PDF: Social Science in Chaos

bluerider2 said:@ Sarah Morgan2

Before you rush ahead and drift away from the actual point of our discussion, I thought I might gently nudge you back toward the essentials.

First off, you haven't actually addressed the two questions I posed, both of which were rooted directly in the claim you made in your opening post. I really think it would be best if we could establish the reasoning behind those claims before we try to move any further along. Honestly, just throwing out empty words doesn't get us much anywhere, and while I've spent years honing my ability to play with language—and believe me, I can certainly hold my own in a battle of wits if I truly felt like trying—I simply don't have the energy for it right now.

Secondly, you don't actually know anything about my professional background; all you know is what I choose to share here on this forum, specifically the bits and pieces I want people to see. Based on everything I've shared thus far, I'm quite certain there isn't enough evidence to support your assumption that I am merely a novelist.

Thirdly, we have been looking for at least one co-moderator for the Social Science section for quite some time now, so while I appreciate the sentiment, please don't feel like you need to worry about the management of this sub-forum.

So, if you wouldn't mind being a bit more direct, please tell me exactly where you see the issue. If you're feeling stuck, by all means, lay it out.

Edit: I wasn't intending to quote anyone, but since Jerry Roberts15 replied in the meantime, I'm adding an "address" here just to make sure there isn't any confusion about who I'm speaking to.

Thomas Stewart4 said:Specific, you say?

I suppose "specific" means when someone starts swearing. bluerider2 doesn't swear. The methods used to harass people here are far more insidious.

Anyone who disagrees with something or—heaven forbid—questions the infallibility of bluerider2 and her little group, gets ruthlessly belittled until they give up. They take words out of context, swap out arguments, throw in all sorts of insinuations... I've been there...

... and I gave up. Because life becomes unbearable when people twist every word you say, and then you try to correct them back to what you actually meant, and they twist it again... two, three, a hundred times if necessary... It’s just endless chains of posts.

Specifically: you have to follow entire threads just to figure out what's actually happening. But that's already actual work.

I went through the thread today and added one post where I accepted a valid criticism. Just because I spoke up. I have nothing against that kind of feedback: that's what conversation should be for—pointing out mistakes, oversights, or gaps in knowledge. After all, who doesn't have them?

Excuse me, I hear Abby doesn't have any. Excuse me, and bluerider2 undoubtedly doesn't either. I won't even mention certain mindless individuals who also lack them.

As things stand, and I doubt anything serious will change, there's no point even trying to participate in the conversation over at bluerider2's.

Sarah Garcia46 said:Exactly. And there is no desire here to mention those "senseless individuals" either. In fact, one of them is constantly disrupting the rhythm of Social Science. That is, of course, "Dementia praecox," a clone of "Paul Price34," whom LJES issued a lifetime ban to (in the "Asian Women" thread).

She is tolerated, and no one dares to oppose her because she is unpleasant (or perhaps because she is supposedly an "eminent professor"). Is it not surprising that you haven't noticed she is the very ulcer on Social Science?

vividcyclist11 said:Quite simply, clearly, and LOUDLY, we reiterate here on this sub-forum—much to certain people's chagrin, we haven't ended up at the LJES—that some members have become extremely unpleasant when communicating with others.
So, Ms. Paul Price34, we apologize for becoming outcasts and exiles, all because we chose to complain about the incredibly petty behavior and conduct of one academically educated individual.
Your enthusiasm for them doesn't surprise me, especially since your own vocabulary has, on several occasions, displayed an enviable array of colorful insults.
No one present disputes either your knowledge or the omnipotent Abby's, but it seems someone failed in their basic upbringing.
It is truly unfortunate that you view any attempt to introduce civilized and polite communication as something unfounded, senseless, and without purpose.

Paul Price34 said:Alright, let's keep this short and sweet. I am 100%—and I mean absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt—standing behind bluerider2. Honestly, there are just a few people here who are being totally malicious, twisting things around, digging for dirt, and basically weaponizing bluerider2's genuine kindness and good intentions. In my book, those complaining are really just the outcasts and the losers—you know, the ones who can't handle things and now they're trying to vent their own frustrations and failures on someone else. Bluerider2 is—well, I'd say they're truly exceptional, capable, patient, responsible, and honestly, just way more evolved than most of the folks in a discussion forum like this. So, yeah, that’s my take—this whole complaint is completely baseless, totally pointless, and just plain ridiculous.

