Moderation notice on US-Theme

Look, let's just get straight to the point. Even though I’ve always been one of the loudest voices calling for much stricter moderation here on the US-Theme, I honestly think Drew Ross2 is a bad pick for that PDF.

Here’s my take on where the moderation is falling short:

First off, most importantly—even though we're all hanging out on a forum called US-Theme... Lonely hearts.It usually just implies that people are feeling lonely. And when you’re lonely, you end up frustrated, or pissed off, or just generally dissatisfied with everything. It's like they're just looking for a little bit of connection to take the edge off. Just hanging out and catching up.Look, man, let's be real about these various topics. Lu keeps things so sterile that she’d make an official FAQ look scandalous. Every time someone tries to actually expand the conversation or take it slightly off-topic, it gets nuked. It’s not even rare at this point—half the time, the entire discussion ends up crippled before it can even get started.

Posts that fall under the "off-topic," spamming, trolling, or provocation categories? Luiza just nukes them most of the time without even handing out a warning or a formal strike. Instead of attaching a penalty to the post—which would actually help if they decide to pull the same stunt again—she just wipes the whole thing clean. It’s a felony. Simple as that. Honestly, you just have to take authors like that out to the curb and serve them up to everyone else as a cautionary tale. Most of the time, these posts aren't even coming from a place of malice—they’re just plain boring. But occasionally, they actually manage to stir the pot and start a fight.

On the flip side, we’ve got people dropping posts that are nothing but pure, unadulterated insults. Sure, they might get slapped with a "warning" or some minor disciplinary action, but the posts stay live on the forum. It’s like leaving a pile of trash right in the middle of the sidewalk because you gave the guy who dropped it a stern look. New members—the guests just wandering in—read through all that garbage without any context. They have no clue the offender was even sanctioned. All they see is a community that seemingly shrugs its shoulders at blatant disrespect and harassment. In the end, the offender just keeps doing exactly what they were doing, and the damage is already done.

On the flip side, I have to give it to the moderator—she's incredibly quick on the draw. 👍

--
People know me around here for writing long-winded posts, but honestly? I’ve lost all interest in having a real conversation. Every time I actually put effort into something, my posts get nuked because they supposedly "didn't stick to the topic" (whatever that means). Right now, this site just motivates me to troll and stir the pot—just posting useless junk just so I can say I did something without wasting my precious time or wearing out my keyboard. I'm an addict. 🙂

And just to be clear right off the bat, I don’t have anything against Luiza, and I never have. I hooked it. Honestly, she’s great. Even if she’s a bit much sometimes, I actually find her pretty likable outside of the moderation stuff.

Anyway, yeah, I'm not just throwing a tantrum here. To prove I’m not just shouting at clouds, I’ll attach a couple of figures that actually address the core issue:
Graph 1, monthly data from 2016 to 2019 (excluding the chat logs):



Graph 2, daily data from 2017 to 2019 (chats excluded):



Since this isn't some official technical manual or a high-level professional white paper, I honestly think moderation needs to find a middle ground. We can't go back to that Wild West era where nobody was watching the gates, but we also shouldn't be living under a microscope like we are now. There should be room for a little bit of casual chatter and off-topic banter. Let the threads breathe a bit—let them evolve naturally, rather than suffocating every conversation the second it drifts slightly off course. The community. Hope and optimism. Even when they drift a little bit outside the bounds of the actual topic.

And that’s that. Case closed.

Haha, you know, those huge drops in post counts didn't actually happen when Luiza stepped up to moderate—she’s been a staple here way before June 2019, and if I recall correctly, we even saw some major peaks back during her era! It wasn't until the exact moment Wikipedia started getting partitioned that things shifted, don't you think? 🤣

On another note, I really have to say how much I love the new visual layout! 👍

Let me address your points directly:
1) Upon arriving in the US, I noticed the main grievance was the sheer volume of chat, spam, and off-topic noise within the subforum. Every single thread was cluttered—it was clearly bothering people at the time. So, I cleaned up the chat, dealt with the spammers, and cleared out the incels who were hijacking every discussion. Now, apparently, the problem is that I won't let you chat.
You seem to want me to be inconsistent—sometimes allowing it, sometimes issuing warnings—I suppose depending on who is chatting, since it seems you believe the rules should bend if the conversation happens to suit you.
You aren't the first to complain in this manner—essentially asking for special treatment because you're an "eminent" forum member while others get banned for the same behavior. I don't moderate based on personal whims; the rules apply to everyone equally.
You already have several dedicated threads for chatting: general chat, the horoscope thread, the movie meetup thread, the ice skating thread, and the general social planning thread. I really don't see any reason to permit casual chatting across every other topic.

