Moderator Code of Conduct

boldwalker12 said:Those posts were deleted. I didn't just pull that out of thin air; you guys wrote them and then they were wiped, and I'm certainly not going to go digging through your remaining posts where you're all having your little serious debates... I'm talking about the ones you're whining about being "not allowed." The ones actually dripping with irony and the kind of decent sarcasm that people claim is being stifled here. So I made it perfectly clear what exactly is being smothered, which specific posts were targeted, and I even copy-pasted the stuff your moderator nuked. Because that’s what you're all complaining about, isn't it? That she killed the fun, the wit, the freedom, whatever...

Those posts weren't pulled until after this thread was started, and up until then, they were just sitting there as a response to a post that was nothing but pure clichés and prejudices...

And I don't see any massive organized protest on our part, but apparently, every single little critique gets taken as a personal attack these days...

Besides, since when am I part of the crew over at unknown? People are always so quick to start handing out "diagnoses" like they're professionals...

slynomad14 said:Those posts didn't just vanish into thin air out of nowhere; they were scrubbed only after this thread actually went live. Until that point, they were sitting right where they belonged—serving as a direct response to that one post that was absolutely suffocating under a mountain of tired clichés and nothing but pure, unadulterated prejudice.

That’s just straight-up false. Honestly, I have no clue why people are making such a huge deal out of this.
I actually had to go through the hassle of restoring these posts just so I could quote them here for you guys, since Jacob Sullivan91 deleted them and then went ahead and slapped everyone with a warning. Honestly, I have no idea where this whole fabrication is coming from. I’m pretty sure—actually, I know for a fact—that she didn't even look at this specific thread while she was moderating everything above. So, trying to claim that one thing is somehow connected to the other? That’s just cheap.

I don't see any specific grievance being aired here, but man, it’s pretty obvious that around here, everyone takes even the slightest critique as a personal attack on their soul.

Look, I’m officially weighing in on this complaint because I’m the one stuck moderating that specific PDF. It’s basically just people whining that the file feels too "sterile" and lacks any actual personality, and then they get called out for being exactly what they're complaining about. It’s a total loop.
Look, I didn't take any of that personally. I’m just answering the questions you guys are throwing at me.

How on earth did I end up in a group with unknown? People are seriously out here handing out "diagnoses" like they’re passing out candy at a parade. It's getting ridiculous.

Look, I’ve already told you—I’m not part of that unknown crew, and you could have easily seen that if you actually read my post. I was addressing everyone who jumped in here to file some kind of complaint. Besides, there’s no harm in being crystal clear just so people don't start comparing this thread to other subreddits. Let's be real: the moderation on those other boards is definitely more laid back. Not by a huge margin, sure, but still. It’s only logical that the vibe isn't exactly the same when you're discussing something like "Do you sleep with virgins" versus a heavy topic like "My husband cheated on me." Please, just try to respect that different subreddits have different sensibilities.

I honestly have no clue which part of my post makes you think I’m out here handing out medical diagnoses like candy, so could you please just drop that whole angle? I’m seriously not diagnosing anyone, nor is that something I even do.

And honestly, just because someone spends more time hanging out on unknown than on unknown, it doesn't exactly qualify as a medical diagnosis. 🤣
Sorry, but I actually can't help myself—I have to laugh. 😁

nimbleowl6 said:I’ve been wondering lately—do the moderators and the rest of the site admin team actually follow some kind of official code of conduct when they're dealing with us users?

When we pick moderators, we aren't looking for people who need a rulebook shoved in their faces; we look for those standout members who already know how to carry themselves and respect the conversation. Sure, we have guidelines in place, obviously, but there’s no point in offering a leadership role to someone who constantly needs to be told not to be toxic or belittle others. We want people who naturally get it. That being said, let's be real—nobody is perfect. Moderators are just people too, and yeah, they might get carried away sometimes just like anyone else. When that happens, we're right here to step in, set them straight, or hand out sanctions if necessary, just like we would with any other user. Regarding this specific complaint about Jacob Sullivan91, I honestly haven't seen anything problematic in her decisions during her entire time helping us run things; she's been a top-tier moderator from day one.

nimbleowl6 said:What’s the actual point of a phrase like, "And that was enough," or "That's plenty now"? It’s one of those expressions that feels like it carries a lot of weight depending on how you throw it out there. Honestly, I feel like people use it in a few different ways—sometimes it's just a way to signal that a situation has reached its limit, or maybe someone is just totally fed up and needs a break. It’s like hitting a wall where you just can't take any more of whatever is happening. It could be used when a conversation gets too heated, or even when you've had just about enough of a certain task. It’s such a versatile little sentiment, isn't it? It basically acts as a verbal full stop, telling everyone involved that the capacity for more has been reached.

