What's the deal with these new forums?

vividtiger922 said:Week one. Total silence...

Are you still deliberating, or are you simply... indecisive? 😬

So, I’ll go ahead and restate the questions, whether they're direct or implied...

Let me run some numbers here... I want to see exactly what kind of track record one would need to accumulate to earn a six-month ban. If we set aside things like account expiration or getting banned for using accounts with longer lifespans, let's look at how many instances of insults, hate speech, blatant harassment, doxxing, and other serious violations it would actually take to justify a half-year suspension...

Six months—that’s 180 days. Or, if you prefer, sixty three-day stretches or twenty-five full weeks... It makes me wonder if this particular user has actually racked up enough violations in her entire history to warrant such a heavy-handed penalty, especially considering it's being applied based on rules that didn't even exist when she first requested the break. Then there's the fact that she’s served as a moderator on two separate occasions. It leaves me questioning how someone who was once considered constructive and decent enough to be part of the staff can suddenly become a user whose absence is framed as a "benefit" to everyone else, including herself...

Sure, you can choose whatever angle you want to highlight—that's your discretionary right, which you seem so fond of citing... but let's call things what they actually are. On one hand, there’s all this talk about supporting "active," "high-quality," and "constructive" members, yet on the other, it feels like actual content is becoming an afterthought because apparently, it's perfectly fine to sideline those exact same contributors for extended periods just because a technicality is too trivial to deal with, or perhaps simply because the administration decides they lack the patience for it at that particular moment...

vividtiger922 said:Week one. Total silence...

Are you still deliberating, or are you simply... indecisive? 😬

So, I’ll go ahead and restate the questions, whether they're direct or implied...

Let me run some numbers here... I want to see exactly what kind of track record one would need to accumulate to earn a six-month ban. If we set aside things like account expiration or getting banned for using accounts with longer lifespans, let's look at how many instances of insults, hate speech, blatant harassment, doxxing, and other serious violations it would actually take to justify a half-year suspension...

Six months—that’s 180 days. Or, if you prefer, sixty three-day stretches or twenty-five full weeks... It makes me wonder if this particular user has actually racked up enough violations in her entire history to warrant such a heavy-handed penalty, especially considering it's being applied based on rules that didn't even exist when she first requested the break. Then there's the fact that she’s served as a moderator on two separate occasions. It leaves me questioning how someone who was once considered constructive and decent enough to be part of the staff can suddenly become a user whose absence is framed as a "benefit" to everyone else, including herself...

Sure, you can choose whatever angle you want to highlight—that's your discretionary right, which you seem so fond of citing... but let's call things what they actually are. On one hand, there’s all this talk about supporting "active," "high-quality," and "constructive" members, yet on the other, it feels like actual content is becoming an afterthought because apparently, it's perfectly fine to sideline those exact same contributors for extended periods just because a technicality is too trivial to deal with, or perhaps simply because the administration decides they lack the patience for it at that particular moment...

rustydrifter10 said:The way you're framing this makes it sound like some rigid, automated machine that just spits out sanctions and converts them into bans instantly. And while the warning system does work somewhat like that, we also have plenty of custom options available to us. We can issue a specific warning and assign whatever length of ban we feel is necessary based on the context, the situation, and everything else involved. For instance, someone could be incredibly rude five times over seven years and just get a week off each time, whereas someone else might pull three major offenses in a single month and find themselves facing a six-month suspension, or even longer.

Look, you're digging into other people's sanctions again. Please, I’m asking you to stop. I really have no interest in debating or discussing users who have been banned.

Stop meddling in other people's sanctions. Please stop. I have no intention of debating banned users.

vividtiger922 said:Yes, exactly, math class. I am being so incredibly literal that I'm actually calculating exactly how many strikes one needs to earn a six-month ban. 🤦
No, I am trying to illustrate how recklessly you toss sanctions around in certain instances. I am trying to show how grotesque the whole thing looks. I am trying to highlight how nonsensical and outright rude it is that you keep insisting such a sanction is "necessary." Necessary for whom? Who actually benefits from driving away a user whose content has absolutely no harmful impact? I am trying to say that what you are doing is starting to look less like editorial work and content moderation, and more like running a correctional facility. And if you honestly believe your notorious predecessor failed simply because he wasn't polite enough, you are mistaken. His downfall was caused by a whole chain of factors, one of which is precisely this—moderating the users rather than the content itself.