2) It’s true—I’ve leaned more toward deleting off-topic posts and chat without jumping straight to formal warnings, but I might consider adjusting that policy based on your suggestion.

3) If a warning has been issued, then the consequence is clear. For any (new) members, it should be perfectly obvious that the post was inappropriate. 🤷

As for those graphs of yours—as Donna Doyle2 pointed out—they merely show the state of things before and after one specific user's outburst.

In any case, thanks for the feedback. I hope you move past this urge to troll and provoke soon, because if not, I'll have to start issuing sanctions following your own suggestion in point 2.

Best regards, 🙂

Donna Doyle2 said:Haha, those massive drops in post counts didn't happen when Luisa started moderating (she’s been around way before June 2019, and there were actually several peaks during her tenure), they happened exactly when Wikipedia got partially banned. :ro fl:

Drew Ross2 said:And regarding your graphs, just like Donna Doyle2 pointed out, the charts show the situation before and after one specific user's partial ban.

Yeah, I get where you're going with that conclusion. Wikipedia basically jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. 🤣

But the math doesn't add up: 4000-1200/31 = 90. That would mean Wikipedia was dropping 90 posts a day just on US-Themes, without even touching the chat, despite having a total forum PPD 20.00. Besides, Wikipedia has been active on the US side since August 2018, with a frantic little spree during the last three months before finally getting the deserved ban. ☕

Donna Doyle2 said:she’s been here long before June 2019

Only the moderation period actually matters. ☕

Drew Ross2 said:You’d want me to let things slide sometimes and issue warnings other times, probably depending on who is chatting, since in your opinion, that chat would be perfectly fine if it were you.

I don't chat, nor do I like it. Generally, I’m not the type who cares about small talk. Almost every single time I post in the chats, it’s just a reply to the exact same female user. 😁

So, here it is:
Do I provoke people within threads? Yes.
Do I try to trigger a reaction? Yes.
Do I troll within threads? Yes.
Do I pick fights? Yes.
Do I wander into off-topic? Oh yeah, I get carried away.

Do I leave enough material to justify a sanction? Absolutely.

But is that "chatting" within a thread? No, it isn't.

In my view, mindless chatting and off-topic nonsense should be sanctioned. Including my own, if any exists. Talking about wine in a dating thread is a textbook reason for a warning!

Anyway, I never said the problem was deleting chat; the problem is keeping the threads sterile.

I'm exaggerating (since my memory is shot and I can't be bothered to dig up examples):
If someone drops a comment in a dating thread that isn't actually about dating—say, rambling about how much their zip code affects their social life—I’m going to delete it.

And/or, for example,

If you see someone posting two or three stories that are only tangentially related to dating within a dating thread, I'll wipe them out. It doesn't matter if those posts actually make the thread more lively or encourage everyone to open up and share. 😁

Maybe these aren't the best examples but, alright...

The US and LJES are social forums. People perceive things differently, and they often wander off-topic, which I don't think is inherently bad. But total off-topic nonsense, like talking about North Korea in a dating thread, is just garbage. 🧐

Drew Ross2 said:You aren't the first one to complain like this. Some people act like they can just chat because they're "forum veterans," while everyone else gets banned for the same thing. That's not how I moderate. Rules apply to everyone equally.
You have several specific threads for chatting: the general chat, the astrology chat, the movie meetup thread, the ice skating thread, and the other hangout threads. I really don't see why I would allow casual chatting in every single other topic.

