Treatment referrals, forum social roles, and more

Disclaimer: this is going to be boring—there’s no blood, no insults toward anyone's mother, no images, and I'm not trying to bait any bans or red cards... there's nothing of the sort.

Following the summer slump on the PZ, things have started heating up over the last few days—specifically regarding whether or not it should be punishable to suggest someone needs psychological or psychiatric treatment. Furthermore, the supermoderator has once again been branded incompetent, partly because she apparently fails to see that suggesting a user seek treatment is justified in certain instances and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned.

In the same vein, for the umpteenth time, the eternal debate has resurfaced: "What is the relationship between the forum and real life, and what is real life to the forum?"—essentially, what should the "forum do or undertake" in one specific case or another.

I realize it might look like I'm seizing an opportunity while most of the main players are currently banned, but this isn't a vendetta against them (I already said this would be boring); rather, it’s just a few scattered thoughts. I don't think this is off-topic, but I won't lose any sleep if someone decides to delete or lock the thread.

Actually, it’s far too hot for me to go into a massive elaboration; I really only wanted to say two things. First, all levels of administration are truly incompetent—but in a completely different sense: they are professionally incompetent when it comes to judging whether calling a forum user mentally ill constitutes an insult or serves as a correct diagnosis. It isn't their job, nor should they be dealing with it even if they were professionally competent. That is precisely why I believe the phrase "go get treated" is an insult that should always be sanctioned.

Second, I don't see any basis upon which any level of forum administration should be monitoring posts to report potential instances of this or that to "the authorities"—in other words, I don't see why this should be the responsibility of the administration more or less than anyone else who reads the posts. You only need a tiny bit of caricature to argue that we could just as easily demand that an ISP monitor everything its users write. Besides, in situations where someone's writing suggests the author has certain issues (and where they aren't announcing some criminal act), what are we supposed to do? Report it to whom?

I also feel compelled to mention this: I am just as terrified by clear examples of people advocating for violence and taking pride in their own biographical violent endeavors (and I'm not just talking about recent events; you can find detailed descriptions on other threads of what one user or another would do to certain people), as I am by anyone embarking on a mission to "fix the world by any means necessary, whether those means are legal or not." Unpopular opinion aside, I am quite literally afraid of such people; I wouldn't want to be in physical proximity to them, because I never know if I or someone dear to me might end up in one of those many situations where they feel they have a right to justified🙄 violence. We might say the wrong word or act incorrectly... but I still maintain that labeling someone as ill on the forum should be sanctioned, no matter how pedantic it may seem to some.

There. I did say this would be boring 🙂.

Yeah, it’s a little dry. I wish there were at least some images, emojis, or something to break it up...

It took me a minute to wrap my head around what’s actually going on here, but once you dive into the details, you realize there's a certain intrigue to it. Kind of like math, I guess.

Look, some would argue that the civic duty of administrators should be to step in early and prevent another Brevik situation. We all know what his agenda was, and his like-minded followers over on sites like Fox News don't exactly get sanctioned—let alone sent for help—as long as they keep their rhetoric just subtle enough.

Anyway, we really need some standardized criteria. Maybe include a little "report to police" or "contact a psychiatrist" button that links directly to the right authorities?

Or, perhaps the solution lies in this whole politically correct movement toward respecting mental diversity? In that case, terms like "lunatic," "psychopath," or "schizophrenic" wouldn't be considered insults, and therefore wouldn't be sanctioned at all.

Personally, I usually go by the rule that "barking dogs don't bite." In other words, just because someone is talking absolute trash on a forum doesn't mean I'd be afraid to run into them in real life (stating the obvious 😬).