Stop meddling in other people's sanctions. Please stop. I have no intention of debating banned users.

No, I am not meddling in anyone else's business; I am commenting on a precedent in the appropriate forum.
There would be no need to discuss banned users if you hadn't discussed s banned users. Since you were so incredibly rude to them, we are now discussing your behavior and your strategy.

vividtiger922 said:Didn't you just mention earlier that the sanctions system isn't some automated machine, but rather something handled on a case-by-case basis? Of course, those inconsistencies could happen... perhaps someone was posting under an alias while their main account was still under a requested ban, which might have somehow masked the fact that an unban request was ignored. But that doesn't really hold up against this specific situation. You pulled one single example where a request wasn't granted—where a user actually used a different handle to ask for their original account to be reinstated, meaning they were technically still active. But what about all those other instances where people were unbanned without issue? It feels like the logic keeps shifting from "it's happened before," to "she asked for an unban multiple times," then suddenly to "we have a new rule now, so it's better if she stays banned"... so which is it, really?...

And I still haven't heard an answer as to why she wasn't given a heads-up about this new rule first.

vividtiger922 said:Didn't you just mention earlier that the sanctions system isn't some automated machine, but rather something handled on a case-by-case basis? Of course, those inconsistencies could happen... perhaps someone was posting under an alias while their main account was still under a requested ban, which might have somehow masked the fact that an unban request was ignored. But that doesn't really hold up against this specific situation. You pulled one single example where a request wasn't granted—where a user actually used a different handle to ask for their original account to be reinstated, meaning they were technically still active. But what about all those other instances where people were unbanned without issue? It feels like the logic keeps shifting from "it's happened before," to "she asked for an unban multiple times," then suddenly to "we have a new rule now, so it's better if she stays banned"... so which is it, really?...

And I still haven't heard an answer as to why she wasn't given a heads-up about this new rule first.

vividtiger922 said:Didn't you just mention earlier that the sanctions system isn't some automated machine, but rather something handled on a case-by-case basis? Of course, those inconsistencies could happen... perhaps someone was posting under an alias while their main account was still under a requested ban, which might have somehow masked the fact that an unban request was ignored. But that doesn't really hold up against this specific situation. You pulled one single example where a request wasn't granted—where a user actually used a different handle to ask for their original account to be reinstated, meaning they were technically still active. But what about all those other instances where people were unbanned without issue? It feels like the logic keeps shifting from "it's happened before," to "she asked for an unban multiple times," then suddenly to "we have a new rule now, so it's better if she stays banned"... so which is it, really?...

And I still haven't heard an answer as to why she wasn't given a heads-up about this new rule first.

rustydrifter10 said:Well, I did the exact same thing you did—I pulled an example out of thin air to make my point.

She only used that account for that one specific question; she wasn't running around the forum causing trouble.

Those cases are a whole different story entirely.

Honestly, I feel like this whole back-and-forth about specific examples and how we ban users is just going in circles now.

She only used it for that one question; she didn't go around scribbling everywhere else...

They are truly in a league of their own...

Honestly, this whole back-and-forth about specific examples and banning users just feels completely pointless...

Joshua Hughes4 said:Is it a six-month ban or a permanent one? 🤷

I thought I understood that it was a permanent ban and they weren't going to lift it. 🤷

We have two requests on the site from users asking to have their permanent bans lifted—bans that were issued at their own request.
How is it possible that if Hunter was told she can't get unbanned, these two users managed to get back in?

If Hunter was indeed pushing for bans at people's own requests—even though she denies it—then why wouldn't they lift her ban in a situation like that? We have a new rule now where that kind of thing isn't allowed. Is it too much to ask to let her know the rules changed so she stops trying to pull the same stunt? Surely she can grasp that much. 🤷 😬

From where I'm sitting, it looks like the ban was requested personally, but everyone is just happy she's gone. ☕

Daniel Ward87 said:Hunter and Schmokljan both have permanent bans, and just like everyone else, they can reach out after six months to ask for a second chance. Whether the admins actually grant that request is anyone's guess—it’s entirely up to them. As of right now, it doesn't look like their bans are going anywhere.