Like I said, I'm socially stunted 🤣 and trying to police every little bit of chat without writing an entire manifesto is basically mission impossible. That's exactly why I'm on the US site—because people tend to write extensively and loosely. 🐔

Anyway, I'm looking for, or rather suggesting, a bit more flexibility. 🕺

Benjamin Taylor90 said:Exactly—I have no idea where that conclusion came from. It seems Wikipedia was just grasping at straws there. 🤣

Right before the end, I wasn't really active.
Do you think you could pull the data for my posts? That might actually be an interesting exercise.🤔

Benjamin Taylor90 said:The math simply doesn't add up: 4000 minus 1200 divided by 31 equals 90. That would mean Wikipedia was posting 90 times a day strictly within the US-Themes—not even counting the chat rooms—even though his total PPD 20.00 covers the entire forum. Furthermore, Wikipedia has been active on the US-Themes since August 2018, with a massive surge occurring during the final three months leading up to his deserved ban. ☕

I believe I arrived even earlier than that—I have posts dating back to March 2018—but regardless, I started at a baseline and then things began to pick up momentum. 😬
And surely I wasn't just debating myself; I usually manage to offer a compelling POV that sparks a real discussion. 🙂

Anthony Nguyen81 said:I wasn't really around during the home stretch.
Think you could pull some data on my posts? Might be an interesting experiment.🤔

I think I actually showed up even earlier—got posts dating back to March 2018—but regardless, I hit a baseline and then things started picking up. 😬
And I highly doubt I was just talking to myself; I usually manage to drop a decent POV and get a debate going. 🙂

Here you go:
https://postimg.cc/yDB8q9Jb
https://postimg.cc/ZC3KWjtR

That’s without the chats or your own entries. Compare it to the ones above. You'd see some overlap between the old and new data, but I already wiped the files. 🐔

So, yeah, there's a visible difference from that period mentioned earlier, but nothing significant enough to shift the overall trend. Mainly because, quantitatively speaking, you don't have enough posts to work with, and they're pretty evenly spread out over time. 😁

Benjamin Taylor90 said:Here you go:
https://postimg.cc/yDB8q9Jb
https://postimg.cc/ZC3KWjtR

This version excludes all chats and your own entries. Compare this against the previous ones. I would have created an overlap between the old and new states—but I’ve already wiped those data points. 🐔

The difference during that specific window is visible, though not significant enough to shift the overall trend. Primarily, from a quantitative standpoint, the sample size of posts isn't large enough, nor are they evenly distributed over time. 😁

Thanks 🙂
If I were to tackle this graphically, I’ll take a look—layer by layer—to see if we can make it work. 😁
The analysis is certainly interesting. 👍

As for everything else—my own posts could never constitute a "trend" on their own. Certain threads essentially went cold (at least for a while) once I stepped away—things like astrology, questions regarding flyin, and likely music too—topics where I was active and driving the conversation.
It would be worthwhile to examine the data excluding those three specific topics.

I'll send this to your inbox once I've formatted it properly—it shouldn't be difficult, just a matter of swapping the colors on these graphs and overlaying them onto the previous versions. However, I am currently juggling five other tasks, so 😬

PS: here it is, in case anyone is interested. 😬
View on imgur
According to this analysis, my peak occurred in March, which aligns somewhat with this growth. Everything after July—especially without my involvement—is a different story entirely. 🙂

Wikipedia, looking at how those waves hit, really acts like a massive storm front moving through the States 🤣

Basically, yeah, it wasn't that all 90 posts a day were actually from Wikipedia, but rather that after those specific bursts, everyone just stopped posting so much because people started migrating over to OFF... you know, since there wasn't much left to build on in any given thread! I remember checking out the subforums and seeing days where there was literally only one single post written in total—not even counting the chat, which I think stayed pretty active the whole time. It felt like this weird little shock to the system for a while, didn't it? Then eventually some threads started picking up steam again and things have stayed that way until now, though we never quite saw that crazy volume of posts again like when Wikipedia and the rest of the crew were going wild.

