Why was my post deleted, my signature removed, and my account flagged?

Edit:
I can't delete this, so I moved it over to "appeals." I wasn't sure if this was the right spot since it’s about more than just card counts—it's about deleting posts and signatures too.
If this doesn't belong in "appeals," could someone please move it to the right section?

Why was my post deleted? Why did they wipe my signature? And seriously, why am I getting a strike?

I know this might sound a bit out there, but I'm still curious about the reasoning behind it.

1. post
The reason they gave for deleting my post was this:

I don't know about you, but I'm still processing this. What's the move here? kaže:
This year's follow-up is a total pivot from the original title, isn't it? Plus, it feels like we're just picking apart some ancient post at this point.
No way, I'm deleting this.

Is there actually a rule about how long you can wait before commenting on an old post? Just wondering. I can't even begin to process that. What are we even talking about here? Back in 2011.
It’s not about splitting things up; I’m just quoting one small part of the post to ask a question based on it. Since the rules say you're supposed to quote the specific section you're responding to, I don't see what the issue is.
Quoten's part was:

Rhino? said:A two-year-old throwing a tantrum on the floor when they're frustrated? Honestly, that’s just peak healthy development. Isn't that exactly how it should be?
If a kid hasn't hit those milestones between 12 and 36 months, something's off. Either there's a real developmental issue, or the parents are just sugarcoating things, right?☕

I already posted this on the forum, but honestly? If I had actually done what she did, I’d be dragging both myself and her straight to a therapist. Either I'm totally missing something here, or my kid is just wired differently. What else could it be?

So, following up on that quote, there was this question floating around—it’s a bit fuzzy since part of it got deleted—asking if parents with "well-behaved" kids (you know, the ones who aren't constantly throwing tantrums on the floor) ever wonder if something is actually wrong. Like, would they take them to a psychiatrist? And honestly, how could a doctor even help a kid like that become "normal"?

Why hasn't that quoted post been taken down if it’s totally off-topic? Or why wasn't there a penalty, considering they're calling a specific group "abnormal"? As far as I know, you can't call gay people abnormal on this forum, so why is it okay to say it about some other group—in this case, kids who won't stop throwing tantrums on the floor?
Why is it totally fine to label someone "crazy" in a thread, yet any post actually asking a follow-up question—like how psychiatrists can even help kids in those situations—gets nuked? Seriously?
Is replying to an old post technically breaking any rules if you explain why you're doing it?
They claimed I was spamming, which is total BS since I only used one tiny quote from it. What are they even thinking?

2nd signature.
My signature got wiped out with this note attached:

Please don't mess with the moderator tag in your signature. I've removed it, so let's just leave it that way—no need to put it back or try to swap it for something else.

I don't even mention the mods in my signature, let alone use it to call them out, so I feel like my signature was deleted for no reason. Why even bother?
The quote was just sitting there in the signature exactly how a quote should look, so I wasn't actually commenting on the moderation.
This was in my signature:
Sometimes the mod team over at R&D really blows my mind. Honestly, I shouldn't even go there, or at least not on this board...."

Third strike and a 30-point deduction just for talking back? Seriously?
It’s all about... Wait, what? postu.
Since we all know the mod is always right, I’m sure this will end up the same way, but I’ll throw my two cents in anyway. Not like anyone's actually gonna listen, right?
So, we're actually debating if PE teachers who can't demonstrate basic exercises should even be on the job? Some people are out here saying they should take a pay cut if they can't show kids how to do a proper strike or follow along with the drills. I mean, really? Is that where we're at now?
I actually posted a question about whether it’s okay to work with someone who publicly labels kids as "abnormal." I was talking about what another user said, not the person themselves. If a fellow forum member—who also happens to be a psychologist and a moderator here—claims that kids who don't throw tantrums are somehow abnormal (or that parents are lying), and if that claim isn't deleted or penalized... well, since I haven't seen that kind of talk anywhere else besides this site, wouldn't it be fine to comment on the statement itself? Just a quick question.:
I mentioned that even in this industry, you still run into some shady characters. Isn't it always like that? She was asking.:
If a psychologist claims a kid is "abnormal" just because they weren't throwing tantrums on the floor between ages one and three, should they even be allowed to practice? Or should they be fired on the spot?
Should someone like that even be allowed to hold a job like this?
I didn't even say anything about the person myself—I didn't even bring them up. So what's the big deal? Could someone like that (meaning anyone else who acts that way) actually be allowed to do their job?
Everyone’s out here talking about cutting staff and handing out pink slips like it's nothing, yet they're all low-key planning their own exits too. Isn't that just wild?
I didn't actually write anything about the author himself, nor did I spend any time focusing on him. I was strictly addressing what he said... specifically those comments about kids being "unstable" and his suggestion that teachers should take a pay cut just because they can't act like hyperactive toddlers.
Is it really wrong to speak up about teachers who just aren't cutting it? Honestly, shouldn't there be pay cuts for people who can't do their jobs?

