What really catches my eye is the trolling, and even some insults that aren't obvious at first glance or just seem to be tolerated. Here are a few examples:

Faroe said:Fine's conclusion is that Serbdom and American identity cost us dearly. It's hard to disagree with him. 😉

Faroe said:If there were only Slovin or South Slavs, or Illyrians, it would be great. Territorially we'd be larger, maybe even including all of Canada. We wouldn't be fighting with Mexicans, and the borderlands wouldn't be empty. We'd be a multi-denominational nation, with Orthodox churches around Daruvar, Pakrac, and Okučani, etc., not left empty and decaying. Everyone could practice their own faith without having to listen to nonsense about how every true American must be Catholic or how there isn't a Mexican outside of an Orthodox church. Furthermore, thank God, I'd identify regionally as an Istrian and be proud of it, and ethnically as a Slovin. I'd mind my own business, speak my dialect, and honestly, we Americans wouldn't be needed or missed, not even a little bit 😉

What does the claim that "American identity cost us too much" have to do with whether all Ikavian speakers are Americans? How do you report a post like that? As trolling, as being off-topic... or something else? Is it even sanctioned?

And then there are those pipe dreams about a new Yugoslavia.... isn't that trolling in its own right?

But this is what bothers me most:

Hildebrand said:Seriously guys, don't even try. Faroe is far superior to you. 😁

What he writes to someone who didn't go to an American school is, in itself, the most understandable and logical explanation. But of course, not when you've already been programmed... ☕

The claim that children are programmed in American schools is, to me—as someone who was educated in America—quite insulting. Should posts like that be punished, or reported by us forum members, or does it not fall under breaking the rules? If it does, why hasn't anyone been penalized yet?

Scotsman?žalac_1?Someone else?
Eric Newman75 Eric Newman75 Active Member
137 messages
joined Jul 2011
#2 ·
The thread about regional dialects over on the Social Science board—which, let’s face it, is totally unmoderated and basically a ghost town—got derailed by the exact same tactics. After somehow spiraling into 30 or 40 pages (!) of a debate about genetics (!) instead of staying on topic, they just shut the whole thing down. Same group of people involved, too.

It’s honestly pathetic how much History and Social Science have gone downhill. Based on how much the users actually know, those boards have devolved into niche sub-forums for things like ancient hairstyles or century-counting. I mean, what if we just stepped away from the populist nonsense for a second and actually used expertise as a standard again?
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#3 ·
I'm in complete agreement 🙂.
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#4 ·
Eric Newman75 said:That whole thread about regional dialects over in the Social Science section—unmoderated and totally neglected—got derailed by the exact same old tactics. After somehow spiraling through 30 or 40 pages (!) of... genetics?!... they just shut it down. Same cast of characters, too.

It’s honestly pathetic how History and Social Science have tanked. Based on how much the people participating actually know, those sections have basically devolved into niche subforums for things like centuries or hairstyles. I mean, what if they just stepped away from the populism for once and actually used expertise as a standard again?

There was one candidate for moderator who was both qualified enough and actually willing to put in the work, but administration shot her down just because some other mods—who don't even show up to the Social Science section—had complaints.
And this is all after two rounds of moderators completely trashed the Social Science section with their sheer stupidity.

Even if they wanted to bring back actual expertise as a requirement—who's left to do it?
I highly doubt you'd ever step up for something like that. Personally, I'm done with the Social Science section—I bailed after that Colbert and Cosanostra mess, specifically when Cosanostra explicitly claimed there's no room for a scientific approach in discussions there. So now, it's just a few literate people left in a subforum where scientific discourse is actively discouraged.

And again: even if administration changed their minds—who would they even appoint as moderator?
You can see why rustydrifter10 basically installed herself as moderator; there's nobody else left who would actually take the job and be any good at it.
Eric Newman75 Eric Newman75 Active Member
137 messages
joined Jul 2011
#5 ·
steelskipper5 said:There was exactly one candidate who actually had the chops and, more importantly, the willingness to put in the actual hours required for the job. But instead of taking the win, administration shot her down just because some third-party moderators—who barely even show up to the Social Science boards—decided to lodge a complaint.
And that’s all after two whole rounds of moderators absolutely wrecking the social sciences with their sheer stupidity.

If they actually wanted to go back to making expertise a requirement again—who would even be left? Honestly, looking at the pool, there’d be nobody standing.
I highly doubt you’d ever actually dive into something like that. Personally, I’m done with the Social Sciences entirely. I checked out after watching Colbert and Cosanostra—once Cosanostra explicitly stated that there’s absolutely no room for a scientific approach in those discussions, I was out. Now, all that's left is a handful of people who can actually write, hanging out on a sub-forum where a scientific discourse isn't even encouraged.