And honestly, I can't recall the exact date since I was away for a bit myself, but if I had to guess, I think Luzja stepped up to moderate sometime before June 2019. 🤔

Donna Doyle2 said:Wikipedia—represented by those waves—acts like an elemental force of nature in the USA. 🤣

😬

Donna Doyle2 said:Basically, yeah—it wasn't that all 90 daily posts were strictly from the Wikipedia crowd. It was more that after those specific threads died down, engagement just tanked. People started migrating over to the OFF forum... there simply wasn't much left to build upon in the old topics. If you look back at the subforums, there were days when we’d see maybe one single post total—not counting the chat, which I think stayed pretty active. For a while, it felt like a genuine shock to the system. Eventually, a few threads started picking up steam again, and that’s been the rhythm ever since—though we've never quite hit those massive post counts we saw back when the Wikipedia group and their crew were driving the conversation.

🙂

Donna Doyle2 said:It’s a bit hazy—I haven't been around much lately myself—but if I recall correctly, Luzja stepped into her moderation role sometime before June 2019. 🤔

I also recall Luiza visiting earlier—somewhere around February or March. 🤔

Donna Doyle2 said:Basically, yeah, it wasn't just that Wikipedia's posts made up all 90 entries a day. It was more that after those specific threads died down, people just stopped talking. Some moved over to the OFF section... there wasn't really anything left to latch onto. If you look at the subforums, there were days where maybe one single post would show up, excluding the chat, which I think stayed pretty active. For a while, it felt like a total shock to the system, then things slowly started moving again, and that’s basically been the vibe ever since—though we haven't seen that kind of volume since the Wikipedia crew and their friends were running the show.

You make sense, but:



I could run this analysis by completely ignoring Wikipedia and everything related to them, and the result would still be the same. It would just be without the era of Wikipedia. 🤣

Luujzaa, there is just way too much off-topic chatter going on here, and honestly, I can barely even contain myself sometimes—don't we all just need someone to come in and get us back on track?

No way. You guys are talking about prostitution on a thread meant for helping people who can't even find the words to say they want to be touched.😂

Donna Doyle2 said:Luujzaa, we're getting way too off-topic here. I can barely keep myself in check. Someone needs to reel us back in before we lose the plot entirely.

And you dragged me down with you—shame on you! You definitely deserve a 100. 🙂

I count myself as one of Luiza's "victims." I joined this forum back when she was still a fresh moderator, and she handed out bans like she was trying to win a prize—sometimes justified, sometimes totally uncalled for, especially since she’d turn a blind eye to the exact same stuff from others. But lately, her style has shifted. She isn't throwing bans around like free samples at Costco anymore. She actually lets discussions breathe, using those bright red warnings that you can't possibly miss. We all drift off-topic sometimes; if you snap back, there's no penalty. But then you have the people who just ignore the warning entirely, which feels pretty unfair. I've personally seen her drop a warning in a thread, only for the very next post to be someone else jumping right back into the chatter like nothing happened. I didn't catch whether they got hit with a sanction, but it didn't look like it. There’s always this small group of guys and women who derail threads with their nonsense until the whole point is lost. If she actually enforced the rules on them, the forum would be an empty ghost town. Look, Luiza, let people argue. If someone attacks and the other person defends themselves, as long as it settles down quickly, let it go. Don't suffocate the conversation. At least she explains why she issues a ban—I see it in the appeals here—which is more than most moderators do. When she sends a warning via DM, it’s civil. It lacks the sheer pettiness you see from other mods. Even though some of my old bans are still active, I don't think she deserves this massive wave of criticism. She’s actually trying to do her job fairly, unlike that one moderator who takes their own personal issues out on the users, or that other female mod who shows up once every month or two just to hand out bans accompanied by incredibly arrogant comments.