* then again, some people really are just talking trash 🙂

This forum has long since devolved into what one user aptly described as liberal fascism. Honestly, the sheer amount of restriction and the constant attempts
to narrow the scope of discussion down to nothing more than robotics—and specifically just trivial, benign examples of it at that. Well, benign compared to the average post on here, anyway. Speaking of users (names are hateful, aren't they?) who served as the catalyst for this entire debate despite a failed attempt at masking their identity: unfortunately, as several others have noted, I believe suggesting someone prone to such outbursts of aggression and hate speech see a psychiatrist is a recommendation that should be welcomed rather than penalized. You can tell pretty clearly from the context whether a remark like that is meant to be malicious or if it’s actually quite appropriate. Moderators should act like human beings, not robots; they ought to have a sense of intuition and be able to recognize nuance within a context. I truly don't doubt the good intentions behind the comment when it was directed at an individual who has repeatedly displayed bursts of intense aggression and hate speech—behavior that, if it hadn't come from a prominent member, would have been met with the harshest sanctions long ago. Probably a permanent ban. To highlight the hypocrisy inherent in this and similar threads, one only needs to recall the case of that quiet girl on the forum whom another moderator labeled a sociopathic monster and suggested seek medical treatment for, all without any sanctions following a massive lynching and belittling by numerous users. No one faced consequences except for the female user who ended up drinking bleach because she was deemed... a sociopathic monster. I suppose when it comes to "empathetic monsters," the ability to reflect or carefully verbalize one's thoughts isn't considered a priority in these discussions, though that is a topic worth discussing itself. And that's before we even get into the whining over the ban of the person whose name we won't mention. Not to mention the issue of deleting posts, which feels uncomfortably reminiscent of certain long-buried regimes. Someone insults someone else? Their writing is litigious? In that case, we should probably just leave those posts up for public pride; it would allow potential prosecutors to see how the extremist should be isolated and dealt with appropriately, whether at a local police station or the FBI.

I don't see any kind of liberal fascism here. It feels more like a sudden surge of intellectual snobbery because the (presumably smarter) moderators tend to favor users who can actually write and articulate their thoughts. Most of what gets labeled as "aggressive outbursts" isn't even hate speech—it's just basic trolling.

Sure, it’s basically discrimination against the uninformed and the illiterate. What should we do next? Maybe establish a "special needs forum user" category just so they can have equal rights?

Or maybe we should all stop using words on this forum altogether and just communicate through emojis? Actually, never mind, Facebook already exists for that. ☕

Joseph Bailey41 said:I don't see any kind of liberal fascism here. It feels more like a sudden surge of intellectual snobbery because the (presumably smarter) moderators tend to favor users who can actually write and articulate their thoughts. Most of what gets labeled as "aggressive outbursts" isn't even hate speech—it's just basic trolling.

Sure, it’s basically discrimination against the uninformed and the illiterate. What should we do next? Maybe establish a "special needs forum user" category just so they can have equal rights?

Or maybe we should all stop using words on this forum altogether and just communicate through emojis? Actually, never mind, Facebook already exists for that. ☕

In a world built on double standards and pure delusion, maybe you'd be right. In that fantasy land, we could easily mistake intellectual snobbery for what it really is: frustrated, uninformed whining. In the real world, the actions taken by supermoderators and mods regarding the latter are quite justified. Those so-called "privileged" posters have proven themselves to be nothing more than typical trolls with a knack for ruining any thread worth reading. Not to mention that certain trolling over the last few days has escalated to the point where it definitely crosses into criminal territory. Besides, those self-proclaimed intellectuals recently tried to escape this breeding ground of stupidity and perceived discrimination by scattering their "super productive" seeds of wisdom everywhere. Somehow, they retreated with their tails between their legs much faster than expected. Truth be told, the idiots and the illiterates didn't miss them one bit, nor did they pose any threat to the forum's marketing or financial stability. What is undeniably obvious is how much livelier the PZ has become since they decided to grace us again with their "brilliant" insights. They should probably just go back to wherever they came from. They do nothing but cause damage here because, despite their supposed genius—which is clearly visible only in extremely rare cases—they lack the most basic sense of online etiquette and self-control.

It’s always pretty telling when someone starts mistaking a forum for actual reality. 😉

If you honestly think something warrants a criminal report, go ahead and call the police instead of bothering the supermods. It’s nice that you feel like you're being looked after, but that doesn't mean you get to decide who gets to post and who doesn't. Sorry, but that's just how the world works. 😍

Joseph Bailey41 said:Yeah, it’s a little dry. I wish there were at least some images, emojis, or something to break it up...

It took me a minute to wrap my head around what’s actually going on here, but once you dive into the details, you realize there's a certain intrigue to it. Kind of like math, I guess.

