Discrimination based on sexual orientation and lifestyle choices

Dennis Jackson38 said:If the admin mentioned a few pages back that people shouldn't be overtly seeking sex in their Advertisements and should just mind their phrasing, I have to wonder: why should any of us care what kind of companionship others are looking for? Truly, why does it matter?

We are talking about Lonely Hearts here, and everyone has their own unique way of being lonely and their own specific voids to fill. It is perfectly legal, and frankly, it falls outside our jurisdiction—or anyone else's for that matter. It seems quite absurd to suggest that one person has the right to edit someone else's personal criteria, unless those criteria explicitly state something like "I want to hook up" or "I'm looking for sex"—assuming, of course, that such directness isn't already deemed inappropriate for some reason (even though being upfront about needs is a healthy, normal part of most successful dates, but let's stay on track).

Following that line of logic, you would essentially be banning eighty-five percent of the articles and features found in any major print or digital media outlet today.
Do you realize how much that would tank viewership and readership? The impact would be massive.

I fail to see why a site like US Forum would radically diminish its own engagement by enforcing the personal preferences of moderators and stripping away the right to diversity in what people seek.

What exactly are you basing this "fact" on—that traffic to the US Forum would tank if they banned diverse profiles in ads? Most of the people posting there are using their main accounts for everything else anyway and just use a burner for the ads. So, honestly, what you said doesn't really hold water.

A significant number of people are reading this.

And regardless of whether readership is declining or not, I fail to see how you could possibly argue that discrimination should be met with applause. It shouldn't be. 😁

Furthermore, I am curious: if we are operating under the rule that any hint of sexual content is prohibited in an Advertisement—even when merely implied between the lines—does that same restriction apply to our discussions here? 😁

Sophia Thomas7 said:What exactly are you basing this "fact" on—that traffic to the US Forum would tank if they banned diverse profiles in ads? Most of the people posting there are using their main accounts for everything else anyway and just use a burner for the ads. So, honestly, what you said doesn't really hold water.

In dubio pro reo. That’s really all there is to it.

If there were some higher reasoning behind this—say, "we're panicking because Google might flag us as a porn site," or "we're worried about advertisers revolting," or something along those lines—there would be a way to let the average forum user know, in one form or another.

But the actual issue here is that the moderators insist on acting like their arbitrary decisions regarding what is "allowed" or "not allowed" constitute some sort of coherent policy for managing PDFs and threads. From where I’m sitting, this entire situation has perfectly demonstrated that when it comes to the "can/cannot" criteria, they are guided exclusively by their own personal values—which, frankly, isn't exactly a solid foundation for moderation. I mean, who actually cares about subjective sentences like "Personally, I am against this or that"? Not to mention that incredibly muddled attempt at formulating the rule: "if this were truly a serious Advertisement from someone living in a polygamous relationship/marriage, then we would decide how to handle it based on the written text and the implicit message it sends."...

Even when people are being foolish, they generally don't appreciate being treated like they're stupid. And this level of arbitrariness in moderating an Advertisement—without providing a single meaningful explanation as to why something can or cannot stay (or rather, what catastrophe would occur if a problematic 🙄 Advertisement wasn't deleted)—is precisely that: "we did it because we felt like it, so, what, a breakup? Is this a game of cat and mouse?"

Nicholas King said:In dubio pro reo. That’s really all there is to it.

If there were some higher reasoning behind this—say, "we're panicking because Google might flag us as a porn site," or "we're worried about advertisers revolting," or something along those lines—there would be a way to let the average forum user know, in one form or another.

But the actual issue here is that the moderators insist on acting like their arbitrary decisions regarding what is "allowed" or "not allowed" constitute some sort of coherent policy for managing PDFs and threads. From where I’m sitting, this entire situation has perfectly demonstrated that when it comes to the "can/cannot" criteria, they are guided exclusively by their own personal values—which, frankly, isn't exactly a solid foundation for moderation. I mean, who actually cares about subjective sentences like "Personally, I am against this or that"? Not to mention that incredibly muddled attempt at formulating the rule: "if this were truly a serious Advertisement from someone living in a polygamous relationship/marriage, then we would decide how to handle it based on the written text and the implicit message it sends."...

Even when people are being foolish, they generally don't appreciate being treated like they're stupid. And this level of arbitrariness in moderating an Advertisement—without providing a single meaningful explanation as to why something can or cannot stay (or rather, what catastrophe would occur if a problematic 🙄 Advertisement wasn't deleted)—is precisely that: "we did it because we felt like it, so, what, a breakup? Is this a game of cat and mouse?"

