Specific issue/Help needed

but look, how this is playing out—there's going to be bans, so I’d most politely request that everyone just get back to regular forum posting; let's just reconvene here once some concrete issue actually crystallizes, something we can actually provide a concrete answer to.

I don't doubt there will be bans, or that this will (once again) be dismissed as being due to "personal reasons," but we'll survive.

So, whether it's on the Amtrak forums or elsewhere, people are increasingly asking what actually qualifies as trolling. There was a thread I quoted—which contained two posts that somehow escaped being flagged—that was closed without any response at all. What I am most seriously and genuinely interested in knowing is whether a post consisting of the sentence "Prile, you really nailed it, everything is exactly where it should be, just like it ought to be, yeah 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏", when placed in a serious discussion, counts as trolling or not. I mean, since it wasn't sanctioned—not even edited or deleted—one might assume it isn't, but I think having a specific, definitive answer would be useful for anyone trying to understand the actual definition of trolling.

I'll survive the bans and the thread closures and all that (though I do think it would be unfair, and honestly a sign of certain weakness, to use a combination of "banning plus deleting threads" to then tell everyone else not to stick their noses into things they aren't supposed to see), but more than anything, I would truly love to know if I am allowed—should my ban ever expire—to drop into a serious thread and write that exact same sentence without being punished for it.

hollowtrucker77 said:Now, I don't follow you, Nicholas King—was that supposed to be a rhetorical question?
Because you’ve made similar outbursts yourself recently, and none of them resulted in any sanctions.

Please, I am asking you—find just one single instance of such a "similar outburst" from me. One where I pivot from nowhere into a deadly serious topic without having contributed a single substantive post, only to drop a single sentence like that. Just one. I am being quite serious here; otherwise, I will feel justified in calling you out for simply making things up.

It is an entirely different matter when, after perhaps ten pages of a serious and—dare I say—actually high-quality debate, a few participants in that discussion need to take a breather and post a couple of snarky comments (none of which are low-brow nonsense, mind you, but rather just lighthearted or random—and I am certainly not referring to my own posts) before either continuing or letting the thread die. Honestly, even prisoners get their recreation time; surely one can take a momentary break on an online forum. 🙂

What I quoted here is a blatant slap in the face—essentially a little power trip, a way of saying, "Yeah, buddy, I've got connections, I can do whatever I want." It is incredibly obvious, regardless of how much they try to hush it up. And frankly, it does quite a bit to undermine that constant, repetitive mantra about everyone being held to the same set of rules.

I’ll step in here for a moment, though I know I’m jumping into the fray, but when you see an administrator being called an idiot only to have someone register a new account under that same admin's name just to claim they've read official moderator PMs—only to follow up that "you're a favorite around here" sentiment with a two-month suspension instead of a permanent ban—it starts to feel incredibly off. Throw in a public welcome message from one of the moderators asking a previously banned user to give her a call, and the whole situation looks bizarrely lopsided, as if the rulebook isn't applied equally to everyone. It would look much different if this individual didn't used to sport a colorful username and maintain such close ties with half the staff here.

Here’s a specific critique—or maybe I should call it a suggestion: it would be a lot better if you didn't shut down threads until all the questions have actually been answered. Last night, instead of dealing with just one discussion, we ended up with four separate ones, including this last one from Nicholas King. Look, we might not agree, and we might not reach some perfect consensus, but at least we wouldn't end up with a bunch of messy tails or a bunch of unnecessary extra threads. At the end of the day, they're all talking about the exact same thing.

Just let them sit for a day or two. If you decide the conversation is just spinning its wheels in circles, then sure, lock them down. But give the people who started them a chance to get their thoughts out. From what I could tell, everyone was being pretty civil. For those who weren't? Well, there are bans for that. For the trolls? Same deal.

But we're human beings here, not freight trucks. If someone has something to say, let them say it. It’s pretty obvious that this habit of locking things down too fast isn't working, because it just sweeps everything under the rug—only for it to pop back up when you least expect it. 😁

I’m saying this with the best intentions; I really don't want to stick my nose into anyone else's business.