What's up? said:I tried to see if she was being ironic, but let's be real—you occasionally run into teachers who are, well, a bit stuck in their ways. We're talking people in their 50s dealing with back pain, carrying some extra weight, or just lacking the stamina to keep up with anything active, especially when they're stuck teaching PE.
So, what are we even supposed to do with them?
They just don't have what it takes to teach this subject. Can they even handle it? 🙂

I mean, wouldn't it be fair to voice some doubts? Just wondering? Should someone even be allowed to work as a psychologist if they're out here labeling a whole group of kids as "abnormal" without even seeing them? Seriously?

I totally agree. It’s honestly unfair that the mods aren't stepping in when people drop comments like that to target a specific group. Leaving them up without a warning or a strike is just wrong. Why let everyone see a psychologist—someone the mods actually respect—saying stuff that clearly breaks the rules and common sense?
So, every single question and comment gets you penalized? Seriously?
So, it’s totally fine to throw insults around, but the second the person being insulted speaks up or asks a question, they're the one getting punished? Makes sense, right? 🤷

I decided to move this over from Appeals since it covers more than just the card issues. Let’s keep this as its own separate thread...

Rachel Jones8 said:1. post
The reason given for deleting the post was this:

Are there any rules about how much time needs to pass before you can't comment on old posts anymore? I'm talking about a post from 2011.
I wasn't trying to dissect anything; I just quoted a small part of the post to ask a question based on it. Since the rules say to use Quoten for the specific part you're responding to, I don't see the issue.
The Quoten part was:

And the question following that quote (it was deleted, so I can't quote it exactly) was basically asking if parents of kids who *don't* throw tantrums on the floor—thinking maybe they aren't "normal"—would take them to a psychiatrist, and how a doctor could help those kids become "normal."

Why wasn't the original post deleted if it's off-topic... or why wasn't it flagged for calling a certain group of people "not normal"? As far as I know, you aren't allowed to call homosexuals "not normal" on this forum, so why is it okay for some other group, like kids who don't have meltdowns on the floor?
Why is it fine to label someone as abnormal when that post stays up, but my post asking a follow-up question (like, how can psychiatrists help such kids) gets wiped?
If the excuse is that I'm responding to an old post, does that break any rules?
They also said the post was being dissected, which isn't true since I only used one tiny quote.

Your comment on that post and a few others after it were removed because they didn't really fit the thread title, which was unconventional parenting methods.
The amount of time that has passed doesn't actually matter. There aren't any rules limiting you from replying to older posts; what matters is that you aren't constantly circling back to old threads every chance you get.
I honestly don't know why you took that post personally. Personally (and from what I've seen with plenty of other users), I didn't find anything wrong with it. To me, the author was just vividly telling parents worried about "bad" toddler behavior (screaming, floor tantrums, etc.) that it's totally fine, and that kids who act that way are actually quite rare.
Once that post was live, the discussion happened. There's really no need to drag the conversation back out after all this time, especially since it’s completely off-topic now.

Rachel Jones8 said:
3rd warning and 30 points for targeting another user
It’s about this post.
Since it's obvious the moderator is always right, I know this will end up the same way, but I'm still going to share my thoughts even if no one listens.
The thread was actually discussing whether PE teachers who can't jump rope or properly demonstrate exercises should even be allowed to teach, suggesting they should have their pay cut and so on.
Regarding that, I asked if someone should be allowed to work with kids if they publicly label certain children as "abnormal." I was referring to what the other user said, not the user himself. If someone on this forum—who also happens to be a psychologist and a moderator—writes a claim stating that kids are abnormal because they don't throw tantrums (or that parents are lying), and that claim isn't deleted or penalized, and I haven't seen it anywhere else besides this site, then I don't think it breaks any rules to comment on that claim with a question:
I mentioned that there are bad apples in every profession and asked:
Should a psychologist who claims a child is abnormal just because they didn't act out at age 1-3 really be allowed to practice, or should they face immediate termination?
Should a person making those kinds of statements even be allowed to hold that job?
I didn't say anything about the person specifically, nor did I name them; I was asking about the professional standard... would such a person (meaning anyone in that position) be fit to do their job?
This whole discussion is about people easily calling for others' pay cuts or jobs, while they themselves write things that make them reconsider their own careers.
I didn't write anything about the author or target him; I focused on what he stated... regarding other people's "abnormal" children and teachers who should lose pay because they can't jump rope like elementary schoolers.
If it's okay to express an opinion about incompetent teachers who deserve pay cuts...