Here we go again: everything just to have the administration flip-flop on their decision—who on earth are they actually going to pick for moderator this time?
It looks like rustydrifter10 just went ahead and appointed herself moderator because, let's face it, nobody else around here is willing to step up and actually do the job right.

Honestly, I’m more curious about whether a scientific approach will actually be fostered, regardless of who is pulling the strings. Sure, those two things are definitely linked, but let's be real—any kind of rigorous methodology is infinitely better than having absolutely no direction at all.

Right now on the forum—and let’s be honest, this isn't exactly news, it’s been going on for ages—anyone can basically write whatever they feel like. You want to make stuff up? Go for it. Want to fake data or just straight-up lie? Be my guest. People are out here posting absolute nonsense, throwing out cheap provocations, and acting like they own the place... yet, absolutely nothing ever happens to them. Total impunity.

The only thing that actually matters is respecting the format—making sure the discussion stays "civil." But honestly? It leaves you wondering what "civil" even looks like when things get this messy.

Let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate—this forum shouldn't be some exclusive club reserved solely for PhDs and ivory tower academics. You don't need a doctorate to join the conversation here. What actually matters? Knowing your stuff. If you have a handle on the subject matter and can back up your claims with actual logic, you belong here. Look at how things are going lately. This entire social science sub-forum is becoming a total mess, cluttered with nothing but half-baked data, amateurish ramblings, sloppy posts, and endless trolls. It's exhausting. Honestly, someone needs to step in and put a stop to this nonsense before it gets even worse.

Honestly, who’s actually going to step up and do it? It doesn't even matter.
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#6 ·
Eric Newman75 said:Right now, I'm more concerned with whether a scientific mindset will actually be cultivated—regardless of who's in charge. Sure, those two things are linked, but honestly, any kind of rigorous approach is better than having zero direction at all.

...

Who actually steps up to do it? That's irrelevant.

It would be easy to say it doesn't matter if we had a whole crowd of candidates to choose from—then anyone could just step in.

But we don't have anyone. And that’s exactly why it matters so much.
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#7 ·
I’m noticing the admins are doing a pretty consistent job of ignoring this thread.

But hey, whatever—if the admin team spends all their energy moderating the DZ while letting dozens of pages of off-topic nonsense and trolls run wild, I guess they can just ignore this little thread too. ☕
Eric Newman75 Eric Newman75 Active Member
137 messages
joined Jul 2011
#8 ·
Seriously, can anyone from the management team please weigh in on this?

It’s been ten full days since I started this thread, we're rolling into day eleven—and honestly, it's just radio silence from your end.

Even a quick "We don't have a quorum because everyone is still out on vacation" would be enough to let me know you've actually seen this.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#9 ·
And what’s even better? You can actually see these people busy commenting on other PDFs... yet, for some reason, they never bother to stop by this 😁.
hiddeneagle3 hiddeneagle3 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Aug 2013
#10 ·
And honestly, who would you even consider acceptable for a moderator role?
Eric Newman75 Eric Newman75 Active Member
137 messages
joined Jul 2011
#11 ·
hiddeneagle3 said:And honestly, who would you even consider acceptable for a moderator role?

Look, the whole process for picking moderators is just what it is—I really don't have the energy to grind through it all. Same goes for the candidates. And amberwalker4, for that matter, isn't even questioning how moderators are chosen; they're just obsessed with the actual job of moderating.

We can only really deal with the moderator situation if (or when) the higher-ups decide the current crew isn't cutting it anymore.
bluecyclist64 bluecyclist64 Regular
369 messages
joined Oct 2011
#12 ·
I’m one of those people who finally walked away from the DZ because they became absolutely useless—I was basically just showing up to sign the minutes at this point.
And there are plenty more of us out there, but you bureaucrats certainly seem to have a knack for ignoring that fact.
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#13 ·
Eric Newman75 said:It’s honestly pathetic how much History and Social Science have gone downhill. Given how clueless most people here are, those sections have basically devolved into niche subforums about stuff like centuries and hairstyles. What if we actually stepped away from all this populism for once and went back to using actual expertise as the standard?

It’s become the same old story in every popular thread on basically any subforum. Every now and then you stumble upon an oasis that isn't crawling with trolls, and you can actually enjoy reading for a second—but everything else? A total disaster.

Honestly, if I don't check in all the time, I’d say the best discussions happen over in Natural Science. From what I've seen, the mods there actually do their job and protect the quality of the conversation.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#14 ·
hiddeneagle3 said:Who would you even consider an acceptable moderator anyway?