Look, some would argue that the civic duty of administrators should be to step in early and prevent another Brevik situation. We all know what his agenda was, and his like-minded followers over on sites like Fox News don't exactly get sanctioned—let alone sent for help—as long as they keep their rhetoric just subtle enough.

Anyway, we really need some standardized criteria. Maybe include a little "report to police" or "contact a psychiatrist" button that links directly to the right authorities?

Or, perhaps the solution lies in this whole politically correct movement toward respecting mental diversity? In that case, terms like "lunatic," "psychopath," or "schizophrenic" wouldn't be considered insults, and therefore wouldn't be sanctioned at all.

Personally, I usually go by the rule that "barking dogs don't bite." In other words, just because someone is talking absolute trash on a forum doesn't mean I'd be afraid to run into them in real life (stating the obvious 😬).

* then again, some people really are just talking trash 🙂

Do you have a specific example that’s bothering you?

Moderation exists so people don't just say whatever wild stuff they want under the guise of online anonymity (not everyone does it constantly, but some do, and most do it occasionally). If "wrapped in enough layers" just means avoiding insults, hate speech, or calls for violence, then it's fine. Because, like you pointed out, we haven't introduced electric shock collars yet; people are still free to think whatever they want.

If we missed something, please just report it. I'd rather deal with a report than have everyone just taking one more shot at the moderators.

If I were to list everything that’s actually bothering me, it would take way too much time and energy—neither of which I have to spare right now—but don't think for a second that I won't eventually get to it.

I have a specific question: if I start reporting posts, am I allowed to flag ones that are just blatant lies and total fabrications? I was thinking maybe they could at least get a strike for every lie told; if someone keeps it up, those points might eventually add up to a long-term ban. 😍

Of course you can. Intentionally twisting well-known facts is a violation, but if you want to go that route, just send me a DM. There’s a chance I might actually follow up with you to ask for some clarification on certain points.

Since we're laying out the ground rules here, two things: First, I don't have any tendency to label everything a lie. That word gets thrown around way too much on this forum for stuff that's really just nonsense, bad logic, or someone simply being uninformed. Second, unless it's a major violation, I'm not going to issue a formal warning for posts that have been sitting there for a long time.

Anyway, I hope you'll put in the effort. Helping out the moderators—when it's articulated and well-intentioned—is never a bad thing.

Joseph Bailey41 said:It’s always pretty telling when someone starts mistaking a forum for actual reality. 😉

If you honestly think something warrants a criminal report, go ahead and call the police instead of bothering the supermods. It’s nice that you feel like you're being looked after, but that doesn't mean you get to decide who gets to post and who doesn't. Sorry, but that's just how the world works. 😍

Personally, I find it just as telling when people try to convince me that I’m somehow hallucinating this entire forum.

Yeah, the forum is real; the more people acknowledge that, the better this place actually gets.

The mental illness being discussed here is also, unfortunately, a reality. That goes for the stories about the guy I'm talking about too—and trust me, none of this is pleasant to deal with—because his nonsense isn't just detached from reality in a general sense, which includes the internet (TV, news, and everything else beyond their immediate bubble), but it's also tied to the reality of the streets, where he claims he physically attacks people.

Obviously, I can't drop a clinical diagnosis here; that's what professionals are for. But just like we’d tell someone who constantly posts on a forum about painful sores and infections that they need to see an STD specialist immediately—especially if they're bragging about being reckless—it’s just as obvious that this situation involves someone who is clearly unwell, even if we aren't doctors and this isn't a clinic.

Simply put, even a reasonably informed layperson can see there's a serious health issue at play here.

driftingeagle27 said:Personally, I find it just as telling when people try to convince me that I’m somehow hallucinating this entire forum.

Yeah, the forum is real; the more people acknowledge that, the better this place actually gets.

The mental illness being discussed here is also, unfortunately, a reality. That goes for the stories about the guy I'm talking about too—and trust me, none of this is pleasant to deal with—because his nonsense isn't just detached from reality in a general sense, which includes the internet (TV, news, and everything else beyond their immediate bubble), but it's also tied to the reality of the streets, where he claims he physically attacks people.