Look, the whole point of these warnings is just to let people know when they’re straying off track or being unconstructive. It’s basically a way to tell folks, "Hey, you're getting a bit out of line here." Warnings are just one of the tools in a moderator's kit; they can be used on their own or alongside actual bans, depending on how the situation is looking at the moment. I’m definitely not saying moderators are untouchable gods—I don't believe in giving them some kind of special pass—but that goes both ways. Just like a mod is going to get flagged if they start throwing insults around, they shouldn't feel like they have to act like clinical robots or use perfectly sterile language all the time. They're human too.

nimbleowl6 said:I was just sitting here thinking—why is it considered such a taboo move to actually call out a moderator's intervention? You know, when they step in and say something like, "Hey everyone, let's please get back to the actual topic at hand," or even just a gentle nudge to refocus the conversation? It feels like there's this unwritten rule that those kinds of direct prompts are somehow "off-limits" or weird to mention, but I don't quite get it. Why can't we acknowledge when a mod is just trying to steer the ship back on course?

At the end of the day, it’s really up to each individual moderator to decide how they want to phrase a warning. As long as they're sticking to the general community guidelines and handling things in a way that actually fits the specific situation at hand, they have the creative freedom to manage it their own way.

slynomad14 said:Look, the crowd hanging out here is mostly a bit more seasoned, you know? We’ve all reached that stage in life where we should be able to hash things out without just jumping straight to insults. Sure, if things get heated, maybe we can throw a little digital shade or get into a spirited back-and-forth—call it a little virtual sparring if you want—but let's at least bring some actual life and energy to the conversation!

Look, I’m all for bringing some life and energy to the conversation—spirited debates are part of the fun and definitely aren't against the rules here. But honestly, that has absolutely nothing to do with this specific complaint. If you look closely at the posts that were actually removed or flagged, you won't find any of that heated back-and-forth in there at all.

slynomad14 said:Look, if we occasionally turn something into a joke, what's the big deal?
Honestly, is anyone actually going to get their feelings hurt by a little banter? Or will they just laugh it off? Sometimes a good laugh is exactly what you need. 🙂

A little bit of humor doesn't hurt anybody, as long as it doesn't devolve into tearing people down or turning into straight-up spam.

I really only wanted to touch on a few specific points, but honestly, there’s no need for me to drag this out since boldwalker12 and Jacob Sullivan91 have already laid everything out so clearly. Their posts pretty much cover all the bases, so I don't see much point in me just repeating what they've already said.

boldwalker12 said:Plus, spending more time on one forum than another isn't some kind of medical diagnosis... 🤣
I’m sorry, but I actually have to laugh at that... 😁

So what's the deal with people constantly attacking that group from the other site?

It's like they all just showed up here completely unhinged... 🤷

slynomad14 said:And I have no idea why some crew over at unknown is even trying to take credit for this?

So, I guess she just showed up to the unknown completely unhinged. 🤷

Look, I practically begged you to stop with the insinuations, but clearly, that was a total waste of my breath.
I didn't even say that. I was talking about how different PDF vibes can be, period. Besides, the subforum I moderate is a totally different beast from unknown; over there, we actually embrace the chaos and off-topic banter, so I definitely don't think it's just some unhinged mob hanging out there. You’re seriously putting words in my mouth, and honestly, I have no idea why you're doing that. Maybe you've just run out of actual things to complain about.