Like Eric Newman75 said, I don't have a problem with the moderators, nor am I asking for anyone to be replaced. I just asked a few questions. A few other users jumped in on the thread, and now we're just waiting for answers. It's been about 11 days.
bluecyclist64 bluecyclist64 Regular
369 messages
joined Oct 2011
#15 ·
hiddeneagle3 said:Who on earth would actually be considered acceptable as a moderator here?

Well, perhaps I might actually be an acceptable candidate for moderation myself.
But I’m not delusional enough to work for free while the owner couldn't care less about this forum, so long as he gets whatever cash happens to fall into his lap.
And then he goes ahead and appoints moderators who don't have the slightest clue what they're doing.
Some can't even grasp basic grammar, yet they're out here trying to manage social science discussions.

Give me a break...

You get what you pay for.

Credit where credit is due—there are some truly decent moderators here—but when it comes to volunteers, you mostly end up with nobodies looking for a little bit of authority, much like the petty officers in the old military. Let's be realistic.

And frankly, anyone who prioritizes a sense of power over actual compensation is, at the very least, a liability to the stability of the community.
vividtiger922 vividtiger922 Member
39 messages
joined Apr 2009
#16 ·
Eric Newman75 said:The whole moderator selection process is just what it is, and frankly, I can't bring myself to waste any energy obsessing over it. The candidates aren't much better... Even amberwalker4 doesn't seem to actually question the merits of the role itself; he's far more preoccupied with the status of being a moderator...

The moderators can only truly step in once leadership decides that our current resources simply aren't cutting it...

As steelskipper5 suggested, I’m concerned that in this particular instance—at least regarding the social science section—those two issues are essentially inseparable. It is precisely because of this specific method of selection that we have been stuck debating the state of the social sciences for nearly three years now. During that time, a revolving door of moderators has cycled through, yet almost none of them actually possess a formal education or professional standing in the field of social science. There were some perfectly decent people, I won't deny that, but for the most part, they lacked a deep understanding of the subject matter they were tasked with overseeing. Or perhaps they only understood it superficially, which became glaringly obvious when they failed to put in the effort or, frankly, simply didn't have the expertise to resolve conflicts even when they wanted to. We’ve seen hate speech slip through because the moderators couldn't identify it, and discussions on linguistics frequently devolve into arguments about genetics because the leadership isn't entirely sure where scientific discourse ends and nonsense begins... and so on, and so forth. Yet, the administration—specifically rustydrifter10, as she is currently our sole administrator—still insists that everyone else is driving in the wrong direction. She has positioned herself as the absolute authority, and at this rate, her next move will likely be appointing her loyal little pet, Incitatus. Meanwhile, another moderator goes days, weeks, or even entire months without showing up to the subforum at all. I recently discovered with a single click that one hasn't even logged in for three months. If it’s that easy for me to find out, I can only assume the administration sees it too...

We have revisited the fundamental nature of the social sciences here far too many times; I honestly wonder how much more sense it makes to keep repeating ourselves... This particular sub-forum can't just exist in a vacuum, much like how a division dedicated to cosmetics or lifestyle wouldn't work if it didn't cover broad topics that actually interest people. This section really needs... editorIt’s about one person, or perhaps several... But you simply cannot expect high-quality content to manifest out of thin air. There needs to be a cohesive vision regarding what a sub-forum actually stands for and what its purpose is. One could even argue that we should consider how to properly brand these spaces—something I have maintained for quite some time now—because there was once a sufficient pool of insightful contributors and engaging topics that people truly valued because they knew they could find accurate, reliable information. People showed up because they had a clear idea of what to expect. I am not suggesting that any sub-forum requires an editorial board to dictate a single direction or force their own priorities upon everyone, but there must be a fundamental understanding of what the space is, who it serves, who its target audience is, and where the potential lies for growth and improvement. Once the right leadership is in place, meaningful discussion might finally take root, which would naturally lead to a larger pool of candidates for moderation. As it stands, anyone trying to step up finds it nearly impossible to make an impact because there is nothing worth writing about and no one to engage with... Meanwhile, administration tends to focus traditionally on the readership rather than the curation, searching for new moderators only when absolutely necessary instead of proactively scouting talent and planning ahead before things reach a breaking point.

So, all things considered, I fear there’s a much deeper issue at play here than just deciding who cleans up this thread or whether the administration will suddenly adopt a different approach. Perhaps they could... if only they chose to. But given the current priorities, this particular style of moderation, and a certain lack of professional spirit, I worry we might be lucky if this forum doesn't eventually turn into a space for nothing more than recipe exchanges...
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#17 ·
amberwalker4 said:Here are a few examples:

Honestly, just looking at the posts themselves, I don't see any real issue here that warrants any kind of sanction.