Obviously, I can't drop a clinical diagnosis here; that's what professionals are for. But just like we’d tell someone who constantly posts on a forum about painful sores and infections that they need to see an STD specialist immediately—especially if they're bragging about being reckless—it’s just as obvious that this situation involves someone who is clearly unwell, even if we aren't doctors and this isn't a clinic.

Simply put, even a reasonably informed layperson can see there's a serious health issue at play here.

Right. But if you aren't supposed to diagnose people, then why even label them at all?
The term "psychopath" is a psychiatric diagnosis—regardless of how much people try to water it down these days.

But look, if someone is constantly posting on a forum about painful sores in their private areas and dealing with infections—especially when they admit to being highly promiscuous and not using protection—you’d tell them they need to see a specialist immediately. In that case, it’s pretty obvious that this person is clearly mentally ill too.

Why would you tell one person to go see a doctor, but tell another that they are, plain and simple, undoubtedly sick? 😕

even though, I agree, we aren't doctors and this isn't a medical clinic.

See, this is a perfect example of when using a word like "undoubtedly" actually makes sense.
Even a dermatologist wouldn't dream of diagnosing someone or prescribing medication based solely on an internet forum. So how on earth does it make sense for a layperson in the field of mental health to do exactly that?

It's just that, even for a reasonably informed layperson, it's clear there is a health issue here.

Based on what diagnostic tools did you reach that conclusion? Where are the test results?
Man, hospitals could save a fortune if they didn't have to buy expensive psych diagnostic tools, tests, and manuals, since it's apparently obvious—even to amateurs—that pathology can be diagnosed just by reading forum posts.☕

No one without a degree in psychology or psychiatry has the right to hand out diagnoses like that, especially without proper clinical assessment. Forum posts—no matter how indicative they seem or how "obvious" they might look to a layman—simply aren't diagnostic evidence. This kind of forum "diagnosing," even if it's written with (undoubtedly ☕ ) the best intentions and total seriousness, is just as unprofessional, quackish, and trolling as telling someone, "Hey, go get help."

Eric Gray2 said:Right. But if you aren't supposed to diagnose people, then why even label them at all?
The term "psychopath" is a psychiatric diagnosis—regardless of how much people try to water it down these days.

But look, if someone is constantly posting on a forum about painful sores in their private areas and dealing with infections—especially when they admit to being highly promiscuous and not using protection—you’d tell them they need to see a specialist immediately. In that case, it’s pretty obvious that this person is clearly mentally ill too.

Why would you tell one person to go see a doctor, but tell another that they are, plain and simple, undoubtedly sick? 😕

even though, I agree, we aren't doctors and this isn't a medical clinic.

See, this is a perfect example of when using a word like "undoubtedly" actually makes sense.
Even a dermatologist wouldn't dream of diagnosing someone or prescribing medication based solely on an internet forum. So how on earth does it make sense for a layperson in the field of mental health to do exactly that?

It's just that, even for a reasonably informed layperson, it's clear there is a health issue here.

Based on what diagnostic tools did you reach that conclusion? Where are the test results?
Man, hospitals could save a fortune if they didn't have to buy expensive psych diagnostic tools, tests, and manuals, since it's apparently obvious—even to amateurs—that pathology can be diagnosed just by reading forum posts.☕

No one without a degree in psychology or psychiatry has the right to hand out diagnoses like that, especially without proper clinical assessment. Forum posts—no matter how indicative they seem or how "obvious" they might look to a layman—simply aren't diagnostic evidence. This kind of forum "diagnosing," even if it's written with (undoubtedly ☕ ) the best intentions and total seriousness, is just as unprofessional, quackish, and trolling as telling someone, "Hey, go get help."

Yet, it seems this type of insult goes completely unpunished. 🤷

Eric Gray2 said:Right. But if you aren't supposed to diagnose people, then why even label them at all?
The term "psychopath" is a psychiatric diagnosis—regardless of how much people try to water it down these days.

But look, if someone is constantly posting on a forum about painful sores in their private areas and dealing with infections—especially when they admit to being highly promiscuous and not using protection—you’d tell them they need to see a specialist immediately. In that case, it’s pretty obvious that this person is clearly mentally ill too.

Why would you tell one person to go see a doctor, but tell another that they are, plain and simple, undoubtedly sick? 😕

even though, I agree, we aren't doctors and this isn't a medical clinic.