The only reason I even brought that up is because you just can't get used to how one single PDF format tries to dictate exactly how every other file should look. It’s infuriating. And honestly, I only mentioned it because they keep dragging up those old, dusty complaints about cases that were already settled—stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Well, you’re certainly allowed to say you’ve been thinking about me. 😁
Honestly, I shouldn't have even brought it up—it was a pointless comment, and frankly, enough time has passed that it should stay in the past. My mistake.
(And, if I may be so bold, I did notice that since then, there seems to be much more verbal sparring before anyone actually gets hit with a formal warning—which suggests some kind of shift in how things are handled here). 🙂

Please just disregard my intrusion; it wasn't particularly appropriate and really had nothing to do with the original grievance.

graniteridge6 said:You can totally write that you're thinking about me. 😁
Yeah, I brought that up for no reason—totally unnecessary, water under the bridge. My bad.
(Also, I noticed that since then, there’s been more of a "warning before the ban" vibe instead of just jumping straight to a strike, so clearly some shift happened). 🙂

Just ignore my comment; it was pretty out of line and didn't really have anything to do with the original complaint.

I was just speaking generally, it wasn't intentional, which is why slynomad14 jumped on it.

Anyway, I'm hoping this whole thing is settled now.

Btw, I've always used warnings, but they aren't mandatory and aren't applied the same way every time. Sometimes it's an immediate strike, sometimes it's a warning followed by a strike, and sometimes it's just a warning—it all just depends on how the moderator is reading the situation at the moment.

The others have explained quite a bit, so I don't see much point in repeating myself, though I suppose I should address this:

graniteridge6 said:(and I noticed that since then, there’s been more verbal sparring before someone actually gets a ban, so clearly something shifted). 🙂

I said it then, and I’ll say it again. Moderators aren't actually obligated to hand out warnings; it’s purely their discretion. And looking at this appeal, it seems even the warnings themselves are being criticized if they aren't delivered in a perfectly timid tone.
I’m quoting you, graniteridge6, but I’m not addressing you directly—I wouldn't want you to feel singled out. I'm just speaking generally. 🙂
If people don't want to be treated like children—especially when warnings are being taken personally despite not even being phrased that way—then maybe they shouldn't act like children by cluttering up every corner of the forum. We have dedicated chat threads for a reason; leave the chatting to those topics. On other threads, please allow for actual discussion instead of burying it under useless spam that isn't funny to anyone except the people doing the spamming. I get that the participants might find it amusing in the moment, but usually, it’s only fun for them. Everyone else is just forced to scroll through a mountain of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Every time we loosen the reins—and we have tried being lenient several times—things spiral out of control. We'll jump into a thread only to realize we have to delete about 60 posts all at once. I'm probably underselling it. Just 60 posts of mindless chatting that drown out any real conversation. Imagine if we had to issue bans for every single one of those.

unknown is not that kind of forum, and it is the moderators' job to maintain order here. But we aren't going to write a warning for every single warning. Likewise, don't expect a courtesy heads-up every time before a ban happens. You have the rules; those who have been around long enough surely know them, and I don't think we need to remind everyone of the basics in every single thread.

slynomad14 said:The whole thing with those old arguments is pretty interesting too...
Does it count as part of that, since I pointed out publicly how incredibly rude it was to tell a user to just come complain here if they don't like something on unknown, especially when that user already has a bias over at unknown?

You totally missed a juicy little detail there. I had no clue the guy had any bias over at unknown. I actually sent him a private message to apologize the very second after your "lovely" comment went up.

I also sent you a PM explaining exactly why your post got nuked and how I reached out to the guy immediately to make things right. And you replied to that one pretty "politely" (no quotes this time!) so don't even try to claim you didn't see it.

It’s probably pointless to ask why there's so much hypocrisy going on, but whatever, I had to say it. Honestly, this says way more about you than it does about me...

And since you guys are practically begging for it, I'm done with the warnings. Everyone knows the rules, and everyone knows what happens when you break them.

Michelle Phillips54 said:I said it then, and I’ll say it again—moderators aren't actually obligated to issue warnings; it's entirely at their discretion. And yet, looking at this appeal, people are even finding fault with the moderators if the warnings aren't delivered in some sort of overly timid, apologetic tone.