Sarah Morgan2 said:I'm siding with my colleagues regarding the problematic user known as Paul Price34. To highlight the absolute parody of an "esteemed professor" we're dealing with here, I'll quote this particular sentence: 😂 😂

vividcyclist11 said:Yet he, in his capacity as a "distinguished professor," feels entitled to "conclude" whatever he pleases—including dismissing this very grievance...🤣

Tyler Grant76 said:Well, maybe it’s actually a good thing that Abyssus lets off steam here because, let's not forget, she's basically working for the students 😬 Since you can actually squeeze some useful information out of her famous, rather insulting posts—and considering she's still very young—engaging with the forum might help her develop the social skills needed to become the kind of expert she clearly aims to be 👍 As much as I find her communication style crude or even ridiculous, I can't deny she's cleared up a few things for me. I guess I'd actually miss her if she were gone 🤷

Tyler Grant76 said:Well, maybe it’s actually a good thing that Abyssus lets off steam here because, let's not forget, she's basically working for the students 😬 Since you can actually squeeze some useful information out of her famous, rather insulting posts—and considering she's still very young—engaging with the forum might help her develop the social skills needed to become the kind of expert she clearly aims to be 👍 As much as I find her communication style crude or even ridiculous, I can't deny she's cleared up a few things for me. I guess I'd actually miss her if she were gone 🤷

Jerry Garcia said:Just so you don't say this complaint went unnoticed: I've read everything you wrote. I agree with some parts, but not others...

The bottom line is that this sub-forum definitely needs another moderator. Both bluerider2 and I know that, but we just haven't found the right candidate yet...

Regarding expertise, none of us moderators demand a resume. Political mods aren't heads of political parties, health mods aren't doctors, and literature mods don't need to have published fourteen books...😉. Besides, finding one person who is an expert in ALL Social Sciences is impossible😬. How many degrees would they need to hold for that?

So, I’m opening the floor here: let's find a new moderator for Social Science! Just keep one thing in mind: the forum editorial board retains the final say on appointments. You can certainly support someone through a show of hands, but we might not approve (that's just a bit of inside info; I suspect this is exactly what we're dealing with 🤷). Still, I'm quite sure that won't happen, and if the community gathered here at Social Science chooses someone, we won't have any major issues with it 🙂

Sarah Garcia46 said:Exactly. And there is no desire here to mention those "senseless individuals" either. In fact, one of them is constantly disrupting the rhythm of Social Science. That is, of course, "Dementia praecox," a clone of "Paul Price34," whom LJES issued a lifetime ban to (in the "Asian Women" thread).

She is tolerated, and no one dares to oppose her because she is unpleasant (or perhaps because she is supposedly an "eminent professor"). Is it not surprising that you haven't noticed she is the very ulcer on Social Science?

No, it would be nice if you just left us alone if our society doesn't suit you.

redmarlin3 said:This whole thread caught my eye, so I did a little digging through Social Science, and I’ve concluded that I wouldn't turn to Abyssus for help even if my life depended on it.

I don't want it to seem like I'm just talking nonsense without any backing; if anyone is actually interested, feel free to check out my posts (and the posts of others, like sal mirabilisa, morbidangela, gotterdamerung, etc.) over in the Chemistry-help and Biology-help threads, or in those big top discussions about snakes and other animals. Without being modest, I truly believe that's how you should approach someone who "doesn't know" something, especially in the specific forums meant for that purpose. 🙂

On the other hand, our moderator bluerider2 isn't to blame for this situation. There isn't a penalty for being irritating. 😬 There’s absolutely no basis for sanctioning Abyssus. Honestly, the best solution is just to hit that ignore button if she bothers you. It doesn't bother me, since I don't hang out in those corners 🤷 and if I ever actually need advice from a linguist, I'll just go ask steelskipper5. 🙂

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

bluerider2;18427183 said:

Look, instead of actually listing specific complaints, this is starting to look more like your usual style on Social Science: a whole lot of words, but very little substance...