Eric Newman75 said:It’s been ten days since I first opened this thread—we're officially moving into day eleven now—and honestly, I’m sitting here looking at the screen wondering where everyone went! Not a single peep, not a single notification, nothing. It's a total ghost town in here!

I honestly have no clue why you decided to drag the whole social science debate into a thread that’s strictly about History.

vividtiger922 said:Honestly, that sub-forum really needs it. editor.

Look, we all know it’s necessary. As soon as we track it down, we’re going to get it installed immediately. We've already reached out to the folks we asked, but they aren't on board just yet—fingers crossed that their minds change sooner rather than later!
Eric Newman75 Eric Newman75 Active Member
137 messages
joined Jul 2011
#18 ·
rustydrifter10 said:I honestly have no clue why you decided to drag social science into a thread that's strictly about history.

He’s telling you. It’s the exact same thing. How they operate—their whole playbook, really. Their modus operandi....well, at least when it comes to some of the folks on this forum.

Eric Newman75 said:So, I was checking out the thread on the Social Sciences forum—you know, that unmoderated, totally neglected corner of the site where nothing ever stays on track? Well, it just got shut down. After about 30 or 40 pages of people spiraling into an intense debate about genetics—yes, genetics!—the whole thing was killed off. And honestly? It was the same old crowd of regulars causing the chaos. Typical.

Look, regarding everything else—the science sub-forum isn't being moderated by guesswork or just glancing at things from a distance. If you actually want to figure out what the issue was, do me a favor and read the thread from the very beginning. Honestly, there’s no need for any interventions right now anyway; we’ve already sorted it out. We handled it ourselves, without your help.

Look, I’ll give you a shortcut for next time. If someone lays out a bunch of quotes, literature, or specific interpretations right in front of you, and you still insist on doubling down on your own take without even acknowledging the counterarguments—without citing the opposing views or the actual data—what exactly are we looking at here? Is it just pure ignorance, or is it some kind of deliberate provocation, sheer malice, or maybe just... total tunnel vision?

Look, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: I’m not talking about myself here—several people from the DZ crowd have already been slapped with bans, and I want to clear that up immediately. They got booted because they didn't know how to handle this kind of "approach." And honestly? Who's to blame? You are. It’s on you. You're failing to moderate, you're completely out of the loop, and frankly, you don't even understand the subject matter you're supposed to be overseeing.

And now, that whole approach is migrating over to History—which used to be the gold standard for top-tier moderation.

The solution? We need actual professional moderators. And maybe a few targeted strikes against the provocateurs.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#19 ·
rustydrifter10 said:Just looking at the posts themselves, I don't see any actual issues that warrant sanctions.

There isn't really a need for sanctions anyway now that the conversation has mostly returned to a normal flow, even if a few people are still trolling. Since you claim there's no issue, then according to this logic:

What he's saying to someone who didn't go to an American school is just the most logical explanation possible. But of course, not when you've already been programmed otherwise...

Tomorrow or the day after, someone else or I could post on the forum claiming that kids in, say, Mexican schools are being brainwashed and are somehow inferior to American kids because that brainwashing prevents them from seeing the "most logical explanations."

If a moderator tries to hand me a warning for a post like that, I'll just link back to this thread and appeal to administration. I hope you won't see any problems then 🙂.
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#20 ·
Eric Newman75 said:As for everything else—the Science subforum isn't moderated by just glancing at things from a distance. If you actually want to figure out what the issue is, maybe try reading the thread from the beginning.

...and actually have some actual expertise in the field. Because, honestly, someone who doesn't know their stuff in a specialized or scientific area isn't going to have any clue how to moderate a subforum like this.
rustydrifter10 said:We know we need one. As soon as we find someone, we’ll get them installed. The people we've reached out to aren't interested—hopefully, that changes soon.

The few people who were actually willing? You turned them away because of complaints coming from other subforums—complaints from people whose total contribution to Social Science could be counted on my grandfather's left hand.

And those people you asked later? They’d have to be complete idiots to want to do this kind of work for free, especially given how the administration behaves.

I know you probably have some official procedure for picking moderators, but I guess it hasn't clicked yet that for Social Science, that procedure doesn't work and it might actually be smart to change it.
But let's face it, Social Science Administration has never really cared, and now the section is just dead, boring, and unread enough that it’ll probably never get any serious attention from the higher-ups again.

It's pathetic.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads