Persecution

I’m asking the moderators to provide a clear definition of what actually constitutes "harassment."
It’s completely unreasonable to throw around terms you don't even seem to understand and then hand out penalties based on them.

Since you’re playing dumb for the umpteenth time and bringing up Lowe's again, I figured I’d step in and give you an answer.

The moderators here at Lowe's view your behavior as targeted harassment. You keep picking on the same female user across several different threads by constantly jumping on her posts. After you were already warned and then banned for doing exactly this, you've started back up again—quoting other users just to take cheap shots at her:

Thomas Campbell5 said:Not that word 😳

(I'll probably coin that one for her)

If you keep this up, we’re going to have to seriously reconsider your access to the Lowe's forums.

I’ve already pointed out that I tend to "jump on" certain posts. It’s hardly a coincidence that these often involve threads started by the same user.
However, this isn't harassment. To an uninformed observer, it might look that way—that’s just my take, not a definitive fact—but if you actually look up the definition of harassment, you'll see it doesn't apply here.
It feels like this user is trying to shut me down from commenting on her posts, and I fear the moderators, perhaps out of ignorance, are inadvertently helping her achieve that goal.

Whose terminology is this "jumping on" anyway?

I promise to exercise restraint (which I am already doing), but please stop flagging every single one of my replies directed at her.
Either define exactly what constitutes a permissible comment versus an unacceptable one.

Thomas Campbell5 said:I’ve already pointed out that I tend to "jump on" certain posts. It’s hardly a coincidence that these often involve threads started by the same user.
However, this isn't harassment. To an uninformed observer, it might look that way—that’s just my take, not a definitive fact—but if you actually look up the definition of harassment, you'll see it doesn't apply here.
It feels like this user is trying to shut me down from commenting on her posts, and I fear the moderators, perhaps out of ignorance, are inadvertently helping her achieve that goal.

Whose terminology is this "jumping on" anyway?

I promise to exercise restraint (which I am already doing), but please stop flagging every single one of my replies directed at her.
Either define exactly what constitutes a permissible comment versus an unacceptable one.

What I actually quoted—the part that got you a warning from Hazen—wasn't me "jumping in." It was me making fun of her. She needs to stop playing dumb for the tenth time today.

"Jumping in" is a perfectly valid American English expression; you can go check it on Merriam-Webster.

to jump in
to jump in (verb) [to intervene or join a conversation suddenly]

And for the millionth time, please stop with the mental gymnastics claiming "the moderators are just being biased because they don't understand her." It’s pretty obvious from your post history that you've been picking on her over at Lowe's for ages.

Look up the definition of "harassment" before you dare repeat that statement.

Sophia Thomas7 said:What I actually quoted—the part that got you a warning from Hazen—wasn't me "jumping in." It was me making fun of her. She needs to stop playing dumb for the tenth time today.

"Jumping in" is a perfectly valid American English expression; you can go check it on Merriam-Webster.

to jump in
to jump in (verb) [to intervene or join a conversation suddenly]

And for the millionth time, please stop with the mental gymnastics claiming "the moderators are just being biased because they don't understand her." It’s pretty obvious from your post history that you've been picking on her over at Lowe's for ages.

And frankly, I haven't been given any clear definition of what constitutes an acceptable comment versus one that isn't.

So, what's the rule here—is silence the only thing actually permitted? 😬

Thomas Campbell5 said:Look up the definition of "harassment" before you dare repeat that statement.

And frankly, I haven't been given any clear definition of what constitutes an acceptable comment versus one that isn't.

So, what's the rule here—is silence the only thing actually permitted? 😬

Look, we aren't going to have a conversation like this. Consider this a warning; if you pull another stunt like this, we’ll be looking at a partial ban. 🙂

You still haven't actually answered my question about what kind of comments are allowed here and which ones aren't.
(which is exactly why I decided to start this thread 🙂 )

Here is a brief catalog of instances where you have behaved in ways you claim don't qualify as harassment—ranging from your most recent outbursts to older ones over the last couple of months, spanning several different discussions:

- Advising the thread starter to simply ignore a specific user whom you are actively targeting.
- Poking at a user by questioning if she uses dating apps just to find "humor," while simultaneously dropping insinuations on that very same site that she isn't trustworthy.
- Mocking her posts and implying that she is lying about herself.
- Telling the OP that she "lacks both knowledge and experience" and suggesting he disregard her entirely, followed by claims that you only comment because her "posts are pathetic," alongside various other petty arguments and attempts to discredit her.