I haven't received a single answer to my question yet (which I already asked): why are sex Advertisements banned?

As far as I'm concerned, if someone gets hit for deleting a paid ad, then every single ad looking for sex should be getting wiped too.

Dennis Jackson38 said:A significant number of people are reading this.

And regardless of whether readership is declining or not, I fail to see how you could possibly argue that discrimination should be met with applause. It shouldn't be. 😁

Furthermore, I am curious: if we are operating under the rule that any hint of sexual content is prohibited in an Advertisement—even when merely implied between the lines—does that same restriction apply to our discussions here? 😁

That wasn't really what I was asking.

Sophia Thomas7 As stated by:
That wasn't quite what I was asking.

With all due respect, your question lacks any clear structure or coherent logic, which is precisely why my response turned out the way it did.
You simply cannot claim to know for certain that readership won't decline, but you really ought to consider the sheer volume of grievances being aired by entire factions of the community regarding advertisements over these last few months. It serves as a glaring indicator that there is widespread dissatisfaction within the collective, suggesting that a shift in strategy is absolutely necessary. This should be viewed as a clear signal for the US moderators—and keep in mind, you aren't one of them.
It is also worth noting that the individuals behind these Advertisements aren't limited to just a small circle of clones from the States; they represent a diverse spectrum of people. We aren't merely a tiny group of regulars who post every day; there is actually a much larger community observing and participating here on the US Forum.

The crux of the matter is this: there is absolutely no need for the moderator to offer any kind of personal justification or claim that they hold a negative bias against open relationships when making these types of decisions.

You serve as an excellent case in point here. You frequently emphasize on the Forum just how much importance you place on the "trio" dynamic, and how you believe one can certainly maintain such a connection within a relationship. Whether we are talking about discussions on LJES, the US Forum, or anywhere else, I fail to see the issue. Why should we withhold the ability to express such desires to others, provided that they adhere to the rules regarding polite advertising by keeping their intentions discreet?

Nicholas King said:In dubio pro reo. That’s really all there is to it.

If there were some higher reasoning behind this—say, "we're panicking because Google might flag us as a porn site," or "we're worried about advertisers revolting," or something along those lines—there would be a way to let the average forum user know, in one form or another.

But the actual issue here is that the moderators insist on acting like their arbitrary decisions regarding what is "allowed" or "not allowed" constitute some sort of coherent policy for managing PDFs and threads. From where I’m sitting, this entire situation has perfectly demonstrated that when it comes to the "can/cannot" criteria, they are guided exclusively by their own personal values—which, frankly, isn't exactly a solid foundation for moderation. I mean, who actually cares about subjective sentences like "Personally, I am against this or that"? Not to mention that incredibly muddled attempt at formulating the rule: "if this were truly a serious Advertisement from someone living in a polygamous relationship/marriage, then we would decide how to handle it based on the written text and the implicit message it sends."...

Even when people are being foolish, they generally don't appreciate being treated like they're stupid. And this level of arbitrariness in moderating an Advertisement—without providing a single meaningful explanation as to why something can or cannot stay (or rather, what catastrophe would occur if a problematic 🙄 Advertisement wasn't deleted)—is precisely that: "we did it because we felt like it, so, what, a breakup? Is this a game of cat and mouse?"

This is precisely the point I am making.

If certain topics are strictly prohibited in an Advertisement, yet people continue to seek them out regardless, then we have a responsibility to provide a response that actually carries weight—one that doesn't simply rely on:

"My colleague and I both hold a rather skeptical view regarding the concept of open relationships," noted the moderator.
It seems to me that people in committed relationships simply lack anything substantial to offer those of us currently navigating the single life, so they resort to these little displays just to satisfy their own whims.

Furthermore, any decision of this magnitude ought to be accompanied by a coherent, well-reasoned justification—ideally one issued directly by the forum administrator or the owner themselves.

Dennis Jackson38 said:

Sophia Thomas7 As stated by:
That wasn't quite what I was asking.