Honestly, those two posts being called out in the last thread don't strike me as any kind of actual issue.
I've seen plenty of similar—actually, even stupider trolling comments over on the main boards, so I’m with the captain on this one: we’re way too quick to hand out bans.
Besides, I don't know the captain or any of the moderators here personally, so there shouldn't be any reason to feel entitled to trash "serious" discussions just because of that.
And let's be real, anyone who's been lurking around this sub for the last year knows the OP used to get away with pretty much anything until the moderator strikalica called them out, and then even admin Sash had to step in and ask for some chill.
It’s honestly pathetic that after yesterday’s link and that user getting absolutely torn apart verbally, you guys are already out here hunting for more people to punish.

hollowtrucker77 said:I mean, is it actually crazy to think that things might work out with him? I guess I'm just wondering if he’s even worth the trouble at this point—maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like such a gamble.
😁
Forgive me, but I honestly couldn't help myself—I just had to laugh at this one.

Here’s a little more material for your amusement: I honestly find myself wondering—perhaps I’m just being overly cynical here—but is anyone else actually seeing what’s happening with this entire situation? It feels like we are constantly circling the same drain, and frankly, I’m getting a bit tired of the repetitive nature of these debates. I was reading some of the points brought up by Jesse Sanchez4 earlier, and while I can see where they are coming from, I think the logic is fundamentally flawed—if that makes any sense. It’s one thing to look at the surface level, but if you actually dig into the underlying mechanics of how these policies are being implemented in the US, the cracks start to show pretty quickly. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems to me that we are ignoring the most obvious variable in the equation. And then there is the matter of what Jason Morgan mentioned regarding the recent shifts in the market. It’s all very well and good to talk about long-term stability, but when you consider the immediate volatility we’ve been seeing in major hubs like Chicago or even New York, it becomes difficult to maintain that kind of optimism. It’s almost a bit absurd, isn't it? We act as if these fluctuations are temporary glitches rather than systemic issues. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. People tend to prefer a comfortable lie over a messy truth—it’s just human nature, I guess. But I refuse to sit here and pretend everything is functioning according to plan when it clearly isn't. We need to stop dancing around the issue and actually address the elephant in the room before the whole thing becomes irreparable.

Jim is back—where on earth has he been hiding? 😍

I honestly think it would be only fair if you actually gave Sasha some credit... you little rascal. 😁

Give me a call, would you? I’ve come down with a nasty case of the flu... 🙂

p.s. Sasha 🙂

To be honest, I don't find this funny at all—not even when you factor in the "reputation cost" that comes with dealing with all these brawlers, trolls, lawyers, and whatever else passes for discourse these days. Just like how nobody could actually provide me with a single valid example regarding my "hey, buddy" post, I highly doubt you’ll ever find an instance of this kind of blatant, finger-in-the-eye intervention from any other moderator. The second one. The moderator. Wisdom is a rare commodity—truly. It seems that in this day and age, people are far more interested in being loud than being right. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, though; common sense isn't exactly a mass-produced item in America. One has to look much deeper than the surface to find any semblance of actual insight..

I was actually referring to posts—when I mentioned things similar to your recent outbursts, I meant your actual posts. Where exactly do you think you’re going? You really don't belong here. You’re playing lawyer again—which is exactly why I already gave you a warning about this behavior. You might think your posts qualify as "serious discourse," but in reality, they’re just disruptive. Honestly, they caused more of a headache than that pathetic, pedantic one-liner you're even trying to defend right now.

You didn't exactly "warn" me—if we’re being honest—you were just being your usual, unnecessarily abrasive self, and frankly, you were making threats. But fine, let's go ahead and actually dive into this much-vaunted "legal advocacy" of yours.

So, I guess I have to ask—why exactly is this supposed "advocacy" such a catastrophic, terrifying problem? And let me be clear: I’m talking about engaging with the Board of Directors outside of specific complaints regarding the card rulings. Seriously, why is it considered fundamentally bad if someone chooses to participate in a debate in a meaningful, serious way? What vital, sacred thing could possibly be endangered by that? Furthermore, who actually gets to decide—and based on what authority, exactly—who belongs here and who doesn't? In the specific instance of your "warning," we were dealing with my own rather blunt intrusion, which was met by an intervention from some moderator who had absolutely nothing to do with the Board or the actual topic at hand. She addressed me in a manner that was, frankly, quite condescending and completely out of line. On whose authority? By what criteria is she entitled to step in, while I am apparently deemed unworthy because of a few threats?

Aggressive self-advocacy is essentially an elementary, "self-preservation" tactic—you know, a way to prevent outside interference just so people don't find it easier to target someone who’s already isolated.

I’m telling you—and I feel like I’m just shouting into the void here—the way you go about things is completely inconsistent, and frankly, that kind of erratic behavior is toxic for this forum.

Some guy popping up out of nowhere with a "smart-ass one-liner" during a serious debate—it’s honestly just incredibly disruptive.