It’s the other way around, bluerider2... It all started with general dissatisfaction... then the actual arguments started piling up. And there's a very clear reality in how many people have spoken out. That's the bottom line, if nothing else... Straight to the point... Data suggests massive dissatisfaction over at Social Science...
You’re doing it again... acting like some untouchable authority, deciding everyone else is just talking nonsense while you're the only one actually making sense...

Look, just for once, show some respect for others. That criticism you received wasn't meant to be malicious. I get it, it probably didn't feel great...

First off: believe it or not, I don't personally know anyone from Social Science. At least, not that I'm aware of. So, all these claims about some connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34)... who else did you drag into this? Some expert? steelskipper5? Colbert? Anyone else who ever dared to tell you that you were wrong? It just doesn't hold up. This is nothing more than one claim against another. Just try rewinding the tape a little...

Nobody claimed you knew them personally. That's irrelevant...

He keeps dragging in other names that nobody even mentioned... just seems like another attempt to shift the blame elsewhere. Take Sarah Garcia46, for instance. In my opinion, she’s beyond reproach. I’ve been reading her posts in this new thread about practicing English. She actually knows her stuff, she genuinely helps, and she isn't trying to act superior. You should take a page out of her book...

Sarah Garcia46 would have made a solid moderator...

I banned Dementia early on once for acting out. Would I really do that if we were actually colleagues, buddies, or friends? Not unless we start diving into conspiracy theories... which, personally, seems pretty pointless.

There you go again, talking about something nobody else even mentioned...

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the sub-moderator proposal... At the start, I was told I wasn't competent in any aspect of Social Science other than linguistics. That was actually one of the core points discussed when deciding on a future sub-moderator: that they shouldn't be a linguist, but someone whose expertise or hobby lies in another field of Social Science, rather than language. Keep that in mind when reviewing the other proposals...

In any case, it would be better if Sarah Garcia46 were here. The way she demonstrates her competence is far more appropriate than yours...

It seems to me that your complaints are, to put it mildly, inconsistent. bluerider2 doesn't swear—that’s wrong. Abyssus swears—that’s also wrong. I feel insulted here—based on comparisons, though that just shows we've actually learned a few rhetorical figures from Social Science. Every single attacker claims to be offended, the topic shifts back to Social Science, and when I ask for specific examples, I get hit with "we won't talk like that." The moderator deletes a post—not good. The moderator doesn't delete a post—not good again... Anyway, I'll set that aside. You're trying to express dissatisfaction in a very broad way, without providing a single concrete example...

You're playing word games again. Let’s be clear:

It’s fine that bluerider2 doesn't swear. But it isn't fine that bluerider2 feeds specific talking points to people who agree with her and sidelines others... (you can see examples of these maneuvers right here in your own post)
The issue is that bluerider2 doesn't call out those who insult others or use profanity.
Furthermore, there's the problem that she does everything in her power to make anyone she dislikes feel unwelcome.

Most likely, she would have suspended or banned the rest of us if we had given her even the slightest excuse. There were provocations coming from her side specifically designed to push things that way; it's a miracle no one crossed the line of decency.

That last part is purely speculative on my end.

The causes, as usual, lie elsewhere. The first is the fact that nobody considers linguistics a serious science; instead, there's this general idea that anyone can just meddle in language.

That's the exact thesis Abby uses to justify her intolerance toward others. Personally, I don't think linguistics is any different from any other profession. People "meddle" in medicine, computers, law, and everything else too. In fact, people have every right to "meddle" in whatever interests them without running into the hostility of so-called "experts." Correct them, sure, but do it civilly. If it bothers you that people do this, then don't moderate a forum where such behavior is bound to happen and should be tolerated.

The Language Advisor has been simplified that way—I didn't break it into several topics, which is untrue; it's still there, practically untouched. All participants were asked to post questions following it and potentially provide answers, rather than discussing their own opinions, as the latter is what the Lingy-cup is intended for.