With all due respect, your question lacks any clear structure or coherent logic, which is precisely why my response turned out the way it did.
You simply cannot claim to know for certain that readership won't decline, but you really ought to consider the sheer volume of grievances being aired by entire factions of the community regarding advertisements over these last few months. It serves as a glaring indicator that there is widespread dissatisfaction within the collective, suggesting that a shift in strategy is absolutely necessary. This should be viewed as a clear signal for the US moderators—and keep in mind, you aren't one of them.
It is also worth noting that the individuals behind these Advertisements aren't limited to just a small circle of clones from the States; they represent a diverse spectrum of people. We aren't merely a tiny group of regulars who post every day; there is actually a much larger community observing and participating here on the US Forum.

The crux of the matter is this: there is absolutely no need for the moderator to offer any kind of personal justification or claim that they hold a negative bias against open relationships when making these types of decisions.

You serve as an excellent case in point here. You frequently emphasize on the Forum just how much importance you place on the "trio" dynamic, and how you believe one can certainly maintain such a connection within a relationship. Whether we are talking about discussions on LJES, the US Forum, or anywhere else, I fail to see the issue. Why should we withhold the ability to express such desires to others, provided that they adhere to the rules regarding polite advertising by keeping their intentions discreet?

This is precisely the point I am making.

If certain topics are strictly prohibited in an Advertisement, yet people continue to seek them out regardless, then we have a responsibility to provide a response that actually carries weight—one that doesn't simply rely on:

"My colleague and I both hold a rather skeptical view regarding the concept of open relationships," noted the moderator.
It seems to me that people in committed relationships simply lack anything substantial to offer those of us currently navigating the single life, so they resort to these little displays just to satisfy their own whims.

Furthermore, any decision of this magnitude ought to be accompanied by a coherent, well-reasoned justification—ideally one issued directly by the forum administrator or the owner themselves.

The question was perfectly coherent. I don't see nearly enough people complaining about the fact that sex isn't allowed in US advertisements to suggest that readership would take a massive hit.

Regarding your point about it being "different people"—you haven't been a moderator for the US, but I have—and honestly, your statement is pretty far from the truth if you actually believe that most of those advertisers are unique individuals and the clones are just a minority. 😁

Dennis Jackson38 said:

Sophia Thomas7 As stated by:
That wasn't quite what I was asking.

With all due respect, your question lacks any clear structure or coherent logic, which is precisely why my response turned out the way it did.
You simply cannot claim to know for certain that readership won't decline, but you really ought to consider the sheer volume of grievances being aired by entire factions of the community regarding advertisements over these last few months. It serves as a glaring indicator that there is widespread dissatisfaction within the collective, suggesting that a shift in strategy is absolutely necessary. This should be viewed as a clear signal for the US moderators—and keep in mind, you aren't one of them.
It is also worth noting that the individuals behind these Advertisements aren't limited to just a small circle of clones from the States; they represent a diverse spectrum of people. We aren't merely a tiny group of regulars who post every day; there is actually a much larger community observing and participating here on the US Forum.

The crux of the matter is this: there is absolutely no need for the moderator to offer any kind of personal justification or claim that they hold a negative bias against open relationships when making these types of decisions.

You serve as an excellent case in point here. You frequently emphasize on the Forum just how much importance you place on the "trio" dynamic, and how you believe one can certainly maintain such a connection within a relationship. Whether we are talking about discussions on LJES, the US Forum, or anywhere else, I fail to see the issue. Why should we withhold the ability to express such desires to others, provided that they adhere to the rules regarding polite advertising by keeping their intentions discreet?

This is precisely the point I am making.

If certain topics are strictly prohibited in an Advertisement, yet people continue to seek them out regardless, then we have a responsibility to provide a response that actually carries weight—one that doesn't simply rely on:

"My colleague and I both hold a rather skeptical view regarding the concept of open relationships," noted the moderator.
It seems to me that people in committed relationships simply lack anything substantial to offer those of us currently navigating the single life, so they resort to these little displays just to satisfy their own whims.

Furthermore, any decision of this magnitude ought to be accompanied by a coherent, well-reasoned justification—ideally one issued directly by the forum administrator or the owner themselves.

I said a long time ago that I've never posted an ad in the Classifieds because looking for a partner for a threesome isn't allowed. 😉

Sophia Thomas7 said:I haven't received a single answer to my question yet (which I already asked): why are sex Advertisements banned?

As far as I'm concerned, if someone gets hit for deleting a paid ad, then every single ad looking for sex should be getting wiped too.

Exactly.

To start with, absolutely every single Advertisement that includes the phrase "not looking for a relationship"—well, we all know what's actually being sought there; those whole routines about "just chatting" and "hanging out" are just selling someone else a load of crap!!!11!!eight!!!.