The people driving this discussion are more than welcome to take a breather over in one of the other chat threads—honestly, they should—but they certainly don't have any right to derail a serious, high-quality debate like this one. Not when, as you so rightly pointed out, they’ve gone and completely sabotaged the whole thing through their own antics.

I actually went back and forth with some of the LJS moderators about this following that whole "Expectations" thread. I didn't get a single coherent answer to my question regarding how exactly a few unserious posts can somehow ruin a "serious and high-quality discussion". I’m genuinely curious here—in what specific way does that stop someone else from writing the greatest post in the history of this forum? And more importantly, why would the very "drivers of the conversation" spit on the image they painted themselves and then proceed to trash the thread with constant trolling?

that implies people who are dear to you won't receive any special protection...

First off, this persistent tendency to turn every debate into a personal attack is just insulting. Is it truly impossible for you to conceive that someone might write something simply to make the forum a "better place," rather than necessarily making it better for them? I’ve compared this forum to a mountain lodge a few times now: imagine there's a door that squeaks incessantly, driving everyone crazy—well, I guess I’m the guy that some random group will take pleasure in mocking just because he finally decides to bring some damn WD40 and spend a single minute of his life making things more comfortable for everyone.

It’s creaking, folks, it is creaking loud and clear...

Edit: As far as I'm concerned, feel free to lock it; I really don't mind.

cosmicskipper39 said:I hate having to quote this—but after yesterday’s link and the absolute verbal assault one user endured, I find it exhausting that you all are still pushing for punishments today.

Honestly, where on earth are you getting this idea? How could you possibly conclude that anyone here is actually looking for people to be punished?

Nicholas King said:I actually brought this up with some of the LJS moderators following that whole discussion about the "Expectations" thread. I didn't get a single coherent answer to my question: how exactly can a few unserious posts ruin a "serious and high-quality discussion"? I am genuinely curious here—in what way does that stop someone else from writing the greatest post in the history of this forum? Furthermore, why would the supposed "gatekeepers of the conversation" spit on the very image they painted and then proceed to wreck the thread with constant joking around?

You were arguing with me, and you did receive a meaningful response; it was just clearly unsatisfying because you’re looking for ironclad protection for a specific clique of people.

Let me reiterate: quality off-topic banter is allowed because it can spark an entirely new, high-quality topic—which is exactly what happened with the Expectations thread. However, the idea that the interlocutors—those self-proclaimed "guardians" of the thread who decided the discussion was exhausted and that there was nothing left to add because they had covered it all—can unilaterally grant themselves the right to dictate how the rest of the topic proceeds? That simply isn't permitted.
Furthermore, while we might occasionally show more leniency toward high-quality contributors than we do toward those who are more confrontational (even when those "quality" users post trollish comments that aren't outright insults, but are still trolling), we will never, under any circumstances, tolerate blatant trolling, insults, or the assumption that certain individuals are above the rules just because they are intelligent or provide good content. In fact, it is precisely because they *are* such contributors that they should recognize when we have met them halfway by allowing a bit more off-topic leeway compared to someone who ignores the rules entirely. That is all I told you back then. I am sorry if that is disappointing to hear.

Chloe Green61 said:The other participants—these self-proclaimed "guardians" of the topic who decided the discussion was exhausted and that nobody else had anything left to contribute because they had supposedly covered everything—are now unilaterally granting themselves the right to dictate how the rest of the thread proceeds. That simply isn't allowed.

Why go this route? 😕

There is no such thing as "self-proclaimed" anyone here—on this forum, it’s pretty obvious who is actually "carrying" a thread.

Nobody "concluded" anything, and certainly, nobody concluded that "there is nothing more to add"—prescribing who gets to write what, and where, would be the absolute height of arrogance and condescension. And no one even "initiated the rest of the thread"—if anything, the topic just continued to spin a bit longer after all this (entirely unnecessary) dust was kicked up.

I still haven't received an answer to my question: how, exactly, does a few unserious posts prevent someone from making a serious point?

And this business about "blind protection," especially the blatant fabrication that I am advocating for the tolerance of insults toward anyone (including the moderators, of course), is a complete falsehood—why even bother with such lies? 😢

Nicholas King said:This whole notion of "armored protection," and especially this fabrication regarding my supposed advocacy for tolerating insults directed at anyone (including moderators, naturally), is a blatant falsehood—what on earth are you trying to achieve here? 😢

Please tell me you're joking. 🙂

I have absolutely no intention of digging through and publishing private messages or various other correspondences because quite frankly, I don't have the time, and so I am leaving a (very slim) margin for potential misunderstanding. However, everything I have stated above is something I have said repeatedly, and my position remains unchanged. Especially since you decided to call me out specifically.

To be clear, I didn't say you advocate for tolerating insults; rather, I suggested that you do advocate for providing substantial protection to high-quality contributors. My point is that these valuable members are well aware they enjoy a certain level of protection, yet they also understand that they won't—and shouldn't—be permitted to get away with just anything, including trolling or being abusive, even if such things are obvious and haven't been explicitly mentioned. Let's keep in mind that I am referring to my own specific thread, not to general site policy or isolated incidents which I cannot and will not discuss. We certainly value the contributions of intelligent, high-quality members, but we must draw a line somewhere. In their case, those boundaries manifest as a warning that they cannot simply derail a quality discussion to which they themselves have contributed.

I haven't received an answer to my question: how, exactly, does a handful of unserious posts prevent someone from making a serious one?

It doesn't technically prevent them, but don't you think there ought to be a line drawn regarding what constitutes "unserious" posting? Certainly, certain individuals drive specific threads forward and provide excellent content—so why shouldn't they be allowed to engage in a little lighthearted banter within that thread? If they've contributed so much value, why not allow others to enjoy that quality without having to wade through what essentially amounts to an endless, trivial chat? Give me one good reason why not. 🤷

Nicholas King said:It’s an entirely different matter when, after perhaps ten pages of serious and—dare I say it—actually high-quality debate, a few participants in that discussion take a little breather by dropping some cheeky posts (none of which are low-brow nonsense, mind you, but rather just lighthearted and silly—and I am certainly not referring to my own contributions) before either picking back up or letting the thread die out. Honestly, even inmates get their scheduled yard time; surely one can take a momentary break on an online forum. 🙂

Wait, I completely missed this, but we are clearly talking about a thread regarding expectations. One of our colleagues, who happens to be vacationing at the beach right now, posted a warning about closing the chat and didn't even issue any sanctions for the previous conversation—so why the grievance? 🤔 What kind of prison sentence are we talking about here? 🤷

Chloe Green61 said:Oh, I see—so certain people contribute high-quality content to specific threads, and because they do, they should get a free pass to mess around a little bit within those same threads? Why shouldn't they, if their contributions were so valuable in the first place? Why shouldn't we let everyone else actually read that good stuff without having to wade through what is essentially just an endless, rambling chat? Give me one good reason, 🤷

Maybe it’s because we are all here on this forum by choice, looking to entertain ourselves and others? Or perhaps it’s because, even when dealing with something serious, a person occasionally needs to take a breather? For crying out loud, even at some small-town wedding reception in the Midwest, the band is going to take a break and have a few drinks now and then. 🙂

Chloe Green61 said:Wait, I missed this, but this is clearly a thread about expectations.

🤦

Come on, just look at the context for a second. This isn't even remotely about a thread regarding expectations.

Regarding my "specific inquiry"—to which, by the way, I still haven't received a straight answer 🙄—whether that post was trolling or not... well, Sasha claimed that I also have a mountain of such unauthorized posts. What you are quoting here is a complete distortion of the context in which I was explaining to him why—and how—I would want him to find even a single such post of mine, so that I wouldn't have to point out that he's making things up (which, incidentally, he couldn't do); this quote is simply my explanation of how my off-topic remarks differ from that low-effort "hey, respond to me" type of nonsense, and it has absolutely nothing to do with you or "Expectations." Sometimes, you really are unnecessarily rushed to judgment.

I think, first and foremost, someone finally needs to clarify that what you all collectively label as "trolling" usually isn't actually trolling.

Off-topic—yeah, all five of them. The entire chat is off-topic. Honestly, you could just change the reason listed on a ban/warning to "off-topic/chat" instead of bringing up spam.

Spam? Spam is an advertisement (generally speaking, some kind of ad, maybe a chain letter if you really stretch the definition), unsolicited, with no way to opt out, and sent without our consent. You should check the law—the FCC regulations, if I recall correctly; I don't know the exact number, but I spent a long time digging through them a while back to point out to people exactly what they can and cannot do regarding advertising.

A troll. A troll is someone who systematically provokes, mocks, or—to put it bluntly—messes with your head. A skilled troll knows how to do it with gloves on.

A joking post isn't inherently trolling. Trolling is when someone injects off-topic content specifically to provoke, when someone mocks others, or when someone disrupts a discussion because they feel compelled to resort to *ad hominem* attacks.

On one hand, things are treated casually, but then everyone gets slapped with the exact same label. People start arguing, saying, "I haven't made a single insulting post." Well, yeah, because it’s easier to just call everything trolling. And since basic off-topic chatter is being lumped in with trolling here, it’s obvious that the "troll" label carries no weight—it becomes meaningless.

Trolls are essentially the scum of the internet; they disrupt discussions and turn them into their own personal playgrounds.

In any case, a troll is an exhausting person.

Come on, let’s finally call insults and off-topic posts by their real names. There is such a thing as trolling, certainly, but don't try to soften things like "off-topic" when what's actually happening is an insult or trolling. Yes, trolling also includes throwing in internal flame wars, or flame wars in general.

I mean, you can insist on calling an apple an orange if you want, but then there's no point in wondering why the system fails if subtle mockery and disrupting the flow "with gloves on" is allowed, while only those too dim-witted to play the game skillfully end up getting penalized.

It isn't a problem at all to avoid a dictatorship. In fact, quite the opposite. The issue is that rules need to be applied consistently. It shouldn't be the case where someone gets a warning and a post deleted on one thread, while for the exact same nonsense, someone else gets nothing and the post stays—even if that post is mocking or outright insulting.

You can't have a quality discussion if people are constantly making jokes at others' expense. Joking for the sake of a laugh belongs in private sub-groups anyway, because a third party reading the thread won't understand the internal context.

But again, we come back to the starting point. Moderators MUST lead by example.
You can't expect the community to behave one way while the mods behave another. In that sense, there shouldn't be any difference in how users are treated based on what they're accused of.

If a mod screws up, if a veteran user screws up, or if a new user screws up—everyone should be dealt with equally. And ideally, the discipline should remain public rather than just having the posts deleted.
Only transparency restores faith in the system.

This will be my last word on this topic for a while. Those who understood my point, understood it. Further lecturing is pointless. I'm not the owner, so I can't dictate what needs to be done or how to fix it. I can only say what worked and what didn't on various other forums I've visited.

A moderator who thinks they are God ruins the forum. Moderating is a volunteer position, but it is still a job.

Nicholas King said:Perhaps it’s because we’re all here on this forum by choice, simply looking to entertain ourselves and one another? Or maybe it's just that during any serious undertaking, a person occasionally needs to catch their breath. Good grief, even at a small-town wedding in rural Texas, the band takes a breather now and then to grab a drink. 🙂

Fair enough, but there is always a line somewhere. And if someone happens to disagree with where that line is drawn, well, that’s just the way it is.

Come on, look at the context here. This isn't even about a discussion regarding expectations.

Oh, please. What was the point, then? You posed this hypothetical scenario even though we just spent ages dissecting the exact same thing via private message?

What you're quoting is completely taken out of context—the context being my attempt to explain why I wanted him to find even a single such post of mine, so I wouldn't have to claim he was making things up (which, by the way, he couldn't do).

Byron, don't troll me or the rest of the mods and users; stop acting like everything is fine. You stir the pot on LJS every once in a while and nobody calls you out. I'm not getting into an argument with you and Sasha.

Chloe Green61 said:Give me a break. What was there even to talk about? You’re posing this hypothetical scenario as if we haven't just spent an eternity dissecting the exact same thing over PMs.

I am telling you again—I was trying to explain to Sasha the fundamental distinction between my off-topic rambling and the specific post I quoted. I’ve written extensively about this long before the "Expectations" era; there is actually a common metaphor used back home about tending to a vineyard where people stop here and there, grab a glass of wine, and then get back to work.

At the end of the day, can you honestly come up with a single plausible reason why I would fabricate what I wrote and how I wrote it?

Byron, quit trolling me and the rest of the mods and users—don't act like you're being perfect. Every once in a while you troll on LJS and nobody even bats an eye.

I find this incredibly insulting.
In fact, I’m challenging you right now to point out a single such post of mine: one serious thread where my only contribution is a complete waste of space—a blatant "just because I can" moment at the level of some mindless teenager.

Nicholas King said:I’m telling you, I was already in the middle of explaining the whole situation to Sasha. I find myself compelled to address this particular matter, though I suspect my timing might be considered somewhat questionable by some. It is an issue of significant consequence, one that demands our undivided attention if we are to navigate the complexities currently facing us. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if we even realize the gravity of the situation at hand, or if we are all simply drifting along, blissfully unaware of the shifting tides. It is quite a predicament, really. There is a profound, almost structural difference between my little off-topic ramblings and the specific post I just quoted. It’s quite a gap, really.