See, this is a perfect example of when using a word like "undoubtedly" actually makes sense.
Even a dermatologist wouldn't dream of diagnosing someone or prescribing medication based solely on an internet forum. So how on earth does it make sense for a layperson in the field of mental health to do exactly that?

It's just that, even for a reasonably informed layperson, it's clear there is a health issue here.

Based on what diagnostic tools did you reach that conclusion? Where are the test results?
Man, hospitals could save a fortune if they didn't have to buy expensive psych diagnostic tools, tests, and manuals, since it's apparently obvious—even to amateurs—that pathology can be diagnosed just by reading forum posts.☕

No one without a degree in psychology or psychiatry has the right to hand out diagnoses like that, especially without proper clinical assessment. Forum posts—no matter how indicative they seem or how "obvious" they might look to a layman—simply aren't diagnostic evidence. This kind of forum "diagnosing," even if it's written with (undoubtedly ☕ ) the best intentions and total seriousness, is just as unprofessional, quackish, and trolling as telling someone, "Hey, go get help."

ERM, I've got a feeling his comment is actually talking about those painful bumps in the groin area along with some nasty discharge.
What exactly are we claiming isn't enough for an informed layperson to "diagnose" a real health issue? Seriously? I mean, come on!

Eric Gray2 said:Right. But if you aren't supposed to diagnose people, then why even label them at all?
The term "psychopath" is a psychiatric diagnosis—regardless of how much people try to water it down these days.

But look, if someone is constantly posting on a forum about painful sores in their private areas and dealing with infections—especially when they admit to being highly promiscuous and not using protection—you’d tell them they need to see a specialist immediately. In that case, it’s pretty obvious that this person is clearly mentally ill too.

Why would you tell one person to go see a doctor, but tell another that they are, plain and simple, undoubtedly sick? 😕

even though, I agree, we aren't doctors and this isn't a medical clinic.

See, this is a perfect example of when using a word like "undoubtedly" actually makes sense.
Even a dermatologist wouldn't dream of diagnosing someone or prescribing medication based solely on an internet forum. So how on earth does it make sense for a layperson in the field of mental health to do exactly that?

It's just that, even for a reasonably informed layperson, it's clear there is a health issue here.

Based on what diagnostic tools did you reach that conclusion? Where are the test results?
Man, hospitals could save a fortune if they didn't have to buy expensive psych diagnostic tools, tests, and manuals, since it's apparently obvious—even to amateurs—that pathology can be diagnosed just by reading forum posts.☕

No one without a degree in psychology or psychiatry has the right to hand out diagnoses like that, especially without proper clinical assessment. Forum posts—no matter how indicative they seem or how "obvious" they might look to a layman—simply aren't diagnostic evidence. This kind of forum "diagnosing," even if it's written with (undoubtedly ☕ ) the best intentions and total seriousness, is just as unprofessional, quackish, and trolling as telling someone, "Hey, go get help."

Wait, what exactly are we talking about here? I mean, looking at this whole forum, the scope is just massive!

Look, obviously calling someone a psychopath or mentally ill is an insult. Period.
So, what actually counts as an insult worthy of a red card these days? Like, if someone just tells another person, "Hey, maybe you should go talk to a psychologist for a bit," does that really cross the line? Is that even worth a penalty?
Did I get you wrong? Feel free to set me straight on that first part of the quote, too. Honestly, looking at this thread, it’s not exactly clear where you guys are pulling all these mental health diagnoses from. Like, what's actually triggering this whole thing?

There’s another issue we have to deal with here—hypersensitivity. It's a real thing.
So, apparently, every single sentence on this forum that uses words like "problem" or "issue" is now being treated as some kind of medical diagnosis. Honestly? Total nonsense. Just complete nonsense.

dustyranger64 said:ERM, I've got a feeling his comment is actually talking about those painful bumps in the groin area along with some nasty discharge.
What exactly are we claiming isn't enough for an informed layperson to "diagnose" a real health issue? Seriously? I mean, come on!

Wait, what exactly are we talking about here? I mean, looking at this whole forum, the scope is just massive!