After that, you have every Advertisement that doesn't explicitly state "looking for a relationship"—because, let's be honest, we all know, if you didn't write that you're looking for a relationship, then you aren't actually looking for one; all that nonsense.

Once everything is cleaned up nicely like that, those two lonely ads that somehow survive all those "we all know" filters don't even need to be renewed—they'll basically stay perched at the top of the page forever anyway.

"We get it," right? It's a totally valid way to judge intent when it comes to moderation.

Generally speaking—not even talking about this specific situation—posting can be harmful to the PDF, you know? Like, it can undermine actual discussions or just be super negative and argumentative without ever actually using explicit insults. Sure, maybe X said this sentence here, and Y said something similar that didn't technically break any rules, but those two things could be fundamentally different in vibe. You seem to keep coming back to these almost robotic, "if-then" type complaints about how mods are supposed to actually *know* what's going on. Well, they should know! They should be able to judge the situation—that's literally part of the job description. It’s not just about having an automated system that scrubs certain keywords.

So, I guess you could say that using moderator discretion is both logical and honestly pretty necessary for effective moderation.

-Steve

briskjackal5 said:"We get it," right? It's a totally valid way to judge intent when it comes to moderation.

Generally speaking—not even talking about this specific situation—posting can be harmful to the PDF, you know? Like, it can undermine actual discussions or just be super negative and argumentative without ever actually using explicit insults. Sure, maybe X said this sentence here, and Y said something similar that didn't technically break any rules, but those two things could be fundamentally different in vibe. You seem to keep coming back to these almost robotic, "if-then" type complaints about how mods are supposed to actually *know* what's going on. Well, they should know! They should be able to judge the situation—that's literally part of the job description. It’s not just about having an automated system that scrubs certain keywords.

So, I guess you could say that using moderator discretion is both logical and honestly pretty necessary for effective moderation.

-Steve

Pure nonsense.

Let them know, let them judge...

By all means, let them know and let them judge—but there actually has to be some semblance of a system involved. Identical situations need to receive identical judgments.

I’ve pointed out several instances where they completely lost the plot in situations that were essentially identical—and please, don't try to play games with me regarding "similar tones" versus "different meanings." We are talking about physical contact that lasted weeks, which would have dragged on for years if Nicole Ruiz hadn't brought it up; we're talking about a married man whose situation lasted four days, but would have stretched to 444 days if I hadn't intervened. It was also clearly demonstrated that the moderator "knew" a post was perfectly fine, only to have that exact same post deleted just two days later.

Everything you’re rambling about concerning subversive content or whatever other "horrible" posts—it honestly has absolutely nothing to do with the Advertisements being discussed here.

Moderators actually need to have some judgment and know how to evaluate things, otherwise they’d be totally useless and we could just let a script handle their entire job
But seriously, unless you're one of those mods or admins who thinks sex is somehow gross or tacky, is there any actual reason why people can't just find someone they click with and go at it?
Take counterfeit designer goods, for instance—people rip them off and sell them constantly without anyone blinking an eye, yet here we are. Sex is just a perfectly legal activity between two consenting adults, and the only real obstacle right now is the weird hang-up living inside some people's heads.
It honestly feels unfair that this US Forum has to deal with the fallout just because certain individuals don't know how to enjoy themselves properly.

I don't need to hold an official moderator title to spot irregularities, Sophia Thomas7. 😉

Furthermore, what leads you to believe that most of the users on this US Forum are merely clones of the authors behind various Advertisements? Are you attempting to cross-reference IP addresses across every single Advertisement, or something along those lines?

Dennis Jackson38 said:I don't need to hold an official moderator title to spot irregularities, Sophia Thomas7. 😉

Furthermore, what leads you to believe that most of the users on this US Forum are merely clones of the authors behind various Advertisements? Are you attempting to cross-reference IP addresses across every single Advertisement, or something along those lines?

I wasn't even talking about whether there were irregularities or not. My point was just to highlight how incredibly skeptical I am about that whole "if we discriminate based on sex in our advertisements, views will drop" correlation.

Dennis Jackson38 said:I don't need to hold an official moderator title to spot irregularities, Sophia Thomas7. 😉

Furthermore, what leads you to believe that most of the users on this US Forum are merely clones of the authors behind various Advertisements? Are you attempting to cross-reference IP addresses across every single Advertisement, or something along those lines?