Well, fine. 😬
It seemed to me that there was a new standard where a warning is always issued first—it feels like a much more frequent practice lately—so I assumed you all had reached some kind of consensus on that. 😁
Personally, I prefer it that way, though obviously, you can't please everyone. 😬


(By the way, I thought those warnings on the thread about divorce were triggered by that heated debate with Victor—which, in my opinion, while intense, was perfectly fine and I didn't quite grasp why the discussion had to be stifled—but I missed the side chatter because, clearly, it had already been scrubbed, so when the warning popped up, I jumped to the wrong conclusion.
It wasn't until I saw this specific thread that I realized there were actually deleted posts happening in the background. 😁
Honestly, I was referring to that particular debate when I mentioned that we should let people sharpen their wits against one another a bit... but now I see that isn't really what's going on here at all. 🙈)

graniteridge6 said:
Honestly, I totally thought those warnings on that divorce thread were triggered because things got a little heated during that debate with Victor. In my book, even though he was being intense, the back-and-forth was actually pretty fair—I couldn’t wrap my head around why anyone would try to shut down that kind of discussion. I didn't even notice the side chat happening; it clearly got wiped, and then suddenly there's a warning popping up out of nowhere. Since I couldn't see what actually went down, I obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion.
I just realized while scrolling through this thread that there are actually deleted posts in here. Who knew? 😁
I was actually thinking about that whole debate when I mentioned that people should probably just be allowed to sharpen their wits against one another a bit, but now I’m starting to realize that isn't even what this is about at all. 🙈)

Yeah, look, sometimes I’ll drop a warning even after I’ve already gone through and nuked a massive pile of posts. Even if it isn't strictly written in the rulebook, I'll occasionally point out that I just had to clear out a ton of junk just to signal that everyone needs to chill out. As long as the conversation stays on track and actually sticks to the topic at hand, we're good.

I’ve found this forum getting pretty dull lately because it’s mostly just trolls starting threads that aren't worth anyone's time, and I honestly can't believe people actually take them seriously.
I suppose the moderators just let them stay to keep some level of activity going, though it's hard to believe they don't see right through them.

nimbleowl6 said:I’m really wondering if the moderators and the rest of the site admin team actually follow some kind of code of conduct when dealing with users.

My question is sparked by how one particular moderator has been acting here on this site. For now, I don't think it's necessary to drop names, but if things go that far, I'll say who it is.

It's about her behavior—specifically the way she uses certain language during her moderator interventions on specific threads.

The tone is mostly patronizing, rude, and indirectly insulting. Honestly, I’d describe it as being like a bad preschool teacher dealing with toddlers.

And these comments aren't even about people breaking rules; they just seem to reflect, well, a certain intolerance the moderator has toward the users.

What is the point of phrases like—"Okay, that's enough now"? The kinds of sentences used in her moderator interventions?

Personally, I’ve spent plenty of time leading debates and moderating discussions at various conferences and roundtables. If I ever said anything like that in any professional setting, my moderating career would be over in a heartbeat. People would just say I'm unconstructive or outright disrespectful to the participants.

Is this some kind of moderator trend? These interventions wrapped up in fake wit that often turn into being loud and clear rudeness?

Why is it so uncommon to just state a moderator intervention simply, like—"Excuse me, please get back to the discussion"? Or something similar?

Look, if someone breaks the forum rules during a discussion, or ignores a moderator's warning, there are penalties—like formal warnings or bans.

But why do some moderators feel the need to combine those penalties with patronizing and belittling the users posting on that specific subforum?

Actually, what I want to know most is—is there a code of conduct for moderators regarding how they treat users? And if there isn't one, I'd love to know why.

Thanks.

I've bolded the questions from the original post, not because they aren't clear, but so that anyone reading this and trying to answer can easily see exactly what you're asking and why.

Now, I’m going to channel my inner little Jew and answer your questions with a counter-question: "Would it be easier (for you) if she didn't have that tone and attitude?"

Because, based on what you wrote, I can't tell if you have a problem with this site in general, or if it's just a problem with unknown, who happens to (unluckily?) be the moderator of this subforum.

If it's a problem with the site itself, fine. I guess someone higher up will eventually decide if action needs to be taken. But if it's just one specific person, maybe send 20-30 private messages (or 200-300, doesn't matter) and work out a "peaceful coexistence."

slynomad14 said:And I'm wondering, what happened to this site in general?