...then I think it should be okay to express doubt and ask if someone who labels a group of children as abnormal (without naming names) should even be working as a psychologist.

I also feel it's unfair that the moderator doesn't react to statements that insult a specific group of people, leaving them standing there without a warning or a strike... all while others see the opinion of a respected psychologist and moderator, even though what was written goes against both the forum rules and common sense.
Yet, every single question or follow-up comment gets punished.
So, it's fine to be insulting, but when the person being insulted speaks up or asks a question, they're the ones who get penalized. 🤷

Commenting on another user's statement counts as targeting them.
You didn't ask about psychologists in general; you were asking about *that* specific psychologist who made that specific comment on the forum.
Targeting a user is against the rules, no matter how you frame it.
Unlike the other user, who commented generally about teachers and their PE classes, you didn't comment on psychologists as a whole—you pointed directly at one specific psychologist, and we all know who.

As for that famous post, I already touched on this in my last reply, but I'll add it here: in my opinion, that post doesn't label anyone as abnormal or insult anyone (according to the rules), and it's actually quite common sense.

Honestly, it looks to me like the moderators were being pretty lenient with you, just like they have been with a few others lately. That warning you received is specifically about how you engage with people here, as the rules clearly state. You went digging through an old thread that had absolutely nothing to do with the current topic, pulled out one single sentence to soften the blow, and then used it as an excuse to obsessively nitpick the exact part you wanted to attack. On top of that, you started taking swipes at the moderation team, and when apparently tearing apart one thread wasn't enough for you, you jumped over to another one to keep pushing those same provocative vibes. I really don't know why you thought you could get away with that kind of behavior.

The posts were removed because they were straight-up trolling, argumentative, and full of personal attacks.

If you’re going to quote someone’s content that happens to be in their signature, then you need to actually include the whole thing. It seems like you conveniently cherry-picked a snippet from your own signature this time just to suit the specific provocation you were trying to stir up, so that’s going to be wiped out too. You might want to watch what you're saying and how you're framing things, because this kind of trolling isn't going to be tolerated anymore.

Kimberly Rodriguez51 said:your comments on that one user's post and a few others right after it were deleted because they don't fit the thread title, which is unconventional parenting methods.

So why wasn't the post being replied to deleted then? It also has nothing to do with the thread title—it's just about how kids who don't have tantrums are "abnormal." In this whole thread, there isn't a single word that actually fits the title. Why can that stay while the reply gets nuked?

the timing doesn't really matter and there aren't any rules against replying to old posts; what matters is that you keep circling back to it whenever you get the chance, regardless of which thread it was in.

I guess if that's the reason, then whatever...

I honestly don't know why you took that post personally. To me (and plenty of other people on this forum), there’s nothing wrong with it. I think the author was just trying to show parents worried about "bad" toddler behavior—like screaming or throwing themselves on the floor—that it's totally normal, and those kids who don't do that are actually the rare ones.

Is there really nothing wrong with claiming a specific group of kids is abnormal and needs to see a psychiatrist?
Seriously, how can anyone write that... or think it sounds okay? 🙄
If someone said gay people were abnormal and needed psychiatric help, you wouldn't find that offensive either? Is that just your way of saying being straight is the only "normal" thing?

once a post is out there and the discussion has happened, there's no point dragging it back up after all this time, especially since it's completely off-topic.

Fine, it's off-topic... But why shouldn't we keep a conversation going if someone still finds it interesting and wants to hear different perspectives? I'm genuinely curious—does anyone else think their kid is "abnormal," or would you take them to a specialist? And how would a doctor even help in that situation?
Who decides which discussions are allowed to continue?
If it's off-topic, just start a new thread. Easy.

Kimberly Rodriguez51 said:Attacking another user is basically just targeting the person instead of the topic.
You weren't asking about psychologists in general, you were calling out this specific one who said that specific thing on the forum.
Targeting people is against the rules here, no matter how you spin it.
Unlike the other user who was just talking about teachers and gym class in general, you weren't talking about psychologists broadly—you went straight for one specific psychologist. We all know which one.