Regarding this last point, the fact that we're dealing with all sorts of different people— You weren't a moderator for the US Forum, but I was. And honestly, your claim is pretty far from the truth if you’re actually convinced that most people there are "diverse" while only a few are clones.

I think I made myself pretty clear. 😉 Honestly, back when I was acting as a moderator, I made it a point to check the IPeve logs for pretty much every single advertisement we had to delete. I did it because they were constantly breaking the rules.

Oh, come on. Things have probably changed quite a bit since then. It’s likely just a bunch of lurkers who finally decided to log in just to drop an Advertisement. 😬 Just like those people on that one thread where they go, "I’ve been lurking this whole time, but I finally decided to jump in just so I could actually say something to this thread." 😬

Dennis Jackson38 said:If the admin mentioned a few pages back that people shouldn't be overtly seeking sex in their Advertisements and should just mind their phrasing, I have to wonder: why should any of us care what kind of companionship others are looking for? Truly, why does it matter?

We are talking about Lonely Hearts here, and everyone has their own unique way of being lonely and their own specific voids to fill. It is perfectly legal, and frankly, it falls outside our jurisdiction—or anyone else's for that matter. It seems quite absurd to suggest that one person has the right to edit someone else's personal criteria, unless those criteria explicitly state something like "I want to hook up" or "I'm looking for sex"—assuming, of course, that such directness isn't already deemed inappropriate for some reason (even though being upfront about needs is a healthy, normal part of most successful dates, but let's stay on track).

Following that line of logic, you would essentially be banning eighty-five percent of the articles and features found in any major print or digital media outlet today.
Do you realize how much that would tank viewership and readership? The impact would be massive.

I fail to see why a site like US Forum would radically diminish its own engagement by enforcing the personal preferences of moderators and stripping away the right to diversity in what people seek.

Personally, I suspect the traffic has actually spiked because everyone stumbling upon this thread is heading over to the US site just to see what kind of Advertisements they’re running over there.😁😁😁

As for personal preferences, I suppose she survived the shock, but I wouldn't call this a violation of the right to diversity; rather, it feels more like an attempt to question whether certain sub-forums even have a right to their own distinct identity. Since they have Advertisements on the US site, I guess they're trying to light everything up over there... the other day, there was even an Ad where a user was looking for a roommate to share an apartment, mentioning she had a washing machine and that the utilities weren't too expensive, and so on and so forth.

Nicholas King said:Pure nonsense.

Let them know, let them judge...

By all means, let them know and let them judge—but there actually has to be some semblance of a system involved. Identical situations need to receive identical judgments.

I’ve pointed out several instances where they completely lost the plot in situations that were essentially identical—and please, don't try to play games with me regarding "similar tones" versus "different meanings." We are talking about physical contact that lasted weeks, which would have dragged on for years if Nicole Ruiz hadn't brought it up; we're talking about a married man whose situation lasted four days, but would have stretched to 444 days if I hadn't intervened. It was also clearly demonstrated that the moderator "knew" a post was perfectly fine, only to have that exact same post deleted just two days later.

Everything you’re rambling about concerning subversive content or whatever other "horrible" posts—it honestly has absolutely nothing to do with the Advertisements being discussed here.

Just facts.

I mean, I’m just skimming through the PŽK, and even then, I totally noticed you constantly insisting on that whole "we all know" thing. Like, you don't even need to stay on this thread to realize it—if you're doing it without even noticing it yourself, that's kind of a giveaway, I guess. 😁

People should definitely know and judge, obviously—but there really needs to be some kind of system in place. Identical things have to be judged identically.

Totally.

A few examples are shown right here...

I honestly think "generally speaking, not in this specific case" was a pretty easy phrase to follow. It's placed exactly where it needs to be, I suppose. 😁

Everything you're saying about subversive posts and all those horrible things has absolutely nothing to do with the Advertisements we're talking about here.

Well, it's connected indirectly, you know? Through that "we all know" vibe you keep emphasizing and dragging into your posts here on the PŽK.

I think hollowtrucker77 is making a really good point when they say that scripting everything and endlessly writing down every single rule isn't actually a practical or even possible solution. Mod assessment is a legitimate and totally necessary part of the moderation story—it's not just about mathematical spreadsheets with expressions and matching point totals.
It goes way beyond just this one topic; but, yeah, you started pulling that same old phrase back into it again.