We went from a forum full of life, experiences, and advice to this sterile environment where any topic with actual heat has to be forced back onto the "right path."

The folks posting here are all in their prime, you know? We’re at that age where we should be able to hash things out without getting nasty. Sure, maybe we get a little heated—like a friendly scrap in a backyard—but hey, it keeps the energy alive in the group, right?

And look, if we take something as a joke once in a while, what's the big deal?
Is someone really going to get their feelings hurt so easily? Or will they just laugh it off? Honestly, sometimes a good laugh is better than any medicine. 🙂

If we go overboard, feel free to pull the red card on us, but don't kill the conversation before it even gets moving.

Are you specifically talking about that "Marrying a Divorcee" thread? You know how those old legends used to say—if I were running the show, a topic like that would be shut down immediately or renamed by the mods to be more "politically correct" and precise, because it stirs up too much unrest for the sensitive souls out there. That would be my call as a moderator. Luckily, I'm not officially on the board of any sub-forums, so I have the poetic liberty of a regular user to quote some wise old saying from a great man: "He who seeks a second marriage hasn't earned the right to keep his first wife."

nimbleowl6 said:😲

In that case, I’d love to see the administration be a bit more transparent regarding how the unknown section is organized.

As a gold standard for a moderation team, I’d point to the crew over at the Psychology department. Now, I realize not everyone is going to agree with me, but the mods over there have enough empathy and rarely get offensive with the users.

Here’s one potential fix—make the unknown section a sub-forum under Psychology. God knows there’s enough material there for the psych majors. But wait, if we start mentioning God, society, and small-town life... we could probably move it to Social Sciences too, since it fits right into sociology. Or even Spirituality. There are so many alternatives! Maybe we can find a better way to manage this community of rudderless ships (maybe Sports & Recreation, anyone?).

I still don't quite get it—as just a regular user and not a moderator, what exactly are you looking for, and what's your actual issue with the unknown section?

boldwalker12 said:The unknown section doesn't need to be brightened up; it'll never be what the wise user above me intended it to be for adults. You can't expect to come from the adult side of things and then try to joke around in the unknown section and demonize the mods just because they won't let you.
The unknown section deals with heavy topics; it's always been the toughest part of the romance threads and the place where people come most often seeking comfort. If a core group forms every few years, there's usually an unspoken rule that the regulars should joke around in the designated chat rooms instead of demanding freedom to crack jokes in threads where people are actually looking for help or solace. People should be allowed to argue and bicker—that's not a sin.

That whole thing about astrology just proved why the unknown section needs strict moderation. As soon as they loosened the reins, people started spamming every single thread with "what's your sign?" It's like giving someone an inch and having them take a mile. You just can't allow it.

unknown won't be some lightweight PDF you can just mess around with like those linked posts, especially since this current mod team is in charge. Just deal with it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, and honestly, I didn't realize this thread had turned into a debate over ancient history from the seventh century. I don't keep track of who here is acting like a partial person.

Okay, so maybe I am the one dragging things out by comparing this to unknown, but that was only because I spent a little bit of time there serving as a moderator myself.

Even if we wanted to keep things upbeat, just the name of this subforum—Relationship Life—is enough to tell us how it goes: it’s impossible. Life itself isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows when you're flying solo. When you're in a pair, everything just piles up a little more. Sure, there are beautiful, wonderful shared memories and moments, and then there are the ones that aren't so great. And you should—you *can*—write about all of it. But it needs to be serious. Or at least serious enough that it doesn't look like some teenage drama. Because these topics are "heavy." These are real, "life-altering" problems. Behind these screens, you have people just trying to vent—specifically regarding breakups—during some pretty critical moments in their own lives. They're more or less lost. Dealing with a mountain of questions without answers, or a mountain of answers without any questions.

It’s tough (to tell them) that they have to find the solution on their own. Especially when the people who actually went through it and survived say it to them with a hint of irony.

And maybe by tomorrow, all of this will just be "yesterday"? It sounds funny. It sounds ironic. But you just have to survive today.