Look... you might see it that way. But honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with what I said.
It’s not even about whether I think she specifically should be fired; I was just using it as a comparison. If someone thinks a teacher deserves to lose their job or take a pay cut, shouldn't they realize they aren't perfect either? It’d be pretty pathetic if people lost their livelihoods over stuff like this. I was just sticking to the debate: should we really be firing people or cutting pay just like that?
Besides, what does it matter if a comment refers to someone specific? Isn't a child being talked about still a specific child? Even if you don't use their full name or a nickname.
So, if I say the moderators on this site aren't sane, that's fine as long as I don't single anyone out, right?
When someone writes "homosexuals are abnormal"... why is that punished if nobody is being singled out or named?
And why is it okay to say kids who don't have tantrums are "abnormal"? Those are actual children... real kids that others are labeling as abnormal and saying need a psychiatrist.

Regarding that famous post, I already touched on this in my last reply, but I'll add it here: in my opinion, that post doesn't call anyone "abnormal," it isn't insulting anyone (per the rules), and it's actually pretty common sense.

Honestly, I can't imagine thinking it's "common sense" to call someone else's kids abnormal or say they need a psychiatrist. And I definitely don't think it's not an insult to tell parents they're lying. (Since some people wrote their kids don't have those tantrums... so they're basically being called liars... or their kids aren't normal.)
But hey, the answer has to be what it is.

rustydrifter10 said:It seems to me the moderators were being pretty easy on you, just like they were with others. You got a warning for "targeting a user," as it says. You latched onto an old post that wasn't even on topic, pulled out one sentence that softens everything up, and then just kept digging at that one part.

Yeah, super easy on me... so how are they with the person who actually wrote that post? Why hasn't it been deleted or the author punished?
I quoted the important part, the part I actually wanted to talk about. The sentence I left out is totally irrelevant and doesn't change the point.

rustydrifter10 said:A one- or two-year-old throwing a tantrum on the floor when they're frustrated is just a totally normal, healthy kid.
Any kid in that age range (so, between 12-36 months) who hasn't done that isn't a normal kid. Either the parents are lying or it didn't happen.☕

I actually posted this on this forum before—saying my kid never did that—and honestly, I’d take both myself and her to a psychiatrist, because clearly either I’m doing something wrong or my kid isn't normal.

(I mean, they don't necessarily have to roll on the floor, but maybe sitting down and screaming, or squeezing their fists and yelling...)

So, if we actually write out what "that" refers to, it reads like this:

A one- or two-year-old throwing a tantrum on the floor when they're frustrated is just a totally normal, healthy kid.
Any kid in that age range (between 12-36 months) who has never thrown themselves on the floor, sat down and wailed, or squeezed their fists and screamed isn't a normal kid. Or the parents are lying☕ about it not happening.
I mentioned this on this forum before—saying my kid never did that—and I’d take both myself and her to a psychiatrist, because obviously either I’m messing up or my kid isn't normal.

.
...which still leaves us with the claim that such a kid isn't normal and needs a psychiatrist. Basically, anyone saying their kid doesn't do this is just lying.

By the way, you were commenting on the moderators, and then after you failed to derail one thread, you moved to another one just to keep provoking people in the same tone. I don't know why you thought you could get away with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "commenting on the moderators." I re-read my post that got flagged, and I don't see anything like that.

The posts were deleted because they were trolling, argumentative, and used ad hominem attacks.

Fine, thanks for the explanation. Personally, I don't think they were, but I guess my opinion doesn't really matter here.

If a user's post content is in their signature, you need to quote that signature too.

I don't get it. I did quote it. In my first post, I showed exactly how it looked.
I read the rules for signatures and set mine up exactly how they're written. I quoted it, added the quotation marks, the (c) symbol, and the author in the link.

You went ahead and scrubbed that part of your signature because it didn't fit the little provocation you were trying to pull, so now it’s gone too. You might want to watch how you word things, though—we aren't going to put up with this kind of trolling anymore.

Why was it deleted? The rules say posts can't be longer than three lines.
Why does one person get to put quotes in their signature while someone else can't? Why is it okay to quote some people but not others?
If I get approval for a longer signature, I don't mind adding that extra sentence; it doesn't even change the point.

Even if I think this whole thing is a joke and the explanations are ridiculous (not that I'm surprised), thanks for getting back to me.
Fine, everything stays the same. Some people get a pass for calling others crazy, some can go totally off-topic, and some are basically untouchable... meanwhile, everyone else gets warned, deleted, or banned just for reacting to that stuff.
There's really no point in me trying to argue further. It's useless.