The root of the people's dissatisfaction was cut short. Whether you did it for this reason or that, it's impossible to prove. But the fact remains that you chose this exact moment to do it, rather than any other. A diplomatic move, perhaps—but judging by the tone here, the resentment has already brewed too much for it to be effective.

It would be interesting to see someone request help on the PZ regarding physics, chemistry, math... get an answer, and then have several people attack the responder with "arguments" like "the spirit of mathematical formulas" or "that works in math, but not in physics or chemistry." Not to mention how the same questions are asked a hundred times, and when the asker is advised to search the thread, they simply refuse. We once had a case where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You'll agree that this requires nerves of steel and patience. I have them, and I need them as a moderator; forum members aren't obligated to provide them.

Nerves and patience are required, I agree. That applies to every topic. I read other threads where I haven't even commented—those kinds of situations happen everywhere. And as for your nerves and patience... one gets the impression their range depends entirely on personal preferences.

It seems to me—though I won't go digging, as it's easily verified—that Abyssus has been repeatedly putting one specific individual on ignore. It makes one wonder if that person is just constantly cloning themselves to bypass the block...

This isn't a matter of public interest.

To wrap this up:
I can testify, and it’s all written right here for everyone to see, that you have treated me with extreme rudeness and intolerance. And clearly, I'm not the only one who has experienced that from you.

But looking at the bigger picture—you don't strike me as someone who is "all bad." You clearly know your field, and you could perform much better than you have shown.

This isn't a witch hunt. Nobody is coming for your head.

An apology would be more appropriate, and certainly far better received by everyone here than these elaborations of yours, even if you are offering them in a tone somewhat milder than your usual style.

.... which, hopefully, means there's some positive takeaway from all this.

Thomas Stewart4;18428792 said:

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

I couldn't agree more. She’s exactly the same way over in the French section—always ready to lend a hand, but she does it with this incredibly humble, zero-ego vibe. Honestly, you get the sense that she knows her stuff inside and out, even when we move well beyond just linguistics.
Since linguistics is her main specialty, she unfortunately doesn't stand a chance at a moderator position, which is honestly such a huge shame.😢

Honestly, if you just take a quick look at the first page of the DZa, you’ll see that I haven't even said much—if there's even one single thread there that isn't related to languages, then I've gone way overboard. 🤷
If you ask me, we probably shouldn't have someone whose main background is in Social Science running things, because they wouldn't actually have much to moderate. 😁

I honestly don't think laypeople should even be weighing in on things like Social Science, mostly because people find psychology or history much more captivating—and those fields have their own entirely separate sets of complexities to deal with.

We shouldn't forget that half-baked idea about creating a dedicated linguistics PDF. It’s pretty obvious that language makes up about 90% of what people actually care about when we discuss Social Science, so I’d honestly vote for bringing on another moderator who specializes specifically in linguistics.👍

Carol Nguyen63 said:I couldn't agree more. She’s exactly the same way over in the French section—always ready to lend a hand, but she does it with this incredibly humble, zero-ego vibe. Honestly, you get the sense that she knows her stuff inside and out, even when we move well beyond just linguistics.
Since linguistics is her main specialty, she unfortunately doesn't stand a chance at a moderator position, which is honestly such a huge shame.😢

Honestly, if you just take a quick look at the first page of the DZa, you’ll see that I haven't even said much—if there's even one single thread there that isn't related to languages, then I've gone way overboard. 🤷
If you ask me, we probably shouldn't have someone whose main background is in Social Science running things, because they wouldn't actually have much to moderate. 😁

I honestly don't think laypeople should even be weighing in on things like Social Science, mostly because people find psychology or history much more captivating—and those fields have their own entirely separate sets of complexities to deal with.

We shouldn't forget that half-baked idea about creating a dedicated linguistics PDF. It’s pretty obvious that language makes up about 90% of what people actually care about when we discuss Social Science, so I’d honestly vote for bringing on another moderator who specializes specifically in linguistics.👍

Sarah Morgan2 said:

bluerider2 said:Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.