Slapping a general label of "broken" versus "together" on people isn't right, and it certainly isn't easy. No two couples are ever truly identical.

IMHO, the crew over at unknown is doing a solid job considering the wide range of topics covered. Can they do better? Of course they can; anyone always can.

Thanks for listening. I didn't mean to write such a novel, I just felt this (forum-style) need to ask: who is this bothering so much, and what kind of unknown is this supposed to be anyway?

boldwalker12 said:I did kindly ask you to refrain from making such insinuations, but I am beginning to realize that my request was entirely in vain.
That isn't what I said at all. My intention was merely to point out the varying sensibilities found within different PDF files. Furthermore, the community forum I also moderate is an entirely different beast compared to unknown; the atmosphere there is much more lighthearted, where banter and off-topic discussions are actually encouraged, so I certainly wouldn't characterize the user base there as a bunch of unhinged hooligans.

You are absolutely right. There is a profound difference in both the underlying energy and the way people actually communicate on platforms like unknown and unknown.

It is quite fascinating to observe how even a single, recurring contributor can exhibit such distinct shifts in their expressive style when comparing these two separate PDF documents.

Under the heading of the unknown, there is a clear disclaimer stating that the contents of this PDF include language that might be considered inappropriate for the general public. 😁

It is truly fascinating to observe the sheer breadth of temperaments that converge within this digital space. On one hand, you have these deeply earnest threads exploring the delicate nuances of divorce proceedings, the complex emotional architecture of parent-child dynamics, and the various ways people attempt to preserve the sanctity of the family unit. Yet, in the very next moment, the conversation shifts entirely toward much more carnal territory—discussions regarding specific sexual preferences, the mechanics of group encounters, or deep dives into BDSM dynamics. You even find people debating the merits of certain intimate acts or sharing stories about someone who spends their weekends engaging in casual trysts near the exits of local nightclubs. It is a striking study in contrasts, really.

It is a fundamental truth that personalities and social graces are rarely uniform; people tend to adjust their entire demeanor depending on the setting. For instance, one’s behavior during a high-stakes poker night in a buddy's basement is going to be worlds apart from how they conduct themselves while sipping tea at a girlfriend's mother's house, if you catch my drift. It is precisely because of these varying nuances and social contexts that the moderators must tailor their responses accordingly.

The moderators of this platform are truly a remarkable group of women who manage our discussions with such impeccable grace and decorum. In my estimation, their approach to handling the community is almost too delicate; they tend to drag things out with such extreme caution that it feels like walking on eggshells. It seems like even a simple, harmless question like "Is that enough for now?"—asked only after the conversation has naturally picked up steam—is treated as a major transgression that might cause someone to take offense.
It honestly feels completely unrealistic—if not entirely nonsensical—to suggest that they are under any obligation to justify themselves to you all just because someone claims, "Okay, enough is enough." Seriously?

And, quite frankly, they have already taken the time to explain the situation to you all with a great deal of patience and genuine human decency. So, in principle, I really only stepped in to point out that the locals and those who frequent the area generally arrive with a very clear understanding of the landscape. They know that a certain level of simplicity is simply part of the natural habitat there—it’s just the nature of the environment given the subject matter—rather than being a sign of any actual lack of refinement. 🤣It would be highly unlikely for any of my colleagues over at the unknown to ever make an insinuation of that nature. Furthermore, the unknown typically features much more casual and laid-back subject matter on its agenda. Consequently, there is simply no reason to organize a chat party or anything of that sort when discussing a sensitive or serious topic, especially since there are already designated spaces specifically intended for those kinds of discussions.

Thanks, Jason Harris5 and Dennis Jackson38—you guys really managed to plug every single gap anyone could possibly think of. 🙂

I honestly, truly hope we can finally put this whole saga/complaint to bed. Everyone stepped up to weigh in and clear things up.

boldwalker12 said:Honestly, Jason Harris5 and Dennis Jackson38, you guys really hit the nail on the head and filled in every single gap I could have possibly missed. 🙂

I truly, deeply hope we can finally put this whole saga and all these complaints to rest now. Everyone has stepped up, shared their side, and cleared things up.

I think we've pretty much covered everything here. Let's call it a wrap.

👋