Honestly, Luiza is an absolute saint. Before she stepped up, there was basically zero moderation on this site. She’s doing her best, period. I have no clue what happened to Krtek, but honestly, we probably wouldn't find a better mod than her anyway. 🍿

Benjamin Taylor90 said:Oh, you totally dragged me into this too, didn't you? Shame on you! Honestly though, you deserve a full 100% for that one! 🙂

Oh, you really think you could take me on? Honestly, that would just be a total ban, wouldn't it, and then everyone would act like you actually "won"! 😳 😁

Jessica Miller51 said:I’m definitely one of Luiza’s former "victims," since I actually joined this forum back when she was still a fresh moderator and she handed out bans like they were candy—which, honestly, felt totally unfair at times because she’d just ignore those exact same slip-ups from everyone else! But you know, it’s been such a breath of fresh air lately to see how much her moderation style has evolved, hasn't it? She doesn't just throw out sanctions left and right like they're free ice cream anymore; instead, she really lets the discussions flow and uses those bright red warnings that are impossible to miss! We all have those moments where we get carried away and lose track of things, so if someone realizes they've gone too far and stops on their own, why should there be any punishment? It feels so much fairer now, especially since some people just straight-up ignore the warnings, which honestly just isn't cool behavior!Can you believe what I just witnessed?! I saw someone drop a serious warning on a thread, only to have the very next person jump right in and start chatting away like nothing even happened—don't they realize there was a rule posted just seconds before?. I haven't really been keeping a close eye on whether any sanctions actually went into effect, but doesn't it feel like nothing has happened yet?Isn't it funny how there are always those same few guys and girls who just derail a thread with their nonsense until the whole conversation loses its point entirely? Honestly, if they were actually held accountable, this entire forum would be empty! I really think Luiza should just let people hash things out; if someone gets attacked and then defends themselves, as long as things settle down quickly, why stifle the discussion? She's so consistent about explaining exactly why she hands out a warning, which I see in the appeals here, unlike some other moderators who just don't bother! When she sends a warning, it’s done so politely without any of that cheapness you see from others. Even though I still have some active warnings on my own record, I truly don't think she deserves this massive wave of criticism because she genuinely tries to do her job fairly—which is a huge contrast to that one moderator who takes their personal issues out on everyone else, or that other lady who pops in once every month or two just to hand out penalties with such incredibly arrogant comments!

That was actually me (assuming we're talking about the same thing), though I'll admit I wasn't exactly reading every single word of the thread because Henry Evans10 totally got under my skin, and once he started posting, I just couldn't bring myself to deal with him anymore, so I skipped straight to the second-to-last page and completely missed that warning! But anyway, yeah, I did end up getting a strike, which you can go check out in the thread, and honestly? It was totally fair for everyone involved!
But wait, if you're saying it happened right after the warning was posted, isn't it totally possible that someone just hit send before they even realized what had happened? You know how it goes, don't you—you're typing away so fast that you post just a minute after a notification pops up, only to realize you missed the update!

I totally agree with that second point! Isn't it just wonderful how Luiza treats everyone with such genuine respect and keeps things so level-headed? She really just honors herself and those around her, which is honestly so refreshing to see and creates such a positive, healthy vibe for everyone, don't you think?
Honestly, though, nobody is actually coming at her en masse! Krtek started this thread with a disclaimer, and we just stepped up to say we don't see it that way, so really it’s just one single user offering a suggestion rather than an actual critique, right?

Grace Sanders24 said:But Luiza is seriously a total saint! Before she stepped up, there wasn't even any real moderation on this site, you know? She's doing everything she can, and I honestly have no idea what's gotten into Krtek lately, because we truly couldn't ask for a better moderator than her! 🍿

So true!

Donna Doyle2 said:Luujzaa—this thread is veering way too far off-topic. I can’t seem to hold myself back, either—it’s a losing battle, I guess. We probably need someone to step in and actually reel us all back in.

Grace Sanders24 said:Unbelievable. On a thread about helping people who can't even find the words to ask for physical assistance, you all immediately pivot to prostitution. Truly.😂

Benjamin Taylor90 said:And you dragged me down with you—shame on you. You deserve a perfect 100. 🙂

Well, caught red-handed—I suppose. You’ve basically gone and demonstrated exactly how much you can disregard the rules when it comes to chatting and off-topic discussions. 🙂

Krtek—I’m expecting a formal apology and the accompanying graph, obviously. 😁 😁

Thanks for the compliments—and for the suggestion, too. I appreciate it. 🙂

I'm inclined to agree; Lu is an excellent moderator. 🙂

Chloe Cooper10 said:I'm with you, Lu is a killer mod. 🙂

Me too☕😁

Mods being mods. 🤷