Look, obviously calling someone a psychopath or mentally ill is an insult. Period.
So, what actually counts as an insult worthy of a red card these days? Like, if someone just tells another person, "Hey, maybe you should go talk to a psychologist for a bit," does that really cross the line? Is that even worth a penalty?
Did I get you wrong? Feel free to set me straight on that first part of the quote, too. Honestly, looking at this thread, it’s not exactly clear where you guys are pulling all these mental health diagnoses from. Like, what's actually triggering this whole thing?

There’s another issue we have to deal with here—hypersensitivity. It's a real thing.
So, apparently, every single sentence on this forum that uses words like "problem" or "issue" is now being treated as some kind of medical diagnosis. Honestly? Total nonsense. Just complete nonsense.

Fair enough. But when you start labeling someone as "sick" or whatever just because of how they phrase things, that crosses the line into an insult. He could have easily just said he thought there was an issue and called it a day. Instead, he’s been going on for a while now about how this person is mentally ill and needs to be removed... 🙄

driftingeagle27 said:That said, I know enough about health to competently conclude that something is wrong if someone exhibits such incredibly blatant symptoms that it's obvious something isn't right.

Let’s look at this from a different angle.

Imagine there's User A on this forum who spent all of last week churning out endless walls of text dedicated entirely to User B—someone they don't even actually know. In all those rants, User A basically just repeats one single sentence: "User B is a psychopath, they need help, somebody do something, do something!!!11!!1!". In the name of spreading the truth about User B, User A gets drunk and banned, an outcome they take immense pride in because they view themselves as some insignificant martyr on their holy crusade for Truth.

Do you honestly think that such an obsessive fixation on one (completely unknown) individual can't be labeled by anyone else as an obsessive need to persecute, or perhaps receive some other diagnosis and medical advice? Do you truly believe your sentences reveal nothing but a pure person who is beyond debate, and that one couldn't dig through them to find suppressed aggression and whatnot? I mean, suppose I take a week off, comb through your posts, and construct a monster—only then, I become User C, who is obsessed with User A, so then some User D spends their entire week analyzing my posts and so on and so forth.

Furthermore—and even if we aren't strictly limiting ourselves to the Psychology subforum—statistically speaking, it is a certainty that there are mentally ill people posting on this forum. I mean, it's completely impossible for a random sample size as large as a forum population to be as mentally sound as a saint.

And so what? What is it you actually want???

Are we going down these "driftingeagle27-Jason Gonzalez7" paths now? What are we supposed to do? Establish a forum-wide FBI that, the moment it spots a suspicious sentence, issues a warrant for the close monitoring of the 🤦suspect? Create a psychological dossier for every single user and log observations regarding the mental stability of their prose? WTF???

I mean, who am I supposed to talk to on this forum if everyone with a condition gets slapped with a diagnosis and sent straight to a psychiatric facility? 🙂

brightpuma said:Just me, alone with my thoughts. Or maybe not... 🤔

Hold on, you can't play it that way: make up your mind, is it a yes or a no?

Let's see here... Duka, Duke, Duki_28... ah, there we go, brightpuma—let's take a look at what's actually in the file: displays significant indecisiveness regarding their stances, shows a tendency toward using thought-emojis which might suggest some underlying internal struggles, uses a highly symbolic avatar that hints at a fear of death, potential suicidal ideation, or perhaps even the possibility of committing a mass shooting...

Conclusion: the forum user brightpuma is exhibiting psychotic behavior at a level of 82.5 psychoses. For now, more drastic measures aren't required, but I'm advising the moderators to remain vigilant and act if they hit the 100 psychoses threshold.

Next...

🤦

Nicholas King said:Hold on, you can't play it that way: make up your mind, is it a yes or a no?

Let's see here... Duka, Duke, Duki_28... ah, there we go, brightpuma—let's take a look at what's actually in the file: displays significant indecisiveness regarding their stances, shows a tendency toward using thought-emojis which might suggest some underlying internal struggles, uses a highly symbolic avatar that hints at a fear of death, potential suicidal ideation, or perhaps even the possibility of committing a mass shooting...

Conclusion: the forum user brightpuma is exhibiting psychotic behavior at a level of 82.5 psychoses. For now, more drastic measures aren't required, but I'm advising the moderators to remain vigilant and act if they hit the 100 psychoses threshold.