Ok.

Nicholas King said:Finally, could you please come up with a single convincing reason why I would ever bother fabricating how or what I wrote?

I truly cannot.

Nicholas King said:I personally find this to be quite an insult.

My apologies, that wasn't quite what I intended to convey. I think the concept of "brainwashing" is actually a bit broader than the definition Ash provided.

Nicholas King said:And I am calling on you to show me one of mine. I suppose I should begin by stating that I find myself in a rather peculiar state of affairs regarding this particular matter. It is, quite frankly, a bit much to process all at once, isn't it? One moment you think you have a handle on things—you feel quite certain, even confident—and the next, everything shifts under your feet like loose gravel on a mountain pass. It’s enough to make one pause for reflection, though perhaps I am merely being overly dramatic. Still, there is a certain weight to it that I cannot quite shake off. post: I mean, let’s be perfectly serious for a moment. This isn't just some trivial matter we can brush aside with a shrug or a quick joke over coffee. We really need to look at this with some gravity. I seem to have lost my place—it appears I am currently drifting within a thread where... I suppose I should get started. My post is utterly nonsensical—a pure, blatant demonstration of "because I can" at its most absurd level. Honestly, it’s just complete nonsense.

Are you being serious right now? I mean, are you suggesting that you just completely slack off when things get trivial, or do you truly believe the rules only apply to heavy-hitting topics—as if anything less than a profound debate counts as valid "evidence"?

Chloe Green61 said:Are you being serious? So, does that mean you just ignore the non-serious stuff, or do you actually believe rules only apply to "serious" topics—meaning only examples from those specific threads count as valid "proof"?

Two things here: first off, every single one of my supposed "trolling" attempts at least has the intention of being entertaining, witty, or funny—I have never once posted something along the lines of, "look at me, I'm important so I can do whatever I want."

Second, you're right: I do believe that a thread where hundreds of posts contain genuinely valuable insights—and for the hundredth time, not that I'm talking about my own sentences—should probably be governed by different standards than a thread titled, "I sent him a text saying 'ugh, what would I do to you,' and he didn't reply, am I pregnant?" I keep bringing up what soccer players call a "referee's sense of the game," which is often the very thing that determines whether a match is even watchable. Not to mention, the "gap in the discussion" caused by your completely erroneous intervention (which you admitted to, and for which a card was ultimately issued) is far greater than any gap created by some supposed "local messing around." By the way, moderator "warnings" like "we decided this should be a serious discussion" can only ever result in one response: "well, if you've decided that, then why don't you two go ahead and have the discussion yourselves?" 🙂

Of course, Dad will start claiming again that I'm just trying to protect some "friends" of mine—by the way, regarding my ex, I only mentioned that I "care about her" specifically to preempt any idiots who might label my intervention as mere cronyism; on a topic where I have been exposed, I 🙄 stood up for a female forum member who, mind you, isn't even among those so-called "my friends"—so what does that get me? Nothing, obviously.

Why is it so incredibly difficult for people to believe that someone might write something for purely general reasons, without any personal ulterior motives? Has nothing like this ever happened in your lives? It's honestly a little pathetic.

Nicholas King said:First off, let me clarify: any supposed trolling on my part is at least intended to be entertaining, witty, or even just lighthearted. I have never once written a "look at me, I'm rubbing elbows with the VIPs" kind of post.

And they’ve never actually been penalized, have they? 🙂 Whether you call them trolls or not, the reality is that you can spot them a mile away. But fine, point taken.

Nicholas King said:Secondly, you make a fair point: I truly believe that a thread where hundreds of posts yield incredibly valuable insights (and for the hundredth time, I am NOT referring to my own writing—nor am I talking about the Domestos-topic right now) deserves a different set of rules than a thread titled "I texted him 'omg, what would I do without you,' he didn't reply, am I pregnant?". I keep bringing up what football fans call a "referee's intuition"—that gut feeling that determines whether a whole match is worth watching or not.

When someone drops nonsense or starts trolling in a thread about a potential pregnancy, they don't get sanctioned because the thread is destined for the trash bin anyway.

One crucial thing to understand is that the moderators and admins view the moderation process of certain threads differently than the general users of this Forum do; many things are removed or handled before you even get a chance to see them. Not every thread is treated with the same level of scrutiny, certainly not. Furthermore, if you find the way certain mods handle specific topics distasteful, well, there isn't much I can do to help you with that.