Look, there’s actually a reason things are handled this way. It involves some intel we've gathered from other users on the boards, along with a few other details I can't really go into here. Just know that the rest of the admin team—the mods, supermods, and Anderson—are all in the loop.

So, there’s really no point even arguing about their permanent bans.

Daniel Ward87 said:Hunter and Schmokljan both have permanent bans, and just like everyone else, they can reach out after six months to ask for a second chance. Whether the admins actually grant that request is anyone's guess—it’s entirely up to them. As of right now, it doesn't look like their bans are going anywhere.

Look, there’s actually a reason things are handled this way. It involves some intel we've gathered from other users on the boards, along with a few other details I can't really go into here. Just know that the rest of the admin team—the mods, supermods, and Anderson—are all in the loop.

So, there’s really no point even arguing about their permanent bans.

Jacob Allen said:Alright, let's just say that's how it is... I mean, if that's the deal, then fine, I don't really see a massive issue with it and I'm definitely not looking to start some huge debate over it.

But, something else is kind of... making me feel like I have to be that one guy who keeps pointing out the obvious flaws in the system.

So look, I won't go interrogating the administration right now... but is there any way at all to find out... you know, get a hint about what kind of information we're talking about here? Maybe these users are dangerous to me too, and you guys are just keeping these top-secret files under wraps.

I mean, seriously, what you just said sounds pretty intense to me! It almost sounds sketchy, like there's this whole organized structure going on where users come forward, gather intel, and report back... how does that even work?

And could we at least get a heads-up on which users are doing the reporting? Like, will they step forward themselves or are we supposed to figure out who they are? 🙂

Daniel Ward87 said:No, it doesn't work like that. It isn't just about individual users; we also pull certain data using the tools we have available here on the site.

So, like I said, there's really no point in debating this since I've already explained why. The rest of the admin team knows the full story, and I'm not authorized to say anything more than that.

Daniel Ward87 said:Hunter and Schmokljan both have permanent bans, and just like everyone else, they can reach out after six months to ask for a second chance. Whether the admins actually grant that request is anyone's guess—it’s entirely up to them. As of right now, it doesn't look like their bans are going anywhere.

Look, there’s actually a reason things are handled this way. It involves some intel we've gathered from other users on the boards, along with a few other details I can't really go into here. Just know that the rest of the admin team—the mods, supermods, and Anderson—are all in the loop.

So, there’s really no point even arguing about their permanent bans.

Timothy Davis59 said:I don't get why you can't just say. Either Hunter is someone famous who rubbed you the wrong way, or they just personally annoyed someone, so they got banned. 🤷

I don't see any reason why you couldn't explain why someone was banned from the forum? 🤷 What’s so top secret and dangerous about it? 🤣

Jacob Allen said:Everything is totally fine on my end, honestly! I’ve been thinking about it lately and it's not just about those shady underground forums, it’s actually the secret tools they’re using that really change the game, and that's what I finally realized.
Look, tools, gear, why we need them, what they actually do—honestly, I couldn't care less about all that technical stuff! What I have really picked up from watching everyone is how much people on this forum love to drop those little hints and use specific phrasing to imply there’s some massive secret out there. You know the vibe, where someone says you aren't allowed to talk about certain things or that the admins are strictly forbidden from bringing up specific topics, and it’s just so obvious that the whole reason they say "you can't talk about it" is because those things absolutely exist! It's such a classic move, right?

Anyway, thanks for that... I honestly just figured if there's stuff you aren't even allowed to talk about, then there’s really no point in bringing it up at all, right? Like, why bother even mentioning things when they're totally off-limits?

Look, I’m telling you right now, Schmokljan and Hunter are some seriously heavy hitters, but honestly, that's just not the kind of thing you can go around talking about openly!