The only thing I actually want an answer to is this bit about the signature...
Every single signature I make gets wiped. Since my signature was a quote and clearly marked as such, I don't get why they say, "If you have someone else's post content in your signature, you have to quote them." I literally can't make a new one.
My signature was a quote, and it was labeled as a quote. I still don't get what was wrong with it or why it got nuked.
Honestly, I don't get any of this. I can't wrap my head around this way of thinking or how unfair it is... but there's no sense wasting my breath on it.

Rachel Jones8 said:Just curious about that last part regarding the signature...
Every single time I try to add a signature, it gets wiped out. Since mine was just a quote to begin with, I don't get what they mean by "if you include someone else's content in your signature, you have to quote them too." How am I even supposed to make a new one?
I had this quote in my signature, marked as a quote. Still can't wrap my head around what was wrong with it or why they deleted it?

I've been playing the waiting game for a week now. I get it, it was a holiday weekend and things get busy... but surely someone can weigh in? If it's not the mods, maybe an admin can tell me what the deal is with my post. It was clearly marked as a quote, so why the issue?
What does that mean?

rustydrifter10 said:If you see someone's post content sitting in their signature, make sure to quote that signature too. Looks like you slipped part of your signature back in there, which totally ruins the troll you were trying to pull. You might want to watch what you say, because we aren't putting up with this kind of baiting anymore.

Since the signature was written like a quote—with quotation marks and a copyright symbol at the end—what exactly was meant by that? How else are you supposed to cite things? And what was the deal with it getting deleted? What exactly was wrong?
When it comes to quoting text... if someone actually wrote those words, why shouldn't we be able to quote them? Like I said, the context hasn't changed. A quote is just the author's own opinion, right?
So what exactly am I trying to achieve here? What I actually wanted—before you guys nuked my signature for following the rules—was just to let the quote speak for itself. It stayed like that for a long while without any issues, mostly because I wasn't looking for trouble. Honestly? Now I’m not even sure what I was aiming for.
Wait, did you guys delete something? Because I’m pretty sure it was quoted, even if it doesn't show up now.
Maybe update the signature rules to match these new policies? That way we actually know why some signatures get nuked.
I honestly don't get the logic behind "if a user's signature contains post content, you have to quote it." I mean, the signature was literally just a quote to begin with, right? Makes zero sense.

Edit: What are the ground rules for setting up a signature? Just based on who I designed this signature for.

Rachel Jones8 said:There isn't anything wrong with quoting someone like that, especially since it was clearly marked as a quote.

The issue wasn't the quote itself—it was how you used it to be provocative and pull it completely out of context. Plus, you linked to the entire discussion thread instead of pointing directly to the specific post.

rustydrifter10 said:It wasn't cool how you used that out of context just to stir the pot. Plus, you linked the whole thread instead of the specific post? Why do that?

Not really. I put the link after the quote and the (c) symbol to credit the author, just following the standard signature rules. I figured using a link instead of a name was a bit classier. Wouldn't you?
Besides that... I was wondering what she meant by saying he needs to be quoted? Especially since we were already talking about the quote itself.
I'm talking about that comment you made:

rustydrifter10 said:If you see some user's post content sitting in their signature, go ahead and quote that signature too. Looks like you added a bit to your signature that doesn't exactly line up with the provocation you're trying to pull here, does it? Is he gonna get deleted too?Hey, you might want to watch what you say around here. Trolling like that isn't gonna fly anymore.

So, we aren't talking about the signature that’s slated for deletion. We're talking about the one that's already gone—the one where this was written:
If someone’s got a post sitting in their signature, you gotta quote that too, right?
Why'd they scrub my signature if I followed all the rules? 🤷
How do you even know which quotes are worth using and which aren't? And what’s the move if I try to follow all the rules for a signature, only to have it get wiped out anyway?
Look, just take a peek at tyhonsee's signature in this thread... there aren't any quotation marks or that copyright symbol, right? It’s definitely not following the rules like it's supposed to be.
Mine was too. 😕
By the way, regarding this:

Don't use the quote function in your signature. Just do it like this: "quote" (c) author. Simple enough?

I tried typing out (c), but I see you actually got that little symbol to show up... how'd you pull that off? Is just typing (c) not good enough?

I finally pulled it off. 🙂
I just don't get why the signature shows up on some old posts but totally disappears on others?

The links you included in your signature weren't even valid, honestly. One just sent people straight to a profile, and the other went to the main thread instead of the specific post itself. Even if we look at the one that actually worked, the snippet you pulled from it was totally taken out of context—you left out a huge chunk that pretty much changes the whole meaning of what was said. It feels like you're just posting these things to be provocative, and it’s the same pattern where you drag the same argument across different threads where it doesn't even belong. Seriously, please stop doing this.