-Steve

Jacob Wood9 said:Personally, I suspect the traffic has actually spiked because everyone stumbling upon this thread is heading over to the US site just to see what kind of Advertisements they’re running over there.😁😁😁

As for personal preferences, I suppose she survived the shock, but I wouldn't call this a violation of the right to diversity; rather, it feels more like an attempt to question whether certain sub-forums even have a right to their own distinct identity. Since they have Advertisements on the US site, I guess they're trying to light everything up over there... the other day, there was even an Ad where a user was looking for a roommate to share an apartment, mentioning she had a washing machine and that the utilities weren't too expensive, and so on and so forth.

Well, that sounds wonderful; let the readership increase. 😉

On a separate note (and this goes to Phibsu as well), my primary contention is that individuals should surely have the right to express their specific romantic or emotional preferences through Advertisements. If one person's ideal partner involves a very specific dynamic, another requires a third party, and a third seeks nothing more than casual flirting—provided they articulate these desires without being indecent—it remains entirely unclear why or for what purpose such freedom of pursuit would be restricted in the Advertisements section when that same freedom is, of course, perfectly permissible within the discussion topics.

That is all. 😁

Dennis Jackson38 said:Well, that sounds wonderful; let the readership increase. 😉

On a separate note (and this goes to Phibsu as well), my primary contention is that individuals should surely have the right to express their specific romantic or emotional preferences through Advertisements. If one person's ideal partner involves a very specific dynamic, another requires a third party, and a third seeks nothing more than casual flirting—provided they articulate these desires without being indecent—it remains entirely unclear why or for what purpose such freedom of pursuit would be restricted in the Advertisements section when that same freedom is, of course, perfectly permissible within the discussion topics.

That is all. 😁

I actually agree with what was written here. I've felt the same way even before on the 'reviewing the ads' thread.

Jacob Wood9 said:Personally, I suspect the traffic has actually spiked because everyone stumbling upon this thread is heading over to the US site just to see what kind of Advertisements they’re running over there.😁😁😁

As for personal preferences, I suppose she survived the shock, but I wouldn't call this a violation of the right to diversity; rather, it feels more like an attempt to question whether certain sub-forums even have a right to their own distinct identity. Since they have Advertisements on the US site, I guess they're trying to light everything up over there... the other day, there was even an Ad where a user was looking for a roommate to share an apartment, mentioning she had a washing machine and that the utilities weren't too expensive, and so on and so forth.

And apparently, you aren't even allowed to post that you're looking for a girlfriend anymore.
😁
Honestly, who knows what they actually mean when they write "I have a washing machine"??

Dennis Jackson38 said:Well, that sounds wonderful; let the readership increase. 😉

On a separate note (and this goes to Phibsu as well), my primary contention is that individuals should surely have the right to express their specific romantic or emotional preferences through Advertisements. If one person's ideal partner involves a very specific dynamic, another requires a third party, and a third seeks nothing more than casual flirting—provided they articulate these desires without being indecent—it remains entirely unclear why or for what purpose such freedom of pursuit would be restricted in the Advertisements section when that same freedom is, of course, perfectly permissible within the discussion topics.

That is all. 😁

Setting criteria isn't the same thing as discrimination.

Look, if there are specific requirements for something and someone tries to jump in without meeting them, that’s just not discrimination.

In this situation, the rule for an ad on the US Forum is that it has to be for the US, not for LJES or ŽuD or whatever else. That decision falls under the moderator's jurisdiction, not some imaginary authority.

Obviously, couples or married people can post on the US Forum and run ads, but that's impossible to police. What we *can* actually do is stick to the logic and the intended purpose of the PDF.

It’s honestly mind-blowing how you can so rudely ignore a fact that's been repeated over and over—a fact that's basically the entire foundation of the US Forum concept.

I don't think there's anything else left to say here.

Ashley Bishop4 said:Setting criteria isn't the same thing as discrimination.

Look, if there are specific requirements for something and someone tries to jump in without meeting them, that’s just not discrimination.

In this situation, the rule for an ad on the US Forum is that it has to be for the US, not for LJES or ŽuD or whatever else. That decision falls under the moderator's jurisdiction, not some imaginary authority.

Obviously, couples or married people can post on the US Forum and run ads, but that's impossible to police. What we *can* actually do is stick to the logic and the intended purpose of the PDF.

It’s honestly mind-blowing how you can so rudely ignore a fact that's been repeated over and over—a fact that's basically the entire foundation of the US Forum concept.

I don't think there's anything else left to say here.

It’s both unclear and frankly nonsensical that you can't grasp how an advertisement is specifically designed to find a single member of the US. 🤷