Next...

🤦

It’s not about me making a choice; it’s on you. If you end up just talking to yourself after everyone else leaves, at least you won't be bored. Then again, maybe they'll carry you off by then. 😉

Let's see... Duka, Duke, Duki_28... ah, there he is, brightpuma—let's check the file: shows indecisiveness in his views, a tendency to use thought-emojis suggesting possible internal struggles, has a very telling avatar that hints at a fear of death, possibly suicidal tendencies or even the potential for a mass shooting...

You know, you actually reminded me. By total coincidence, this is my avatar:

Nicholas King said:Let’s look at this from a different angle.

Imagine there's User A on this forum who spent all of last week churning out endless walls of text dedicated entirely to User B—someone they don't even actually know. In all those rants, User A basically just repeats one single sentence: "User B is a psychopath, they need help, somebody do something, do something!!!11!!1!". In the name of spreading the truth about User B, User A gets drunk and banned, an outcome they take immense pride in because they view themselves as some insignificant martyr on their holy crusade for Truth.

Do you honestly think that such an obsessive fixation on one (completely unknown) individual can't be labeled by anyone else as an obsessive need to persecute, or perhaps receive some other diagnosis and medical advice? Do you truly believe your sentences reveal nothing but a pure person who is beyond debate, and that one couldn't dig through them to find suppressed aggression and whatnot? I mean, suppose I take a week off, comb through your posts, and construct a monster—only then, I become User C, who is obsessed with User A, so then some User D spends their entire week analyzing my posts and so on and so forth.

Furthermore—and even if we aren't strictly limiting ourselves to the Psychology subforum—statistically speaking, it is a certainty that there are mentally ill people posting on this forum. I mean, it's completely impossible for a random sample size as large as a forum population to be as mentally sound as a saint.

And so what? What is it you actually want???

Are we going down these "driftingeagle27-Jason Gonzalez7" paths now? What are we supposed to do? Establish a forum-wide FBI that, the moment it spots a suspicious sentence, issues a warrant for the close monitoring of the 🤦suspect? Create a psychological dossier for every single user and log observations regarding the mental stability of their prose? WTF???

I mean, who am I supposed to talk to on this forum if everyone with a condition gets slapped with a diagnosis and sent straight to a psychiatric facility? 🙂

Yeah, that’s exactly what I mean by A. option. Otherwise, we could just go with B, which is basically accepting that this forum isn't reality in any real sense—just like Diablo II or Rambo II.

People can lie their heads off on this forum. As Michelle Wells3 pointed out, it’s incredibly tough to tell the difference between someone being intentionally malicious, someone just being a contrarian, and someone simply being uninformed or spinning tall tales like Baron Munchausen. Even some of the descriptions of violence here shouldn't be taken at face value—especially when they seem to defy the basic laws of physics. Honestly, if we were putting together a real investigative team, we'd need more than just psychologists, psychiatrists, police officers, and tax investigators. We’d need physicists, chemists, and biologists too. That’s really the only way to get to the objective truth.

I don't have anything against setting up a military-style police forum like that. I just have my doubts about whether many members would actually stick around once it launches.

I realize I’m flirting with the risk of facing consequences for "commenting on the moderation," but I suppose I'll be brave 🙂.

The point here isn't about handing out diagnoses to random people on this forum—I'm trying to illustrate just how absurd it is to advocate for what would essentially be official oversight of forum members' mental health, and the sheer chaos that ensues when you allow public diagnosing.

Every single one of us is perfectly free to sit at home and diagnose ourselves privately, or engage in those informal, off-forum sessions where we basically have "Gossip about Forum Members, Vol. 15." We are also free to report anything we deem necessary to "the proper authorities" whenever we feel like it. Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would expect or demand that the forum administration take on that specific responsibility.

However, any attempt to lower the bar below a strict ban and sanctioning of all forum-based diagnostics would be pointless, harmful, and dangerous for this community—regardless of how certain a self-proclaimed diagnostician might feel that "everything is obvious." This entire tedious thread exists because of this simple fact, and changing it would pose a greater threat to the forum than any individual user ever could.

BTW, what are we going to do about the CUT in adminNice's post, where she clearly writes "gone crazy" without any provocation whatsoever? 🤣