I’m totally convinced there’s some kind of underground network of users out there constantly gathering intel and sharing dirt on everyone else on the boards, and they're basically building this massive dossier on us all! It honestly feels like the admins are using this secret database of everything they know about each person to decide who stays and who gets the boot, which is just wild if you think about it!
Look, I’m not trying to start any kind of drama or get into a massive debate here, but I would honestly love it if those folks on this forum who are out there digging up all this intel and building these massive databases would just reach out to me! Seriously, if you're one of the people behind all this data, please just hit me up and let me know who you are, because if you're curious about my background, I am more than happy to lay everything out on the table for you, so there's absolutely no need for anyone to go through the trouble of wondering!
Look, I’m saying this because I honestly don't see any other way to handle this, but there is clearly some kind of organized core or a tight-knit circle operating behind the scenes to spread intel about other forums, and it's gotta be happening somewhere! So, I’m putting out a call to anyone else on this forum who knows anything about the crews responsible for leaking this stuff—please, reach out to me and let me know what's going on! I need you to point me toward the exact people and the specific actions being taken by these informants so that I can, either on my own or by teaming up with everyone else who's fed up with this, actually start taking steps to unmask them. We seriously need to find out exactly who they are, what their endgame is, what kind of database they're messing around with, and just how much damage they could do if they abuse this info. Seriously, what is actually happening here?

Honestly, this is starting to get a little kinky with the admins stepping in like this... I mean, look, there are plenty of great things happening around here, but we’re basically being told we can't even say them out loud just because they're true! We've had users whose data was messed with by our own internal tools, and honestly, it wasn't even just our tech—other people on the forum have been reaching out to us directly to flag it too. So, what exactly is this "danger" we're supposedly hiding? Like, what kind of massive threat are we all supposedly facing that you guys aren't allowed to even mention?

I am seriously dying to know what is actually going on here, because if Schmokljan and Hunter ever decide to show their faces on this forum again, please, I am begging you, let me know immediately so I can toss them straight onto my ignore list! I honestly have zero interest in dealing with either of them ever again. Are you admins even listening to me? Because after those official statements you guys just put out, I am legitimately spooked by them!
Man, who even knows what they can pull on me at this point? It’s like there are snitches everywhere you look, honestly! You seriously never know which way to turn, who you can actually trust with your business, or where your words are even gonna end up, you know? It’s wild thinking about how many people might be peeking into everything we say and exactly what purpose this whole forum even serves anymore... it's just one big mess! 😵

Honestly, it’s like this forum wasn't already becoming a total circus on its own, so let's just crank things up a notch and really start throwing gasoline on the fire! 🤦

Man, I’d love to spill some more tea right now, but I've got these tools working against me that are totally keeping me quiet, and honestly, there’s just no way I can dive into that right now! 🎉

Daniel Ward87 said:No, it doesn't work like that. It isn't just about individual users; we also pull certain data using the tools we have available here on the site.

So, like I said, there's really no point in debating this since I've already explained why. The rest of the admin team knows the full story, and I'm not authorized to say anything more than that.

vividtiger922 said:Where were we before Hunter and Schmokljan decided to infect this forum with their little virus... 😬

You keep telling us you've "received intel from other users" and "utilized standard tools" that you apparently aren't allowed to disclose...

I have to wonder, what exactly did these users tell you? That they started cloning accounts, that they were being harassed via PM, or perhaps just that they have terrible haircuts? If it's the first one, there's no reason to be secretive—they broke the rules. If it's the second, you really ought to warn us so we can protect ourselves. As for the third, well, you're just wasting everyone's time... 🤷

And these "secret tools"? What, are you spying on our private chats or monitoring what we read while logged out? Is that some massive conspiracy? It's hardly a mystery; site admins can see all that stuff on any other forum, so I don't see why you'd bother hiding it... 🍿

vividtiger922 said:It’s just not there. It really isn't... 🤷
Honestly, a little "thanks" wouldn't have hurt since I was the one who brought up cloning—an angle none of you seem to have considered yet. 😍

We aren't here to gossip about other users on the forum. That seems to be more your speed, obsessing over tips and drama surrounding everyone else... 🍿

And if you truly believe the absence of a few key voices won't be noticed, then you clearly don't understand how people actually consume news in an outlet like yours.

rustydrifter10 said:I don't think anyone actually labeled them as "dangerous," but they definitely broke the rules. Since their offenses are strictly their own business, we aren't going to sit here and hash out the specifics with everyone else.