I’ve pulled these from your last five warnings (I won't list the final one since it's already been cited here). These specific incidents were preceded by a long string of similar behavior. Your posts directed at this user are derogatory, insulting, and provocative. They have absolutely nothing to do with the actual topics being discussed. At no point was she the one to initiate contact with you; rather, you are constantly quoting her or others specifically to tear her down. It isn't just about her content, despite what you falsely claim here—you are attacking her as a person in a purely malicious fashion.
Your conduct hasn't gone unnoticed; other users on the platform have seen it and commented on it across various threads.

Let me be clear: everything described above is the definition of harassment. I strongly suggest you review section 13 of our Terms of Service. Honestly, you might want to pay attention to the very last rule as well—playing dumb isn't permitted here either.

As for your question regarding what kind of comments are permissible versus what isn't—aside from my repeated recommendation that you re-read the rules for both the main forum and the Reddit archives—I will say this: acceptable commentary must remain relevant to the topic at hand. If you intend to disagree with the original poster or anyone else, you are expected to present constructive arguments that maintain a coherent discussion within the thread. That means no insults, no off-topic rambling, no trolling, no provocation, no disparagement, and no personal vendettas against other members.

One final note: given your track record, I will be watching your future interactions with this user very closely. Should any behavior similar to the examples listed above recur, I will fully support a move toward a permanent ban from Reddit.

casualcanyon3 said:Here is a brief catalog of instances where you have behaved in ways you claim don't qualify as harassment—ranging from your most recent outbursts to older ones over the last couple of months, spanning several different discussions:

- Advising the thread starter to simply ignore a specific user whom you are actively targeting.
- Poking at a user by questioning if she uses dating apps just to find "humor," while simultaneously dropping insinuations on that very same site that she isn't trustworthy.
- Mocking her posts and implying that she is lying about herself.
- Telling the OP that she "lacks both knowledge and experience" and suggesting he disregard her entirely, followed by claims that you only comment because her "posts are pathetic," alongside various other petty arguments and attempts to discredit her.

I’ve pulled these from your last five warnings (I won't list the final one since it's already been cited here). These specific incidents were preceded by a long string of similar behavior. Your posts directed at this user are derogatory, insulting, and provocative. They have absolutely nothing to do with the actual topics being discussed. At no point was she the one to initiate contact with you; rather, you are constantly quoting her or others specifically to tear her down. It isn't just about her content, despite what you falsely claim here—you are attacking her as a person in a purely malicious fashion.
Your conduct hasn't gone unnoticed; other users on the platform have seen it and commented on it across various threads.

Let me be clear: everything described above is the definition of harassment. I strongly suggest you review section 13 of our Terms of Service. Honestly, you might want to pay attention to the very last rule as well—playing dumb isn't permitted here either.

As for your question regarding what kind of comments are permissible versus what isn't—aside from my repeated recommendation that you re-read the rules for both the main forum and the Reddit archives—I will say this: acceptable commentary must remain relevant to the topic at hand. If you intend to disagree with the original poster or anyone else, you are expected to present constructive arguments that maintain a coherent discussion within the thread. That means no insults, no off-topic rambling, no trolling, no provocation, no disparagement, and no personal vendettas against other members.

One final note: given your track record, I will be watching your future interactions with this user very closely. Should any behavior similar to the examples listed above recur, I will fully support a move toward a permanent ban from Reddit.

I second everything 🙂

No interpretations needed 😁

Based on what you've laid out, I completely disagree with your perspective.

You're twisting definitions, your delivery is frankly unacceptable—it's pretentious in its attempt to paint my behavior as the problem—and it's incredibly one-sided. (Unfortunately, I didn't include Alain's "accounting" of our arguments to show who was actually crossing the line or being more aggressive in those fights, let alone looking at her posts in general), so I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your post.

Thomas Campbell5 said:I second everything 🙂

No interpretations needed 😁

Based on what you've laid out, I completely disagree with your perspective.

You're twisting definitions, your delivery is frankly unacceptable—it's pretentious in its attempt to paint my behavior as the problem—and it's incredibly one-sided. (Unfortunately, I didn't include Alain's "accounting" of our arguments to show who was actually crossing the line or being more aggressive in those fights, let alone looking at her posts in general), so I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your post.

Maybe we should just address your blatant bias right from the jump.